In the age of hyperinflation and economic hardship, wealth inequality has become more rampant than ever. Our richest citizens continue to accumulate excessive wealth while ignoring the plight of those living in poverty. 

According to the World Ultra Wealth Report published by Wealth-X, the number of ultra-high-net-worth individuals reached 392,410 in the first half of 2022. They own $41.8 trillion in wealth, making up 1.2% of the world’s population. This group includes well-known billionaires like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Microsoft’s Bill Gates and multi-millionaires such as American investors Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg. 

This data has led me to this ethical dilemma: Should the super-rich have a humanitarian duty to use their wealth to alleviate global poverty? 

One reason why some people might agree with the statement is because we can create a more stable and prosperous society. By investing in more campaigns for global poverty, the ultra-rich will be able to highlight the need for systemic changes and policy reforms because of their immense power and influence in society.  

Another reason why is because it can help bridge the gap between the life expectancy of the richest and poorest sectors in England. 

According to the Office of National Statistics, from 2018 to 2020, male healthy life expectancy (HLE) at birth in the most deprived areas was 52.3 years, compared with 70.5 years in the least deprived areas. Female HLE at birth in the most deprived areas was 51.9 years, almost 20 years fewer than those living in the least deprived areas (70.7 years). 

This implies that there is a strong correlation between life expectancy and income. As the average income rises, so does life expectancy. This is because the affluent have access to better-quality healthcare and are thus less likely to suffer from illnesses and diseases that can cause death. Therefore, the rich should be able to extend their privileges to those in poverty, which can help counteract the alarming trend of shorter lifespans. 

However, some may argue that the government should be held responsible for global poverty instead of the ultra-rich. 

During the pandemic, the government's decision to temporarily raise Universal Credit by £20 per week was a major factor in the 400,000 children who were lifted out of poverty. However, this development was severely halted in October 2021 when the £20 increases were removed, which was followed by the start of a crisis related to living expenses. By 2021–2022, 4.2 million children, or 29% of all children, lived in poverty, nearly returning to pre–pandemic levels. 

Placing the burden of alleviating global poverty on the super-rich instead of the government, who are obliged to improve social welfare in this country, can create issues surrounding social responsibility and accountability. Regardless of how dire the reality may be, the rich are not ultimately responsible for the poverty and suffering of the lower class.