This statement brings me to the next point in Singer's argument that being one of many to be helped does not take away the responsibility you have as an individual. He supports his point with a sliding scale of each person donating at least 1% of their income and taxpayers donating 5% of their income. If all rich countries donated at the scale proposed by Singer, they would raise $1.5 trillion a year, which is eight times more than what poor countries aim for in hopes of improving health care, education, reducing mortality rates, living standards and more. Although Singer proposes the sliding scale for donating money to extreme poverty, he does not introduce any alternative method of providing aid. Singer has presented this point of the argument carefully, but it is not strong enough to support the example of drowning children. Compared to the drowning child, Singer's proposal is weak because you can't hold people accountable for not donating a percentage of their income; however, you can hold a person or group of people responsible for watching and not saving the child