most rich people neglect the content ones.
Why would they need to help people who are already content?
They just carry on with their own businesses without offering any help. as a result, poor people in a country remain penniless and if some unfortunate rich people bankrupted, the number of poor people will increase within a nation.
The poor could try earning more money. Even if they can't, for whatever reason, this doesn't immediately mean that the rich should help them. If you live in a largish city, try walking around it for a couple of hours each day, giving $5 to everyone who asks you for change. At the end of a month (or two, or three, depending on how wealthy you are to begin with) do you think that everyone would be much wealthier than when they began, or that you would would merely be much poorer? Of course, you may object that you are not rich, but if you have access to the internet and plan on going to university, odds are good that you probably aren't poor. This would lead to the interesting notion that perhaps you should define your key terms, such as "poor," "rich," and "help."
As a matter of fact, the world can be exemplified as a one big family.
How do you justify this?
Therefore, as for wealthy nations, they should offer help to countries facing poverty.
"Therefore" implies a logical conclusion. There is no logic here, though, only a series of assertions.
It will be much beneficial in the future if nations help each other to develop.
This may be so, but you have not explained why this should be true.
And so on. Your essay mostly says that it would be nice if rich people helped out poorer people, and rich nations helped out poorer nations. This is a common sentiment, and it may even be true, but you haven't provided any logical reasons or examples to back up your points. So, you can either try to tighten the logic for the reasons you attempt to give, or come up with stronger reasons altogether.