Task21 Version1 Some people think that in order to produce a happy society, it is necessary to ensure that there is only a small difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The vast majority of people claim they are miserable because their finance position and overall wealth cannot offer them life they want. Therefore, they believe it can be resolved only if the difference between salaries of people considered inferior of suprerior is decreaed. Personally, I am not completely agree with this point since the money people get is a way of evaluating their work. However, sometimes unfair situations occur merely some individuals do not deserve that money.
First of all, the fact that members of society might experience unhappiness only because they do not make as much money as others do casts a doubt on the definition of happiness. In fact, there are more indicators of that feeling. So, people have to look beyond the money, and derive happy from just living. But, when it comes to difference, this idea has to be reconsidered. For example, lets imagine: in one part of the world, one person can afford a golden toilet that costs a hundread and hundread of dollars, while other person makes his or her ends meet, struggleng to buy even a bottle of water. It seems unfair, doesnt it? Consequently, the money, unfortunetaly, plays a key role in wealth of that people, and of course on their mental well-being too.
On the other hand, despite that the problem of poverty is at the top of the list of issues, it is worth to mention that establishing different earning for people is vital for economic and labor circle in the world. As person does a job, he or she will get a money eventualluy.Actually, that is an idea and concept of the money - the indicator of work and effort. Therfore, we came to simple but still valuable conclusion - person can control both his finance stability and happiness level.
In the conclusion, it has to be said, ensuring that small difference between the earning of people is maintained - that is, has a postive influnce on society's inner state. But, considering each individuals' case reveals us they frankly deserve that money.
Many people believe that small difference between rich and poor people's profits, can make society more happier.I totally disagree with this statement and think that money and huge profit are not index of happiness.Also, if all people earned almost the same, society would not be divided into rich and poor. First of all, I believe that money is not index of happiness.Society would be more happier, if there will be accessible medicine, education and accomodation.Only by improving the well-being of citizens can we build a more harmonious, smarter and safer society without new diseases and problems. Also, in my opinion people should work in their favourite workplace, but not where big profit.From this point, difference between earnings of people will be really big, but does not matter,because all of them work, where they want to work. Moreover, money is a big motivation for people.Exactly money creates us labor force, if people's incomes are the same, no one wants to work in very difficult and dangerous jobs. This will lead us to non-stabilization of the community. In conclusion, we note that reducing the gap between the poor and the rich is practically impossible and this way cannot build a joyful society. We must consider improving the education,medicine and government system.
Plan 1 Introduction(disagree totally) 2 argument 1 - people have different needs about money 3 argument 2 - we should envy someone's money 4 conclusion
There is a suggestion that the highest income in the country should not be much more than the lowest one in order to people to be happy. However I disagree totally with this statement because I opine that all people should earn the amount of money that is enough for them and do not envy other's money. Furthermore, opinions of different people about necessary size of budget differ.
To commence with, the need of people are totally different. Some may need not more than expenses for grocery while others require billions for an emotional fulfillment. Some may earn four hundred dollars per week and live as happy as it is possible while some are not satisfied with thousands. Moreover, it is also depends on the expenditures of individuals, for example, whether they aliment a large family, nuclear family or they are single.
Secondly, an intelligent person is not angry with the fact that someone earns more than him. The main point is that how you manage your budget in order to make yourself and your relatives satisfied. Envy is the feeling that make people degrade. The size of your budget does not depend on how happy are you and we should not focus on money.
In conclusion, the tiny difference between the salaries of people does not affect significantly the psychological state of people though some say that it provides national welfare. Everybody get salary that that think is adequate.
PLAN 1) Write about infrastructure 2) Regulating taxes 3) Injustice in income and work distribution
Some people claim that the unique way to make people happier is to reduce the difference in incomes of the richest and poorest ones .I completely disagree with this statement because the profit is not the only thing that impacts to hapiness of people.
First of all, hapiness of people depends on satisfying of main requirements of human being. The most important ones are requirements in high quality food, healthcare, education, and other infrustructure. Main entiity which can and must to take care about this things is goverenment. Second point which must be mentioned is taxes. Ensuring the proportional growth of taxes in correspondence with earning level will allow to get more taxes from wealthier individuals, thereby not strenthing the poor people. Collected taxes will be regulated by goverenment in order to equip the infrastructure.
The next thing which with no less importance is the rude imperfections of this strtegy. Artificial equating of incomes can lead to protests from those who has more potential and can become wealthier because of their hard work. It will adversely impact on ones who is not stimulating development of society and being lazy, but have similar income in comparing with ones who are more effective in their business. Furtheremore, rich people are helping to people who has less chances to be happy. There are many fonds and charity organizations where wealthy men spending their money to help other.
In conclusion, these staments made evident the failure of small difference in incomes of people and proved that hapiness is not defined just by the earning level.
Almost equal amount of salaries is argued to be a primary criteria in creating an ideal society. This essay, however, disagrees with the given statement because wealthy individuals have worked hard in order to achieve their goals and even more importantly, happiness has nothing to do with money and possessments. To begin with, it would be totally incorrect to set an average amount of incomes for all members of society. Rich individuals have dedicated their lives to become successful and many have done great deeds before reaching their dreams. In contrast, the majority of poor people often tend to complain about their current condition without taking any steps in dealing with poverty. Therefore, it is obvious that not all people deserve the money they possess and thus, just rising salaries of poorer persons without reason would be offensive regarding the labour and hours that rich people put in realization of their wills. Furthermore, although it is commonly believed that being rich is the key to happiness, money, instead, can lead to frusturation and argues. What I mean by this is that by simply eradicating the difference between rich and poor, human beings will not be able to establish a wonderful society. The absence of difference may be only a temporal source of happiness since not everyone is able to properly use money. As a result there is a huge risk of reappearence of poverty, which, in its turn, will probably trigger another issues. Soming up, imposing similar amount of salary and minimizing the differences between wealthy and poor does no guarantees a happy society as money is itself not an inducer of happiness.
An almost equal amount of salaries is argued to be a primary criterion in creating an ideal society. This essay, however, disagrees with the given statement because wealthy individuals have worked hard to achieve their goals, and even more importantly, happiness has nothing to do with money and possessions. On the one hand, it would be incorrect to set an average amount of income for all members of society. Rich individuals have dedicated their lives to become successful, and many have done great deeds before reaching their dreams. In contrast, the majority of poor people often tend to complain about their current condition without taking any steps in dealing with poverty. Therefore, it is obvious that not all people deserve the money they possess, and thus, just rising salaries without reason would be offensive regarding the labor and hours that rich people put in the realization of their wills. Furthermore, although some people hold on the idea that being rich is the key to happiness, money, instead, might lead to frustration and arguments. What I mean by this is that by eradicating the difference between rich and poor, human beings will not be able to establish a wonderful society. The absence of difference may be only a temporal source of happiness since not everyone can use money properly. As a result, there is a risk of reappearance of poverty, which, in turn, will probably trigger other issues. Summing up, imposing a similar amount of salary and minimizing the differences between wealthy and poor does not guarantees a happy society since money is itself not an inducer of happiness.
During the last decades, the happiness level of people around the world have been considerably decreased. Some people argue that the main cause of this issue is a huge difference in people's salary. I completely agree with these statement.
To begin with, there are two sides of the situation. Firstly, the low level of income directly affects to citizens' material condition. Because of the lack of money, they cannot afford to spend money on entertainment and other different parts of life. They need to save their cash, because there is a need to pay money to communal services, daily food and so on. That is why, people cannot be happy and enjoy the life in the true way. The rejection of pleasure and entertainment negatively affects human brain.
Second part is a psychological state. Most people tend to compare themselves with others and when they see a rich person who earns much more money and spends them as he wants, they may give up and think that they are losers and cannot reach such results. This situation has a really adverse effect on the motivation and the work process of some citizens. Thus, they may lose the interest to life and happiness.
To conclude, in my point of view, a big distinction in earnings is one of the most serious causes of the low level of happiness of society. If governments solve this issue of inequality in salary, people will be much happier, because money has a significant impact on their lives.
Some people think that in order to produce a happy society, it is necessary to ensure that there is only a small difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many individuals support the opinion that people can be happy only when there is a tiny distinction between profits of wealthy and poor men. This means that being peaceful depends upon their income. As for me personally, such concept can be right fron one perspective, but at the same time i disagree with those who reckon in that way.
To begin with, level of optimistic society is defined by many parameters and it does not contain only money. For instance, if the community is ensured with developed health services, rights of citizens and high-drade infrastructure, people would be satisfied, despite the amount of earnings. Moreover, it is clear that richer men pay more taxes than those, whose wage is lower and government use accumulated budget for the benefits of the country, of the whole nation. Thus, there are many other aspects, which might affect to creation of a happy society.
On the other hand, we have several situations when a degree of our profit can influence to the standatd of living. Accorgingly, effect of a huge or little income could be inevitable. Particularly in the case of study, when a family is unable to pay for child's education, he would not obtain appropriate knowledge enough to employ any job in the future.
To summarize, happyness of a nation can be evaluated by a short gap between earnings of rich and poor humans. But when country controls ensure convenience of people by health services and developed infrastructure, difference of salary is unwitnessed.
It is acquiesced that the small gap of salaries between affluent and destitute individuals is utterly vital in the way of reaching happiness of the society. Personally, I completely disagree with it since finances cannot be the main factor of being blissful and the amount of money which people have earned vary in the way of their labor. To begin with, it is considered that happiness cannot be measured with expenses and views of the masses about this concept might be entirely diverse. For instance, abundant of individuals prefer peaceful life with essential needs and they do not care about others income as they are satisfied with what they have in the current moment. An important point is that adequate number of individuals have various necessities, which is usually corresponded by their earnings, ergo the way of amending the difference between wealthy and poor people is not beneficial method for achieving happiness. To put it another way, scarcely have general public been blissful because of merely altering the gap between two layers of society. It is widely accepted that these stratums always exist, thus nothing will change, if gaining be the same for all people. Indeed, instead of this method, individuals should focus on their lifestyles and crucial living factors. Fundamentally, happiness of society is not supposed to be attained with controlling the budget of individuals. Everyone is assumed to obtain their own money with consideration of their works and focusing only on it will not bring felicity.
The majority consider that a blissful society is generated by a little variation in the income of wealthy and indigent people. Others argue with this point of view and reckon that the financial position has no significance in being content with their life. Personally, I completely believe that money cannot produce happy public and the human race has more crucial values to be happy. First of all, all human races need neither money nor a profitable job. The most important value is being healthy as having a good physical condition is the indicator of happiness and key for attaining desired goals. Also, it provides benefits like improved mood, longevity and enjoyment. Moreover, other indicators such as education, infrastructure and entertainment could contribute to the satisfaction of people. These factors could provide a chance to live in good conditions and feel content with their life. Secondly, killing off the income gap cannot be a wise decision. It is obvious that workers obtain different salaries because of difference in works’ difficulties, education level, capabilities and the force of demand. However, the government must give a chance to all desired residents to get tertiary education and become successful and earning enough money to supply their whole family members. In the result, inequality in income amount cannot determine our level of happiness. From my perspective, the crucial indicators of a happy society are level of education, infrastructure and amusement in their country. The higher authority should provide free health care centres, opportunity to get optimum education and assist people who need money to create a happy.
Plan: the main aspects of genuinely happiness Other side, developing and developed countries
It is argued that currently the controlling of economical-financial status of individuals to having tiny difference between them is a key of getting a successful society. Personally, I partially disagree with the statement due to the amount of money cannot be considered as a measurement of truly happiness, because this incredible feeling evaluates To begin with, the main aspects of genuinely happiness of individuals can be assumed as a link between inner balance, enjoyable and pleasurable work and a good relationship with society. Nevertheless, the modern public always tends to measure the feeling of happiness by financial potential or the amount of money at credit card. The wrong point of view is that wealth part of the society enjoys their life by allowing all things what they want. Even though, there are numerous examples of world famous actors and wealth people earning millions and still remainind lonely and not happy. Turning to the other side of an argument, in the globalization centure there is a enormous difference between a life quality in the developing and the developed countries. The public in the majority of developing countries faces issues such as starving, poority and limit of basic human rights and one possible reason for that is low economical status of the nations. Despite this, the international organizations, such as UNESCO make an effort to regulate the economics as well as create the work spaces in Africa, Siria, Somali and other poor countries in order to stabilize the life quality of native citizens. All things considered, the material values of individuals directly influence to the life quality, but cannot measure the feeling of truly happiness, which have so many other aspects.
Some people think that in order to produce a happy society, it is necessary to ensure that there is only a small difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest. To what extent do you agree or disagree? There is no doubt that people's level of happiness depends on their salary, and some individuals believe that in order to raise it goverment should reduce the gap between wealth and poor, but I completely disagree with this point of view. I personally feel that this is not the most effective way and there are much more factors, which can effects on the life-standarts of society. Rarely do people realize the meanimg of joyful life. Therefore, on no account should the importance of other elements such as good physical health, high level of education and entertainment in a country be ignored. The main reason for that is a human cannot buy happiness as well as the health. For instance, having carried out research among the world, scientists have relieved that rich people are not happier than poors. In other words, frequently do many rich people understand that more money does not give more sense of happiness. Another point to consider is that the power of money connot be emphasized too much. Not only does it motivates employees to work hardes, but also can give a sense of accomplishment to them. The principal example is distribution of social wealth among citizens in all contries. As a result, these people cannot rely on the government and shuld work by themselves in order to earn money. In conclusin, I am firmly convinced that high salary does not bring more sense of happiness, additionally cutting the bridge between sectors of society will have no results. Albeit, earnings are just one small part of it and the main condition consists of person's well-beeing as well as self-harmony.
There is no doubt that people's level of happiness depends on their salary, and some individuals believe that in order to raise its government should reduce the gap between wealth and poor, but I completely disagree with this point of view. I personally feel that this is not the most effective way and there are many more factors, which can affect the life-standards of society. Rarely do people realize the meaning of joyful life. Therefore, on no account should the importance of other elements such as good physical health, high level of education, and entertainment in a country be ignored. The main reason for that is a human cannot buy happiness as well as health. For instance, having carried out research in the world, scientists have relieved that rich people are not happier than the poor. In other words, frequently do many rich people understand that more money does not give more sense of happiness. Another point to consider is that the power of money can not be emphasized too much. Not only does it motivates employees to work harder, but also can give a sense of accomplishment to them. The principal example is the distribution of social wealth among citizens in all countries. As a result, these people cannot rely on the government and should work by themselves in order to earn money. In conclusion, I am firmly convinced that a high salary does not bring more sense of happiness, additionally cutting the bridge between sectors of society will have no results. Albeit, earnings are just one small part of it and the main condition consists of a person's well-being as well as self-harmony.
Planning: Introduction - Paraphrase and statement of own view(Agree). Body Paragraph 1 - The history evidence. French Revolution, rebellions. Body Paragraph 2 - Modern Society Conclusion - restatement of thesis.
One of the beliefs about establishing the happy society is to deliberately equate the income statements of people. I completely disagree about this statement because, first of all, the history does not support this claim and, secondly, people with aspirations are going to be disadvantaged.
As far as our history tells, while Communist party succeeded in their endeavours of becoming a powerful country, the preponderance of evidence, dating back to early 1900s, unveils the true consequences of the policies of the Communist Party. The implementation of collectivism policies coerced farmers and cattle raisers to give up their properties for the better of the economy of state. From the first glance, it might seem a fair trade - diminisihing power of the elite to equate the social positions of people; however, underprivileged people were, in fact, the first ones to experience suffers under this regime. The poverty of the upper classes of society had led to the job loss and subsequent hunger.
Another perspective, a more moderate one, states that people with ambitions and the desires to climb up on the career ladder would be underrepresented due to the fact that they will have nearly equal bank accounts with all people despite their work. Consider the common example of "high-achiever": a diligent person with high marks on his/her final exams and the desperate motivation to receive a high profitable job at a multinational company. What might happen if this persona realizes that all the jobs would have same profits? He/she certainly lose the aspiration to self-develop and will remain on his/her level. These would lead to the dissatisfaction of a a fair large portion of people, which consequently would not account for a happy society.
In conclusion, I believe that is nearly impossible to establish happy society by equating the income statements of people because of the history evidence as well as the dissatisfaction of highly motivated people.
The problem of dividing people into groups by their financial state is started to be a global trend and part of the society’s culture. In my point of view, it leads to the development of aggressive and jealous relationships between people. However, giving for all employees almost equal salaries might create another issue such as degradation of workers. That is the reason why I partially agree with the given statement. To commence with, people are trying to get a promotion at work, always want to earn more money and be successful for a better life in the future. Everything is due to the financial state because in modern world, money is everything in our society. But, if people will have equal salaries despite their working status, they will lose their motivation to improve their work and generate new ideas will be lost. For example, a general manager and an ordinary manager will have the same salary, in this case, an ordinary manager simply does not want to try extra for the sake of raising, since he already has a good salary. This can slow down the development process and reduce work efficiency. On the other hand, this kind of changes might be helpful from the psychological and political sides. People will not bully each other because of the money and will have equal positions in society. The manifestation of aggression and envy among people will decrease significantly. In addition, it will help reduce stress overall and make people a little kinder and happier. In conclusion, I can say that all issues have their own negative and positive consequences and the given problem of people’s earning difference is not an exception. That is why I assume, that making an equal salary among people will not be the best solution for this issue.
People always strive to improve the quality of their lives and money plays an important role in attaining this goal. It is often argued that we would create a happy community if there was no such a big difference between the economic conditions of indigent and wealthy people. I partially agree with it because happiness does not always depend on money. The amount of social cohesion within society is declined because of economic inequality. The majority of people are used to thinking that a poor one is a thief and a rich one is arrogant and greedy, thus people from different social groups tend to do not trust each other. So, these biased opinions could be eliminated if people earned the similar amount of money. Moreover, most importantly, a number of issues associated with housing, nutrition and health that indigent part of population face could be solved. On the other hand, social inequality has always existed but not only may rich people have a better life, but others also can feel happy in spite of not being in possession of expensive things. This is due to the different ways of reaching the stability or harmony in life. Someone is happy because of the good relationships with family or just surrounding people, others get satisfaction from their work they enjoy and there are some people who are rich enough to afford anything they want but still do not feel the positive emotions. To sum up, money can destroy the barrier between poor and rich people and make the society better but sometimes material wealth is not a key to happiness.
Some people think that in order to produce a happy society, it is necessary to ensure that there is only a small difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Plan: 1st argument: Even tough money don't make you happy, it can solve issues that makes you unhappy. Supporting argument: People made a project where everyone were equal. 2nd argument: Happiness may not amount to money. There are also different factors that play an integral role in how people define happiness. For instance: friendship, love, enemies or being bullied.
In contemporary world, being born rich decides most of the life: education, where to live or even how to live. Therefore, vast majority of the people amounts money to happiness. Personally, I agree to this widespread idea only partially, thus I will provide my reasoning below. To commence with, albeit being financially catered can't be equal to being happy, money can solve almost every issue that makes person unhappy. Provided with the fact, that we live in the complex opportunistic world where money decides most of the things, it may be much better to be financially independent rather than being poor. For instance, should there be small difference between the poor and rich, it would result in much more satisfied and happy society since everyone would have the same opportunities and living conditions. Thus, social rift between the richest and the poorest may become the obstace in establishing the happy society. On the other hand, happiness is not something that can be evaluated in terms of money. Owing to the complicated nature of the humans, other aspects such as friend, dreams and carried should be included. It can be examplified by the Switzerland where even homeless people obtain the money from the government. There are, however, issues of the excessive migration into the country, growing number of complaint towards such system which in total makes the citizens of the country unhappy. Children seek friends, while the workaholics seek their own carrier. Therefore, social equality does not guarantee the happy life. To sum up, even though money can solve issues which make people unhappy, it is not the only aspect that defines it since everybody defines their own happiness. I believe that to build the happy society everyone should be content with what they have rather than what they don't.
Some people claim that their happiness depends on the amount of salary they gain. Thus, by evaluating the gap between social classes, it is possible to establish the happy society. However, I do believe that there are many other aspects of life that can contribute to people’s wellbeing, and the idea of communistic society may have a huge disadvantage on the workers’ motivation.
First and foremost, money is not the aim, but the resource. It is not money itself that makes people happy and increases their mood. People tend to be delighted, when their needs met and all the necessary services are provided. For example, having a chance for getting education, job placement and healthcare services make people joyful and satisfied. To put it differently, in many developing countries such essential services are not provided: children from poor families do not have any opportunities not only for higher education, but also for basic primary education, their healthcare system is not as effective as in developed countries, and the vast majority of people are unemployed. That is why the “happiness level” in these countries is significantly slow.
Secondly, shortening the gap of the income between rich and poor people may result in overall decrease of the social motivation. Having the same amount of salary will diminish the desire to move up the career ladder and the sense of accomplishment. As a result, the society will become lazy and unsatisfied. Thus, it will lead to the reduction of the economics, and the country could not develop further.
In conclusion, it is clear that this politics is not effective at all and only damages the community and the country in general. In addition, there are many other factors that influence people’s happiness.
Many individuals think that the proper way to creating a heaven-sent nation is the importance of a short gap between the income of the richest and poorest people. In my point of view, countries have other factors that can estimate happiness and I personally disagree with that statement. First, people would be happy if their other needs in other areas such as infrastructure, medicine, and education were more developed now. These basic needs are met at the expense of the state, so the authority must be the one that governs and have a fair system for the equal use of income taxes received. Taxes are paid by both the poor and the rich, therefore a good and fair tax system would equalize their incomes and make citizens more glad. The simplest example is in European countries where the more your salary, the more taxes you pay and vice versa. The income from the taxes should be spent by the government on the welfare of the nation, as in Germany for medicine. Secondly, the one who worked and worked harder earns more. If we make the salary equal, then further motivation for raising the position or working additionally will not be observed. As a result, the country may become stagnant due to the fact that everyone will have the same standards and will not be motivated. In conclusion, I think that the country plays a big role in the happiness of its citizens and the equalization of wages between rich and poor is not an option.
Some people believe that the main reason for their unhappiness is a tremendous difference between the lifestyle of rich and poor. I disagree that wealth inequality is the main reason for dejection in society.
Firstly, rich and poor is a question of perspective. Someone who has a mansion on the shores of the sea and car for eighty thousand dollars may consider himself as the indigent. On the contrary, another one with an apartment in a favourable region and a modest car may believe that he got everything out of life. Perception defines how happy you are. Additionally, gratitude is another essential factor for happiness. A society where people are grateful and present-focused happier than a society with unpleasant members. Indisputable that money has an impact on the well-being of people. However, it also an undeniable fact that happiness is determined by an individual's attitude to life.
Another point to consider is that it is unreasonable to single out financial inequality as the main reason for social unhappiness. In other words, influencers such as governmental public policy, education and medical care should be considered. Therefore, blaming the wealth inequality is not only unfair, but it also ignores the root causes of unhappiness in the community. According to the world happiness report, all happiest countries on the list have some factors in common. Metrics of happiness include political rights, universal public service, clean ecology and low corruption rates. To form a happy society is not enough to reduce the difference between the rich and poor. Happiness requires a huge complex of action aimed at people.
In conclusion, income inequality is not the main influencer of happiness. There is a huge amount of other factors of happiness which should be considered to make happy members of society.
There is a belief that one of the ways to access happiness is a regulation of a particular amount of earned income in society. Taking into account that individuals take different views toward the nature of happiness, I completely disagree with this statement. In my opinion, the reduction of the gap between the richest and poorest citizens does not necessarily guarantee a happy community.
First of all, this kind of systematization of earnings would hamper the economic growth of a country; thus having a negative impact on the welfare of society. Encouraging the production of wealth attracts even more wealth, which boosts not only rich people`s budget but also governments as a whole. Therefore, the way for society to progress and reach the highest level of satisfaction is through that gap in incomes, which constantly motivates people to work harder and develop further. One clear example is the United Nations research paper on the world`s last economic development trends which was published in 2018. According to the report, economists discovered that countries such as the USA that have a considerable difference between salaries tend to depict higher levels of the welfare of people.
Second of all, a fair distribution of wealth would bring down the level of education as well as the number of businesses in the country. This is down to the fact that regardless of the education level, the amount of income will be kept the same. Should people get to know this concept, the depreciation of education and demotivation towards owning a private business are most likely to occur among the community. As a consequence, there will be an increase in the number of both uneducated and therefore, dissatisfied individuals.
In conclusion, it is my belief that to establish a truly happy society minimizing a difference between incomes is not a viable enough solution. Moreover, punishing the rich for achieving that level of welfare, while pleasing the poor by effortless reward does not assure an establishment of a fully happy population.
Some people believe that there is a link between economic equality and happiness of the population. I completely disagree with this statement because nowadays people have same access to the wealth, and it would demotivate entrepreneurs.
Firstly, rarely have people unequal opportunities in modern day society, so it is ridiculous to punish them for being successful by taxing. Furthermore, as an icon of Cold War era, Margaret Thatcher have said in 27th November 1990 “Such liberal politics would rather have the poor poorer provided the rich were less rich”. Instead, government should provide citizens with more reliable capabilities and institutions to enhance their income. This kind of politics could increase average salary of the population by creating the balance between governmental control and free market.
Secondly, profit is the most natural motivator. Centuries ago, traders travelled all over the world to benefit from developing trade, in dark ages, knights had strived to gain titles from their overlords, even our ancestors learned to talk and craft instruments to take the advantage. In world of total equality there is no innovations and culture coupled with technologies would be adversely impacted.
To conclude, the most economists consider that this is question of balance, and new generation will find out the correct consistence of governmental intervention.
It is thought by some people that the slight difference between the salaries of the wealthiest and poorest people is the key concern to secure better world where everyone can be happy. Personally I disagree with that belief because governments should provide a high-quality education for the neediest ones rather than making equal the earnings of two different sectors of the society. Firstly, dealing with the issues surrounding welfare state of the people is best solved by enhancing the protection of poor individuals. For example, governments should ensure that humans who need the financial help with education as well as facilitating the conditions to find a workplace. Undoubtedly, this contribution should improve the situation of poor persons who are facing huge troubles due to the lack of opportunities. Another point to consider is that minimizing the gap between earnings of is not an effective decision because the majority of people who make enough money wouldn’t want to try something great or become the best. If it happens, human beings will start to move other countries to work and develop, which also have a negative influence on the economy. Moreover, there is a risk that poor people will not be focused to work hard, so that the entire development process and happiness of certain countries are going to be ruined. In conclusion, the governments should not equate the welfare of richest and poorest people. Instead, it is vital to assist persons in need, and give everybody chances to earn as much as it is possible in order to produce a happy society.
It is considered that a negligible gap between wealthy and indigent people can establish a joyous community. I assume that a similar level of earnings may lead to financial equality, however, a moderate distinction in the incomes would not allow gratifying the residents’ demands on various aspects of civilization. To commence with, reducing the gap of the earnings between two categories of people can create a sense of equality in society. People would discontinue evaluating people referring to their material wealth. Moreover, it can lead to less competition in purchasing sumptuous items, because everyone would have a similar lifestyle and approach to spending money. Furthermore, equal incomes would cease categorizing individuals that influence noticing other significant values of life. Hence, neglecting a distinction in the profits would be beneficial in introducing an equal society and avoiding an exaggerated relation to money. On the other hand, a resembling proceed may cause devolution of the country, due to similar principles. The dwellers’ well-being depends on the satisfaction of their necessities in different aspects of the community, such as quality education, healthcare, and modern infrastructure. The individuals would not work intensively or aspire to have a better life, because of the nonexistence of competition between them. The level of the living community would be impacted by the different income between abundant and meager residents. For instance, paying a tax return allows the government to preserve human rights and satisfy their needs to produce a happier civilization. Therefore, the gap in profits can produce growth of country and accessibility for each individual to get chargeless support from the government. To recapitulate, the slight difference in the earnings of people may promote a joyful community. It can influence establishing equality and less competition in material values. Nonetheless, the slight gap would lead to a regression of the level of welfare and dissatisfaction with social support from the government.
Majority of people think that it is important to provide a small difference between rich and poor people in order to make society happier. I totally disagree with this statement because when equalizing different strata of society, there will be a decline in various spheres, from the economic sphere to the social.
Consider the first argument in favor of wealthy people, who have worked for generations so that they have the appropriate property. If we imagine that the incomes of the poor and rich people will equalize, then the rich stratum will loose their property, since the expenses will be too high in relation to wages. This will in no way make rich people happier, but will only increase the imbalance in society. It is also likely that wealthy people will begin to assert their rights, what will lead to destabilization in society.
On the other hand, there is no correlation between income and happiness. If we take artists from the world of music as an example: Kurt Cobain is the lead singer of the "nirvana" group, Freddie Mercury is the lead singer of the "queen" group. Were these people happy? Even though they were rich and successful, they did not have happiness in life. At the same time, large number of people living on a small income, but they are happy and live in harmony.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I do not see a connection between a person's income and the level of happiness in society; I believe that the level of happiness mainly depends on a person's mindset.
The majority of people believe that the best way to make society happier is enough to equalize the salaries of the highest and lowest groups of people. I cannot share the opinion that this decision would change the conditions of life on the better side than now; on the contrary, it can be unfair concerning the people who work harder. On no account, the importance of the problem concerning the large gap between wealthy and penniless people cannot be ignored but the solving of this issue would not be effective against the difficulties in society. The real things which can make the society satisfied are worthy education, free medicine and infrastructure. Moreover, the shortening of the income gap between these groups would have not any effect on the quality of education and health care, the previous troubles will be the same. Therefore, people would not find many advantages in the equalizing of the earnings of the whole society, if the progress in other layers of life has not changed. For example, if all layers of society will earn for life in the same amount but will not have the satisfying services it would not make them happy at the end. Another point to consider is that minimizing the difference between the richest and poorest groups of human beings would lead to the declining of the motivation to work among humans. The desire for climbing on the career ladder would lose its meaning because the whole workers will have the same salary. People who worked hard will have the same remuneration as who didn’t work in the same way. In conclusion, I would like to say that the highest and lowest income would have not any effect on society’ well-being. There are a number of factors which can change the life of society.
It is often believed that a happy nation is determined by a short gap of the income between the socially different people, however I do not agree with this opinion since there are other factors contribute to the level of happiness of a society, such as taxes and life satisfaction. To begin with, people would be happier if they were satisfies in spheres like healthcare, education, and entertainment. Such essential needs are provided by the government, thereby the authority should be the one manages and has a fair system to use the income taxes received equally. Taxes, on the other hand, are contributed by the rich and the poor people, therefore a good tax system would help to reduce the gap and would make the community happier. For instance, the wealthiest people would pay higher tax and the least poverty classes pay less amount. And, the government should use that money to pay back for the benefits of the whole nation by giving free access to healthcare, education or entertainment. Besides, shortening the gap of the income between the rich and the poor is not a good strategy because it could not make the world strive for a better. First of all, if everyone gets the same amount of what they work for, no one wants to work harder and thinks differently. Likewise, the country could not develop well because everyone has the same standards. Also, people become lazier and more laid-back and that would not make people happier. In conclusion, I think the government plays a vital role in controlling the public money and helps society become happier by enhancing local tangibles, not by cutting the salaries between the richest and the poorest.
Happiness is the state every people want to achieve and live with. Some considere this feeling to be directly connected with the amount of earning, whereas others totally disagree with this statement. I think everyone can be happy either they are rich or poor.
Money could affect to a lot of people`s happiness, however, that does not mean that it makes them happy. Research shows that citizens of developed regions with a high economics, such as Western Europe or North America are generally more happier than in developing countries. However, most people in developing countries also agree, that they feel happy of because strong family relationships or religion.
One of the most important factors that makes us happy is doing job you enjoy. For example, the number of volunteers working in poor countries in low or non-profit base is increasing every year. Their feeling of satisfaction does not related with their salary, they just enjoy what they are doing and even ready to do what they like despite the low profit.
Other reason that would bring us satisfaction is family. Beeing surrounded with people whom we trust and love and feel their love and support is the most valuable feeling for everyone. Research shows, that generally people with families in the old age live more and more satisfied that those who prefer to live alone.
To sum up, money doen not make us happy as well as job or family. So to produce a happy society, everyine should try to find true happiness, not money.
In the contemporary world, a happy community is a key to a bright future. It is argued that a tiny distinction in salary between different social layers will provide a harmonious society. However, some groups of people, including me, totally disagree with this statement as there are other important aspects such as the health care system and social facilities. Also, it will negatively affect the economy. First of all, there are many problems that cause disbalance in the community. For the modern people not only finance provides happiness. For instance, in many countries social facilities and health care system leave something to be desired. Developing side of the world does not have access to the high qualified free medical service. Also in the case of social amenities in the rural areas the level of conducting social activities in activities mostly is not enough to form progressive society. There are other crusial social problems that should be solved in order to create dynamic community. Secondly, minimizimg the difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest will provide issues to economy. Prosperity of the country mainly depends on its human resources. For example, if the income of the rich layer of society desreases, then workers will lose their motivations to succeed in their job. Non-competitive environment will lead to stagnation and even regression. It can have damaging outcome for the country’s development. To sum up, decreasing of the difference between social layers cannot help in forming of advanced community. Morever, it will have opposite effect and result in destroying of economy.
The overwhelming majority of people believe that a slight difference in people's incomes could make the society happier. Similarly, people think that an equal money index in the public can be a reason for society's prosperity. I partially agree with this claim, because there are a plethora of cases whether welfare plays a key role and vice versa.
On the one hand, the common issue faced by the society is a poorness. In many situations, it is a result of big gapes between the earnings of rich and poor people. This is because it is often believed that money should vary respectively to the individuals rather than the community's members. Therefore, not only do people face unhappiness, but the society also suffers in the long run. Take for example having carried out research that shows the GDP of the chosen community in the UK depends on average incomes. Consequently, the difference in revenues affects every participant.
Another point to consider is that an index of well-being does not really depend on the contrast of incomes. The reason for this is that people's need varies according to the specific conditions, therefore, everyone defines their own sufficient amount of money to live. Consequently, it would be incorrect to limit someone's earnings due to the big difference. Even though some people earn less than the average income, they can be even happier than millionaires. As a result, happiness cannot be evaluated according to some gaps in the society, but it directly relies on individuals' "sufficient rate".
In the conclusion, despite the problems in the public, which are caused by the difference between the richest and poorest, I am firmly convinced that humans' feelings, especially happiness cannot be changed by diminishing the gap in the area of earnings.
The vast majority of people claim they are miserable because their finance position and overall wealth cannot offer them life they want. Therefore, they believe it can be resolved only if the difference between salaries of people considered inferior of suprerior is decreaed. Personally, I am not completely agree with this point since the money people get is a way of evaluating their work. However, sometimes unfair situations occur merely some individuals do not deserve that money.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the fact that members of society might experience unhappiness only because they do not make as much money as others do casts a doubt on the definition of happiness. In fact, there are more indicators of that feeling. So, people have to look beyond the money, and derive happy from just living. But, when it comes to difference, this idea has to be reconsidered. For example, lets imagine: in one part of the world, one person can afford a golden toilet that costs a hundread and hundread of dollars, while other person makes his or her ends meet, struggleng to buy even a bottle of water. It seems unfair, doesnt it? Consequently, the money, unfortunetaly, plays a key role in wealth of that people, and of course on their mental well-being too.
On the other hand, despite that the problem of poverty is at the top of the list of issues, it is worth to mention that establishing different earning for people is vital for economic and labor circle in the world. As person does a job, he or she will get a money eventualluy.Actually, that is an idea and concept of the money - the indicator of work and effort. Therfore, we came to simple but still valuable conclusion - person can control both his finance stability and happiness level.
In the conclusion, it has to be said, ensuring that small difference between the earning of people is maintained - that is, has a postive influnce on society's inner state. But, considering each individuals' case reveals us they frankly deserve that money.
Many people believe that small difference between rich and poor people's profits, can make society more happier.I totally disagree with this statement and think that money and huge profit are not index of happiness.Also, if all people earned almost the same, society would not be divided into rich and poor.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I believe that money is not index of happiness.Society would be more happier, if there will be accessible medicine, education and accomodation.Only by improving the well-being of citizens can we build a more harmonious, smarter and safer society without new diseases and problems. Also, in my opinion people should work in their favourite workplace, but not where big profit.From this point, difference between earnings of people will be really big, but does not matter,because all of them work, where they want to work.
Moreover, money is a big motivation for people.Exactly money creates us labor force, if people's incomes are the same, no one wants to work in very difficult and dangerous jobs. This will lead us to non-stabilization of the community.
In conclusion, we note that reducing the gap between the poor and the rich is practically impossible and this way cannot build a joyful society. We must consider improving the education,medicine and government system.
Plan
ReplyDelete1 Introduction(disagree totally)
2 argument 1 - people have different needs about money
3 argument 2 - we should envy someone's money
4 conclusion
There is a suggestion that the highest income in the country should not be much more than the lowest one in order to people to be happy. However I disagree totally with this statement because I opine that all people should earn the amount of money that is enough for them and do not envy other's money. Furthermore, opinions of different people about necessary size of budget differ.
To commence with, the need of people are totally different. Some may need not more than expenses for grocery while others require billions for an emotional fulfillment. Some may earn four hundred dollars per week and live as happy as it is possible while some are not satisfied with thousands. Moreover, it is also depends on the expenditures of individuals, for example, whether they aliment a large family, nuclear family or they are single.
Secondly, an intelligent person is not angry with the fact that someone earns more than him. The main point is that how you manage your budget in order to make yourself and your relatives satisfied. Envy is the feeling that make people degrade. The size of your budget does not depend on how happy are you and we should not focus on money.
In conclusion, the tiny difference between the salaries of people does not affect significantly the psychological state of people though some say that it provides national welfare. Everybody get salary that that think is adequate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePLAN
ReplyDelete1) Write about infrastructure
2) Regulating taxes
3) Injustice in income and work distribution
Some people claim that the unique way to make people happier is to reduce the difference in incomes of the richest and poorest ones .I completely disagree with this statement because the profit is not the only thing that impacts to hapiness of people.
First of all, hapiness of people depends on satisfying of main requirements of human being. The most important ones are requirements in high quality food, healthcare, education, and other infrustructure. Main entiity which can and must to take care about this things is goverenment. Second point which must be mentioned is taxes. Ensuring the proportional growth of taxes in correspondence with earning level will allow to get more taxes from wealthier individuals, thereby not strenthing the poor people. Collected taxes will be regulated by goverenment in order to equip the infrastructure.
The next thing which with no less importance is the rude imperfections of this strtegy. Artificial equating of incomes can lead to protests from those who has more potential and can become wealthier because of their hard work. It will adversely impact on ones who is not stimulating development of society and being lazy, but have similar income in comparing with ones who are more effective in their business. Furtheremore, rich people are helping to people who has less chances to be happy. There are many fonds and charity organizations where wealthy men spending their money to help other.
In conclusion, these staments made evident the failure of small difference in incomes of people and proved that hapiness is not defined just by the earning level.
Almost equal amount of salaries is argued to be a primary criteria in creating an ideal society. This essay, however, disagrees with the given statement because wealthy individuals have worked hard in order to achieve their goals and even more importantly, happiness has nothing to do with money and possessments.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, it would be totally incorrect to set an average amount of incomes for all members of society. Rich individuals have dedicated their lives to become successful and many have done great deeds before reaching their dreams. In contrast, the majority of poor people often tend to complain about their current condition without taking any steps in dealing with poverty. Therefore, it is obvious that not all people deserve the money they possess and thus, just rising salaries of poorer persons without reason would be offensive regarding the labour and hours that rich people put in realization of their wills.
Furthermore, although it is commonly believed that being rich is the key to happiness, money, instead, can lead to frusturation and argues. What I mean by this is that by simply eradicating the difference between rich and poor, human beings will not be able to establish a wonderful society. The absence of difference may be only a temporal source of happiness since not everyone is able to properly use money. As a result there is a huge risk of reappearence of poverty, which, in its turn, will probably trigger another issues.
Soming up, imposing similar amount of salary and minimizing the differences between wealthy and poor does no guarantees a happy society as money is itself not an inducer of happiness.
An almost equal amount of salaries is argued to be a primary criterion in creating an ideal society. This essay, however, disagrees with the given statement because wealthy individuals have worked hard to achieve their goals, and even more importantly, happiness has nothing to do with money and possessions.
DeleteOn the one hand, it would be incorrect to set an average amount of income for all members of society. Rich individuals have dedicated their lives to become successful, and many have done great deeds before reaching their dreams. In contrast, the majority of poor people often tend to complain about their current condition without taking any steps in dealing with poverty. Therefore, it is obvious that not all people deserve the money they possess, and thus, just rising salaries without reason would be offensive regarding the labor and hours that rich people put in the realization of their wills.
Furthermore, although some people hold on the idea that being rich is the key to happiness, money, instead, might lead to frustration and arguments. What I mean by this is that by eradicating the difference between rich and poor, human beings will not be able to establish a wonderful society. The absence of difference may be only a temporal source of happiness since not everyone can use money properly. As a result, there is a risk of reappearance of poverty, which, in turn, will probably trigger other issues.
Summing up, imposing a similar amount of salary and minimizing the differences between wealthy and poor does not guarantees a happy society since money is itself not an inducer of happiness.
During the last decades, the happiness level of people around the world have been considerably decreased. Some people argue that the main cause of this issue is a huge difference in people's salary. I completely agree with these statement.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, there are two sides of the situation. Firstly, the low level of income directly affects to citizens' material condition. Because of the lack of money, they cannot afford to spend money on entertainment and other different parts of life. They need to save their cash, because there is a need to pay money to communal services, daily food and so on. That is why, people cannot be happy and enjoy the life in the true way. The rejection of pleasure and entertainment negatively affects human brain.
Second part is a psychological state. Most people tend to compare themselves with others and when they see a rich person who earns much more money and spends them as he wants, they may give up and think that they are losers and cannot reach such results. This situation has a really adverse effect on the motivation and the work process of some citizens. Thus, they may lose the interest to life and happiness.
To conclude, in my point of view, a big distinction in earnings is one of the most serious causes of the low level of happiness of society. If governments solve this issue of inequality in salary, people will be much happier, because money has a significant impact on their lives.
Some people think that in order to produce a happy society, it is necessary to ensure that there is only a small difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
ReplyDeleteMany individuals support the opinion that people can be happy only when there is a tiny distinction between profits of wealthy and poor men. This means that being peaceful depends upon their income. As for me personally, such concept can be right fron one perspective, but at the same time i disagree with those who reckon in that way.
To begin with, level of optimistic society is defined by many parameters and it does not contain only money. For instance, if the community is ensured with developed health services, rights of citizens and high-drade infrastructure, people would be satisfied, despite the amount of earnings. Moreover, it is clear that richer men pay more taxes than those, whose wage is lower and government use accumulated budget for the benefits of the country, of the whole nation. Thus, there are many other aspects, which might affect to creation of a happy society.
On the other hand, we have several situations when a degree of our profit can influence to the standatd of living. Accorgingly, effect of a huge or little income could be inevitable. Particularly in the case of study, when a family is unable to pay for child's education, he would not obtain appropriate knowledge enough to employ any job in the future.
To summarize, happyness of a nation can be evaluated by a short gap between earnings of rich and poor humans. But when country controls ensure convenience of people by health services and developed infrastructure, difference of salary is unwitnessed.
It is acquiesced that the small gap of salaries between affluent and destitute individuals is utterly vital in the way of reaching happiness of the society. Personally, I completely disagree with it since finances cannot be the main factor of being blissful and the amount of money which people have earned vary in the way of their labor.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, it is considered that happiness cannot be measured with expenses and views of the masses about this concept might be entirely diverse. For instance, abundant of individuals prefer peaceful life with essential needs and they do not care about others income as they are satisfied with what they have in the current moment. An important point is that adequate number of individuals have various necessities, which is usually corresponded by their earnings, ergo the way of amending the difference between wealthy and poor people is not beneficial method for achieving happiness.
To put it another way, scarcely have general public been blissful because of merely altering the gap between two layers of society. It is widely accepted that these stratums always exist, thus nothing will change, if gaining be the same for all people. Indeed, instead of this method, individuals should focus on their lifestyles and crucial living factors.
Fundamentally, happiness of society is not supposed to be attained with controlling the budget of individuals. Everyone is assumed to obtain their own money with consideration of their works and focusing only on it will not bring felicity.
The majority consider that a blissful society is generated by a little variation in the income of wealthy and indigent people. Others argue with this point of view and reckon that the financial position has no significance in being content with their life. Personally, I completely believe that money cannot produce happy public and the human race has more crucial values to be happy.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, all human races need neither money nor a profitable job. The most important value is being healthy as having a good physical condition is the indicator of happiness and key for attaining desired goals. Also, it provides benefits like improved mood, longevity and enjoyment. Moreover, other indicators such as education, infrastructure and entertainment could contribute to the satisfaction of people. These factors could provide a chance to live in good conditions and feel content with their life.
Secondly, killing off the income gap cannot be a wise decision. It is obvious that workers obtain different salaries because of difference in works’ difficulties, education level, capabilities and the force of demand. However, the government must give a chance to all desired residents to get tertiary education and become successful and earning enough money to supply their whole family members.
In the result, inequality in income amount cannot determine our level of happiness. From my perspective, the crucial indicators of a happy society are level of education, infrastructure and amusement in their country. The higher authority should provide free health care centres, opportunity to get optimum education and assist people who need money to create a happy.
Plan: the main aspects of genuinely happiness
ReplyDeleteOther side, developing and developed countries
It is argued that currently the controlling of economical-financial status of individuals to having tiny difference between them is a key of getting a successful society. Personally, I partially disagree with the statement due to the amount of money cannot be considered as a measurement of truly happiness, because this incredible feeling evaluates
To begin with, the main aspects of genuinely happiness of individuals can be assumed as a link between inner balance, enjoyable and pleasurable work and a good relationship with society. Nevertheless, the modern public always tends to measure the feeling of happiness by financial potential or the amount of money at credit card. The wrong point of view is that wealth part of the society enjoys their life by allowing all things what they want. Even though, there are numerous examples of world famous actors and wealth people earning millions and still remainind lonely and not happy.
Turning to the other side of an argument, in the globalization centure there is a enormous difference between a life quality in the developing and the developed countries. The public in the majority of developing countries faces issues such as starving, poority and limit of basic human rights and one possible reason for that is low economical status of the nations. Despite this, the international organizations, such as UNESCO make an effort to regulate the economics as well as create the work spaces in Africa, Siria, Somali and other poor countries in order to stabilize the life quality of native citizens.
All things considered, the material values of individuals directly influence to the life quality, but cannot measure the feeling of truly happiness, which have so many other aspects.
Some people think that in order to produce a happy society, it is necessary to ensure that there is only a small difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that people's level of happiness depends on their salary, and some individuals believe that in order to raise it goverment should reduce the gap between wealth and poor, but I completely disagree with this point of view. I personally feel that this is not the most effective way and there are much more factors, which can effects on the life-standarts of society.
Rarely do people realize the meanimg of joyful life. Therefore, on no account should the importance of other elements such as good physical health, high level of education and entertainment in a country be ignored. The main reason for that is a human cannot buy happiness as well as the health. For instance, having carried out research among the world, scientists have relieved that rich people are not happier than poors. In other words, frequently do many rich people understand that more money does not give more sense of happiness.
Another point to consider is that the power of money connot be emphasized too much. Not only does it motivates employees to work hardes, but also can give a sense of accomplishment to them. The principal example is distribution of social wealth among citizens in all contries. As a result, these people cannot rely on the government and shuld work by themselves in order to earn money.
In conclusin, I am firmly convinced that high salary does not bring more sense of happiness, additionally cutting the bridge between sectors of society will have no results. Albeit, earnings are just one small part of it and the main condition consists of person's well-beeing as well as self-harmony.
There is no doubt that people's level of happiness depends on their salary, and some individuals believe that in order to raise its government should reduce the gap between wealth and poor, but I completely disagree with this point of view. I personally feel that this is not the most effective way and there are many more factors, which can affect the life-standards of society.
DeleteRarely do people realize the meaning of joyful life. Therefore, on no account should the importance of other elements such as good physical health, high level of education, and entertainment in a country be ignored. The main reason for that is a human cannot buy happiness as well as health. For instance, having carried out research in the world, scientists have relieved that rich people are not happier than the poor. In other words, frequently do many rich people understand that more money does not give more sense of happiness.
Another point to consider is that the power of money can not be emphasized too much. Not only does it motivates employees to work harder, but also can give a sense of accomplishment to them. The principal example is the distribution of social wealth among citizens in all countries. As a result, these people cannot rely on the government and should work by themselves in order to earn money.
In conclusion, I am firmly convinced that a high salary does not bring more sense of happiness, additionally cutting the bridge between sectors of society will have no results. Albeit, earnings are just one small part of it and the main condition consists of a person's well-being as well as self-harmony.
Planning: Introduction - Paraphrase and statement of own view(Agree).
ReplyDeleteBody Paragraph 1 - The history evidence. French Revolution, rebellions.
Body Paragraph 2 - Modern Society
Conclusion - restatement of thesis.
One of the beliefs about establishing the happy society is to deliberately equate the income statements of people. I completely disagree about this statement because, first of all, the history does not support this claim and, secondly, people with aspirations are going to be disadvantaged.
As far as our history tells, while Communist party succeeded in their endeavours of becoming a powerful country, the preponderance of evidence, dating back to early 1900s, unveils the true consequences of the policies of the Communist Party. The implementation of collectivism policies coerced farmers and cattle raisers to give up their properties for the better of the economy of state. From the first glance, it might seem a fair trade - diminisihing power of the elite to equate the social positions of people; however, underprivileged people were, in fact, the first ones to experience suffers under this regime. The poverty of the upper classes of society had led to the job loss and subsequent hunger.
Another perspective, a more moderate one, states that people with ambitions and the desires to climb up on the career ladder would be underrepresented due to the fact that they will have nearly equal bank accounts with all people despite their work. Consider the common example of "high-achiever": a diligent person with high marks on his/her final exams and the desperate motivation to receive a high profitable job at a multinational company. What might happen if this persona realizes that all the jobs would have same profits? He/she certainly lose the aspiration to self-develop and will remain on his/her level. These would lead to the dissatisfaction of a a fair large portion of people, which consequently would not account for a happy society.
In conclusion, I believe that is nearly impossible to establish happy society by equating the income statements of people because of the history evidence as well as the dissatisfaction of highly motivated people.
The problem of dividing people into groups by their financial state is started to be a global trend and part of the society’s culture. In my point of view, it leads to the development of aggressive and jealous relationships between people. However, giving for all employees almost equal salaries might create another issue such as degradation of workers. That is the reason why I partially agree with the given statement.
ReplyDeleteTo commence with, people are trying to get a promotion at work, always want to earn more money and be successful for a better life in the future. Everything is due to the financial state because in modern world, money is everything in our society. But, if people will have equal salaries despite their working status, they will lose their motivation to improve their work and generate new ideas will be lost. For example, a general manager and an ordinary manager will have the same salary, in this case, an ordinary manager simply does not want to try extra for the sake of raising, since he already has a good salary. This can slow down the development process and reduce work efficiency.
On the other hand, this kind of changes might be helpful from the psychological and political sides. People will not bully each other because of the money and will have equal positions in society. The manifestation of aggression and envy among people will decrease significantly. In addition, it will help reduce stress overall and make people a little kinder and happier.
In conclusion, I can say that all issues have their own negative and positive consequences and the given problem of people’s earning difference is not an exception. That is why I assume, that making an equal salary among people will not be the best solution for this issue.
People always strive to improve the quality of their lives and money plays an important role in attaining this goal. It is often argued that we would create a happy community if there was no such a big difference between the economic conditions of indigent and wealthy people. I partially agree with it because happiness does not always depend on money.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of social cohesion within society is declined because of economic inequality. The majority of people are used to thinking that a poor one is a thief and a rich one is arrogant and greedy, thus people from different social groups tend to do not trust each other. So, these biased opinions could be eliminated if people earned the similar amount of money. Moreover, most importantly, a number of issues associated with housing, nutrition and health that indigent part of population face could be solved.
On the other hand, social inequality has always existed but not only may rich people have a better life, but others also can feel happy in spite of not being in possession of expensive things. This is due to the different ways of reaching the stability or harmony in life. Someone is happy because of the good relationships with family or just surrounding people, others get satisfaction from their work they enjoy and there are some people who are rich enough to afford anything they want but still do not feel the positive emotions.
To sum up, money can destroy the barrier between poor and rich people and make the society better but sometimes material wealth is not a key to happiness.
Some people think that in order to produce a happy society, it is necessary to ensure that there is only a small difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
ReplyDeletePlan:
1st argument: Even tough money don't make you happy, it can solve issues that makes you unhappy. Supporting argument: People made a project where everyone were equal.
2nd argument: Happiness may not amount to money. There are also different factors that play an integral role in how people define happiness. For instance: friendship, love, enemies or being bullied.
In contemporary world, being born rich decides most of the life: education, where to live or even how to live. Therefore, vast majority of the people amounts money to happiness. Personally, I agree to this widespread idea only partially, thus I will provide my reasoning below.
To commence with, albeit being financially catered can't be equal to being happy, money can solve almost every issue that makes person unhappy. Provided with the fact, that we live in the complex opportunistic world where money decides most of the things, it may be much better to be financially independent rather than being poor. For instance, should there be small difference between the poor and rich, it would result in much more satisfied and happy society since everyone would have the same opportunities and living conditions. Thus, social rift between the richest and the poorest may become the obstace in establishing the happy society.
On the other hand, happiness is not something that can be evaluated in terms of money. Owing to the complicated nature of the humans, other aspects such as friend, dreams and carried should be included. It can be examplified by the Switzerland where even homeless people obtain the money from the government. There are, however, issues of the excessive migration into the country, growing number of complaint towards such system which in total makes the citizens of the country unhappy. Children seek friends, while the workaholics seek their own carrier. Therefore, social equality does not guarantee the happy life.
To sum up, even though money can solve issues which make people unhappy, it is not the only aspect that defines it since everybody defines their own happiness. I believe that to build the happy society everyone should be content with what they have rather than what they don't.
Some people claim that their happiness depends on the amount of salary they gain. Thus, by evaluating the gap between social classes, it is possible to establish the happy society. However, I do believe that there are many other aspects of life that can contribute to people’s wellbeing, and the idea of communistic society may have a huge disadvantage on the workers’ motivation.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, money is not the aim, but the resource. It is not money itself that makes people happy and increases their mood. People tend to be delighted, when their needs met and all the necessary services are provided. For example, having a chance for getting education, job placement and healthcare services make people joyful and satisfied. To put it differently, in many developing countries such essential services are not provided: children from poor families do not have any opportunities not only for higher education, but also for basic primary education, their healthcare system is not as effective as in developed countries, and the vast majority of people are unemployed. That is why the “happiness level” in these countries is significantly slow.
Secondly, shortening the gap of the income between rich and poor people may result in overall decrease of the social motivation. Having the same amount of salary will diminish the desire to move up the career ladder and the sense of accomplishment. As a result, the society will become lazy and unsatisfied. Thus, it will lead to the reduction of the economics, and the country could not develop further.
In conclusion, it is clear that this politics is not effective at all and only damages the community and the country in general. In addition, there are many other factors that influence people’s happiness.
Many individuals think that the proper way to creating a heaven-sent nation is the importance of a short gap between the income of the richest and poorest people. In my point of view, countries have other factors that can estimate happiness and I personally disagree with that statement.
ReplyDeleteFirst, people would be happy if their other needs in other areas such as infrastructure, medicine, and education were more developed now. These basic needs are met at the expense of the state, so the authority must be the one that governs and have a fair system for the equal use of income taxes received. Taxes are paid by both the poor and the rich, therefore a good and fair tax system would equalize their incomes and make citizens more glad. The simplest example is in European countries where the more your salary, the more taxes you pay and vice versa. The income from the taxes should be spent by the government on the welfare of the nation, as in Germany for medicine.
Secondly, the one who worked and worked harder earns more. If we make the salary equal, then further motivation for raising the position or working additionally will not be observed. As a result, the country may become stagnant due to the fact that everyone will have the same standards and will not be motivated.
In conclusion, I think that the country plays a big role in the happiness of its citizens and the equalization of wages between rich and poor is not an option.
Some people believe that the main reason for their unhappiness is a tremendous difference between the lifestyle of rich and poor. I disagree that wealth inequality is the main reason for dejection in society.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, rich and poor is a question of perspective. Someone who has a mansion on the shores of the sea and car for eighty thousand dollars may consider himself as the indigent. On the contrary, another one with an apartment in a favourable region and a modest car may believe that he got everything out of life. Perception defines how happy you are. Additionally, gratitude is another essential factor for happiness. A society where people are grateful and present-focused happier than a society with unpleasant members. Indisputable that money has an impact on the well-being of people. However, it also an undeniable fact that happiness is determined by an individual's attitude to life.
Another point to consider is that it is unreasonable to single out financial inequality as the main reason for social unhappiness. In other words, influencers such as governmental public policy, education and medical care should be considered. Therefore, blaming the wealth inequality is not only unfair, but it also ignores the root causes of unhappiness in the community. According to the world happiness report, all happiest countries on the list have some factors in common. Metrics of happiness include political rights, universal public service, clean ecology and low corruption rates. To form a happy society is not enough to reduce the difference between the rich and poor. Happiness requires a huge complex of action aimed at people.
In conclusion, income inequality is not the main influencer of happiness. There is a huge amount of other factors of happiness which should be considered to make happy members of society.
295 words
ReplyDeleteThere is a belief that one of the ways to access happiness is a regulation of a particular amount of earned income in society. Taking into account that individuals take different views toward the nature of happiness, I completely disagree with this statement. In my opinion, the reduction of the gap between the richest and poorest citizens does not necessarily guarantee a happy community.
First of all, this kind of systematization of earnings would hamper the economic growth of a country; thus having a negative impact on the welfare of society. Encouraging the production of wealth attracts even more wealth, which boosts not only rich people`s budget but also governments as a whole. Therefore, the way for society to progress and reach the highest level of satisfaction is through that gap in incomes, which constantly motivates people to work harder and develop further. One clear example is the United Nations research paper on the world`s last economic development trends which was published in 2018. According to the report, economists discovered that countries such as the USA that have a considerable difference between salaries tend to depict higher levels of the welfare of people.
Second of all, a fair distribution of wealth would bring down the level of education as well as the number of businesses in the country. This is down to the fact that regardless of the education level, the amount of income will be kept the same. Should people get to know this concept, the depreciation of education and demotivation towards owning a private business are most likely to occur among the community. As a consequence, there will be an increase in the number of both uneducated and therefore, dissatisfied individuals.
In conclusion, it is my belief that to establish a truly happy society minimizing a difference between incomes is not a viable enough solution. Moreover, punishing the rich for achieving that level of welfare, while pleasing the poor by effortless reward does not assure an establishment of a fully happy population.
Some people believe that there is a link between economic equality and happiness of the population. I completely disagree with this statement because nowadays people have same access to the wealth, and it would demotivate entrepreneurs.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, rarely have people unequal opportunities in modern day society, so it is ridiculous to punish them for being successful by taxing. Furthermore, as an icon of Cold War era, Margaret Thatcher have said in 27th November 1990 “Such liberal politics would rather have the poor poorer provided the rich were less rich”. Instead, government should provide citizens with more reliable capabilities and institutions to enhance their income. This kind of politics could increase average salary of the population by creating the balance between governmental control and free market.
Secondly, profit is the most natural motivator. Centuries ago, traders travelled all over the world to benefit from developing trade, in dark ages, knights had strived to gain titles from their overlords, even our ancestors learned to talk and craft instruments to take the advantage. In world of total equality there is no innovations and culture coupled with technologies would be adversely impacted.
To conclude, the most economists consider that this is question of balance, and new generation will find out the correct consistence of governmental intervention.
It is thought by some people that the slight difference between the salaries of the wealthiest and poorest people is the key concern to secure better world where everyone can be happy. Personally I disagree with that belief because governments should provide a high-quality education for the neediest ones rather than making equal the earnings of two different sectors of the society.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, dealing with the issues surrounding welfare state of the people is best solved by enhancing the protection of poor individuals. For example, governments should ensure that humans who need the financial help with education as well as facilitating the conditions to find a workplace. Undoubtedly, this contribution should improve the situation of poor persons who are facing huge troubles due to the lack of opportunities.
Another point to consider is that minimizing the gap between earnings of is not an effective decision because the majority of people who make enough money wouldn’t want to try something great or become the best. If it happens, human beings will start to move other countries to work and develop, which also have a negative influence on the economy. Moreover, there is a risk that poor people will not be focused to work hard, so that the entire development process and happiness of certain countries are going to be ruined.
In conclusion, the governments should not equate the welfare of richest and poorest people. Instead, it is vital to assist persons in need, and give everybody chances to earn as much as it is possible in order to produce a happy society.
It is considered that a negligible gap between wealthy and indigent people can establish a joyous community. I assume that a similar level of earnings may lead to financial equality, however, a moderate distinction in the incomes would not allow gratifying the residents’ demands on various aspects of civilization.
ReplyDeleteTo commence with, reducing the gap of the earnings between two categories of people can create a sense of equality in society. People would discontinue evaluating people referring to their material wealth. Moreover, it can lead to less competition in purchasing sumptuous items, because everyone would have a similar lifestyle and approach to spending money. Furthermore, equal incomes would cease categorizing individuals that influence noticing other significant values of life. Hence, neglecting a distinction in the profits would be beneficial in introducing an equal society and avoiding an exaggerated relation to money.
On the other hand, a resembling proceed may cause devolution of the country, due to similar principles. The dwellers’ well-being depends on the satisfaction of their necessities in different aspects of the community, such as quality education, healthcare, and modern infrastructure. The individuals would not work intensively or aspire to have a better life, because of the nonexistence of competition between them. The level of the living community would be impacted by the different income between abundant and meager residents. For instance, paying a tax return allows the government to preserve human rights and satisfy their needs to produce a happier civilization. Therefore, the gap in profits can produce growth of country and accessibility for each individual to get chargeless support from the government.
To recapitulate, the slight difference in the earnings of people may promote a joyful community. It can influence establishing equality and less competition in material values. Nonetheless, the slight gap would lead to a regression of the level of welfare and dissatisfaction with social support from the government.
Majority of people think that it is important to provide a small difference between rich and poor people in order to make society happier. I totally disagree with this statement because when equalizing different strata of society, there will be a decline in various spheres, from the economic sphere to the social.
ReplyDeleteConsider the first argument in favor of wealthy people, who have worked for generations so that they have the appropriate property. If we imagine that the incomes of the poor and rich people will equalize, then the rich stratum will loose their property, since the expenses will be too high in relation to wages. This will in no way make rich people happier, but will only increase the imbalance in society. It is also likely that wealthy people will begin to assert their rights, what will lead to destabilization in society.
On the other hand, there is no correlation between income and happiness. If we take artists from the world of music as an example: Kurt Cobain is the lead singer of the "nirvana" group, Freddie Mercury is the lead singer of the "queen" group. Were these people happy? Even though they were rich and successful, they did not have happiness in life. At the same time, large number of people living on a small income, but they are happy and live in harmony.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I do not see a connection between a person's income and the level of happiness in society; I believe that the level of happiness mainly depends on a person's mindset.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of people believe that the best way to make society happier is enough to equalize the salaries of the highest and lowest groups of people. I cannot share the opinion that this decision would change the conditions of life on the better side than now; on the contrary, it can be unfair concerning the people who work harder.
ReplyDeleteOn no account, the importance of the problem concerning the large gap between wealthy and penniless people cannot be ignored but the solving of this issue would not be effective against the difficulties in society. The real things which can make the society satisfied are worthy education, free medicine and infrastructure. Moreover, the shortening of the income gap between these groups would have not any effect on the quality of education and health care, the previous troubles will be the same. Therefore, people would not find many advantages in the equalizing of the earnings of the whole society, if the progress in other layers of life has not changed. For example, if all layers of society will earn for life in the same amount but will not have the satisfying services it would not make them happy at the end.
Another point to consider is that minimizing the difference between the richest and poorest groups of human beings would lead to the declining of the motivation to work among humans. The desire for climbing on the career ladder would lose its meaning because the whole workers will have the same salary. People who worked hard will have the same remuneration as who didn’t work in the same way.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the highest and lowest income would have not any effect on society’ well-being. There are a number of factors which can change the life of society.
It is often believed that a happy nation is determined by a short gap of the income between the socially different people, however I do not agree with this opinion since there are other factors contribute to the level of happiness of a society, such as taxes and life satisfaction.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, people would be happier if they were satisfies in spheres like healthcare, education, and entertainment. Such essential needs are provided by the government, thereby the authority should be the one manages and has a fair system to use the income taxes received equally. Taxes, on the other hand, are contributed by the rich and the poor people, therefore a good tax system would help to reduce the gap and would make the community happier. For instance, the wealthiest people would pay higher tax and the least poverty classes pay less amount. And, the government should use that money to pay back for the benefits of the whole nation by giving free access to healthcare, education or entertainment.
Besides, shortening the gap of the income between the rich and the poor is not a good strategy because it could not make the world strive for a better. First of all, if everyone gets the same amount of what they work for, no one wants to work harder and thinks differently. Likewise, the country could not develop well because everyone has the same standards. Also, people become lazier and more laid-back and that would not make people happier.
In conclusion, I think the government plays a vital role in controlling the public money and helps society become happier by enhancing local tangibles, not by cutting the salaries between the richest and the poorest.
Happiness is the state every people want to achieve and live with. Some considere this feeling to be directly connected with the amount of earning, whereas others totally disagree with this statement. I think everyone can be happy either they are rich or poor.
ReplyDeleteMoney could affect to a lot of people`s happiness, however, that does not mean that it makes them happy. Research shows that citizens of developed regions with a high economics, such as Western Europe or North America are generally more happier than in developing countries. However, most people in developing countries also agree, that they feel happy of because strong family relationships or religion.
One of the most important factors that makes us happy is doing job you enjoy. For example, the number of volunteers working in poor countries in low or non-profit base is increasing every year. Their feeling of satisfaction does not related with their salary, they just enjoy what they are doing and even ready to do what they like despite the low profit.
Other reason that would bring us satisfaction is family. Beeing surrounded with people whom we trust and love and feel their love and support is the most valuable feeling for everyone. Research shows, that generally people with families in the old age live more and more satisfied that those who prefer to live alone.
To sum up, money doen not make us happy as well as job or family. So to produce a happy society, everyine should try to find true happiness, not money.
In the contemporary world, a happy community is a key to a bright future. It is argued that a tiny distinction in salary between different social layers will provide a harmonious society. However, some groups of people, including me, totally disagree with this statement as there are other important aspects such as the health care system and social facilities. Also, it will negatively affect the economy.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there are many problems that cause disbalance in the community. For the modern people not only finance provides happiness. For instance, in many countries social facilities and health care system leave something to be desired. Developing side of the world does not have access to the high qualified free medical service. Also in the case of social amenities in the rural areas the level of conducting social activities in activities mostly is not enough to form progressive society. There are other crusial social problems that should be solved in order to create dynamic community.
Secondly, minimizimg the difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest will provide issues to economy. Prosperity of the country mainly depends on its human resources. For example, if the income of the rich layer of society desreases, then workers will lose their motivations to succeed in their job. Non-competitive environment will lead to stagnation and even regression. It can have damaging outcome for the country’s development.
To sum up, decreasing of the difference between social layers cannot help in forming of advanced community. Morever, it will have opposite effect and result in destroying of economy.
The overwhelming majority of people believe that a slight difference in people's incomes could make the society happier. Similarly, people think that an equal money index in the public can be a reason for society's prosperity. I partially agree with this claim, because there are a plethora of cases whether welfare plays a key role and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, the common issue faced by the society is a poorness. In many situations, it is a result of big gapes between the earnings of rich and poor people. This is because it is often believed that money should vary respectively to the individuals rather than the community's members. Therefore, not only do people face unhappiness, but the society also suffers in the long run. Take for example having carried out research that shows the GDP of the chosen community in the UK depends on average incomes. Consequently, the difference in revenues affects every participant.
Another point to consider is that an index of well-being does not really depend on the contrast of incomes. The reason for this is that people's need varies according to the specific conditions, therefore, everyone defines their own sufficient amount of money to live. Consequently, it would be incorrect to limit someone's earnings due to the big difference. Even though some people earn less than the average income, they can be even happier than millionaires. As a result, happiness cannot be evaluated according to some gaps in the society, but it directly relies on individuals' "sufficient rate".
In the conclusion, despite the problems in the public, which are caused by the difference between the richest and poorest, I am firmly convinced that humans' feelings, especially happiness cannot be changed by diminishing the gap in the area of earnings.