Task21 Version2 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 from 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 other parameters and it does not contain only money. For instance, if the community is ensured with developed health services, rights of citizens and high-grade infrastructure, people would be satisfied, notwithstanding 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 despite anybody’s salary. Thus, there are many other aspects, which might affect to the creation of the pleased society.
On the other hand, we have several situations when a degree of our profit can influence to the standard of living. Accordingly, effect of a huge or little income might get noticeable and sometimes 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 lucrative job in the future.
To summarize, happiness of a nation can be evaluated by a short gap between earnings of rich and poor humans. But when country ensures convenience of people by health services and developed infrastructure, impact of diverse salary is unobserved.
It is often argued that the small gap of salaries between affluent and destitute individuals is utterly vital in the way of reaching happiness of the society. 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, the abundant of individuals prefer a peaceful life with essential needs and they do not care about other's income as they are satisfied with what they have in the current moment. An important point is that an 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 a beneficial method of achieving happiness. To put it another way, scarcely have the 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, the happiness of society is not supposed to occur by controlling the budget of individuals. Everyone is assumed to obtain their own money with consideration of their works, and concentrating only on finances will not bring felicity.
There is no doubt that people's level of happiness depends on their salary, and some individuals believe that in order to raise the rate the 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 USA, scientists have relieved that rich Americans are not happier than the poor. In other words, frequently do extremely wealthy people understand that more money does not give more sense of happiness. Another point to consider is that the power of money cannot 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 is based on their working capacity. As a result, these people cannot rely on the government and should work harder in order to be overjoyed. In conclusion, I am firmly convinced that an equal range of salaries does not bring more sense of happiness to the community, additionally cutting the bridge between sectors of society will have no results. Albeit, enough earnings are just one small part of it and the main condition consists of other indications that are above the welfare of the people in the long run.
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 the thesis.
One of the beliefs about establishing a happy society is to deliberately equate the income statements of people. I completely disagree about this statement because, first of all, history does not support this claim and, secondly, people with aspirations are going to be disadvantaged.
As far as our history tells, while the Communist Party succeeded in their endeavors of becoming a powerful country, the preponderance of the evidence, dating back to the 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 the state. From first glance, it might seem a fair trade - diminishing 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 job loss and subsequent hunger.
Another perspective, a more moderate one, states that people with ambitions and the desire 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 the same profits? He/she certainly loses the aspiration to self-develop and will remain on his/her level. These would lead to the dissatisfaction of 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 a happy society by equating the income statements of people because of the historical evidence as well as the dissatisfaction of highly motivated people.
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.
The majority considers 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 delighted. Firstly, 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 with 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 happiness.
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 the 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 the 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 that 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. It can slow down the development process and reduce work efficiency. On the other hand, this kind of change 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. Besides, such will help to 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.
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.
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.
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 a great number of other problems that cause disbalance in the community. For modern people not only finance provides happiness. For instance, in many countries, social facilities and health care system leave something to be desired. The 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 a progressive society. Other critical social problems should be solved to create a dynamic community.
Secondly, minimizing the difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest will provide issues to the economy. The prosperity of the country mainly depends on its human resources. For example, if the income of the rich layer of society decreases, then workers will lose their motivation to succeed in their job. A non-competitive environment will lead to stagnation and even regression. It can have damaging outcomes for the country’s development.
To sum up, decreasing the difference between social layers cannot help in forming of advanced community. Moreover, it will have the opposite effect and result in destroying the economy.
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 a 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 society. Firstly, dealing with the issues surrounding the welfare state of the people is best solved by enhancing the protection of poor individuals. For example, governments should ensure that humans who need 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 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 to other countries to work and develop, which also has 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, governments should not equate the welfare of the richest and poorest people. Instead, it is vital to assist persons in need and give everybody a chance to earn as much as it is possible to produce a happy society.
It is argued that currently the controlling of an economical-financial status of individuals in order to have a 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, although indirect relationship between the earned amount of money and personal well-being exists. 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 the society. Nevertheless, the modern public always tends to measure the feeling of happiness by the financial potential or the amount of money at credit cards. The wrong point of view is that wealthier part of the society enjoys their life by allowing all things or pleasures what they want. Even though, there are numerous examples of the world famous actors and wealth people, earning millions and still remaining lonely and despondent. Turning to the other side of an argument, in the globalization century there is an enormous difference between a life quality in the developing and developed countries. The public in the majority of developing countries faces issues such as starving, poverty and limit of the basic human rights. Moreover, the low economic status of the nation can be assumed as one of the essential factors identifying the happiness level of society members. Despite this, the international organizations, such as UNESCO make an effort to regulate the economics as well as create the work places in Africa, Syria, Somali and other poor countries in order to stabilize as well as increase the life quality of the 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 include so many various aspects.
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 satisfied with spheres like healthcare, education, and entertainment. Such essential needs are provided by the government, thereby the authority should be the one who 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 might become more laid-back and that would not make people happier.
In conclusion, I think the government plays a vital role in controlling public money and helps society become happier by enhancing local tangibles, not by cutting the salaries between the richest and the poorest.
It is thought by some people 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 harsh taxation. 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 right balance between governmental control and free market.
Secondly, profit is the most natural motivator. Centuries ago, traders used to travel all over the world to benefit from developing trade, in dark ages, knights had strived to gain titles from their overlords, even our far distant 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 believe that new generation will find out the correct consistence of governmental intervention.
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 cess 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 cess 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 considerable role in the happiness of its citizens and the equalization of wages between rich and poor is not an option.
Happy citizens are the main part of any country, they lead the state to new achievements. It is thought by some people that it is necessary to provide a small distinction in people's salary, to make them happy. I partly agree with this opinion and in the essay will give my opinion.
To begin with, it is a fact that today money plays an essential role in humans' life. We use cash daily in very different cases: to get to certain place; to use common services, such as electricity, water supply and so on. Moreover, it is not a secret that huge number of people around the world have not enough salary to live comfortably. Because of the lack of money, citizens have to save the cash and not to spend them to different entertainments. Such conditions make people lose interest in life, so they might become unhappy.
On the other hand, money is not the only item which is needed to produce a happy society. In addition to money, there should be a good support from country. Government must provide citizens with decent level of medicine, education and other fields of life. Such environment positively affects people's feel. When individuals feel that they live in safety, prosperous country, where they can live comfortably, they will be truly happy. To sum up, in my point of view,even though the level of salary is crucial part of a person's life, governments must provide citizens with relevant life conditions as well in order to make them happy.
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 would 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.
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 sometimes money is not a key to happiness. 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. However, at the same time happiness does not always depend on material wealth.
Some consider happiness to be directly connected with the amount of earning, whereas others completely disagree with this statement. I think everyone can be happy either they are rich or poor because even money can give certain satisfaction for someone, it is only in short terms and cannot be replaced with necessary components of happiness, such as family or job.
Money could affect a lot of people`s happiness, however, that does not mean that it makes them happy. It is absolutely true that without enough financial resources, it is very hard to be satisfied with your life. Indeed, research shows that citizens of developed regions with high economics, such as Western Europe or North America are generally happier than in developing countries. Nevertheless, most people in developing countries also agree, that they feel happy because of strong family relationships they have or strong believe to God.
One of the most important factors that make us happy is doing the job you enjoy. For example, the number of volunteers working in poor countries in the low or non-profit base is increasing every year. Their feeling of satisfaction does not relate to their salary, they just enjoy what they are doing and even ready to do what they like despite the low profit.
Another reason that might make us happy is family. Being surrounded by 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 longer and more satisfied than those who prefer to live alone.
To sum up, money does not make us happy as well as a job or family. So to produce a happy society, everyone should try to find true happiness, not money.
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 from one perspective, but at the same time I disagree with those who reckon in that way.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, level of optimistic society is defined by many other parameters and it does not contain only money. For instance, if the community is ensured with developed health services, rights of citizens and high-grade infrastructure, people would be satisfied, notwithstanding 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 despite anybody’s salary. Thus, there are many other aspects, which might affect to the creation of the pleased society.
On the other hand, we have several situations when a degree of our profit can influence to the standard of living. Accordingly, effect of a huge or little income might get noticeable and sometimes 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 lucrative job in the future.
To summarize, happiness of a nation can be evaluated by a short gap between earnings of rich and poor humans. But when country ensures convenience of people by health services and developed infrastructure, impact of diverse salary is unobserved.
It is often argued that the small gap of salaries between affluent and destitute individuals is utterly vital in the way of reaching happiness of the society. 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, the abundant of individuals prefer a peaceful life with essential needs and they do not care about other's income as they are satisfied with what they have in the current moment. An important point is that an 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 a beneficial method of achieving happiness.
To put it another way, scarcely have the 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, the happiness of society is not supposed to occur by controlling the budget of individuals. Everyone is assumed to obtain their own money with consideration of their works, and concentrating only on finances will not bring felicity.
There is no doubt that people's level of happiness depends on their salary, and some individuals believe that in order to raise the rate the 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.
ReplyDeleteRarely 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 USA, scientists have relieved that rich Americans are not happier than the poor. In other words, frequently do extremely wealthy people understand that more money does not give more sense of happiness.
Another point to consider is that the power of money cannot 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 is based on their working capacity. As a result, these people cannot rely on the government and should work harder in order to be overjoyed.
In conclusion, I am firmly convinced that an equal range of salaries does not bring more sense of happiness to the community, additionally cutting the bridge between sectors of society will have no results. Albeit, enough earnings are just one small part of it and the main condition consists of other indications that are above the welfare of the people in the long run.
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 the thesis.
One of the beliefs about establishing a happy society is to deliberately equate the income statements of people. I completely disagree about this statement because, first of all, history does not support this claim and, secondly, people with aspirations are going to be disadvantaged.
As far as our history tells, while the Communist Party succeeded in their endeavors of becoming a powerful country, the preponderance of the evidence, dating back to the 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 the state. From first glance, it might seem a fair trade - diminishing 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 job loss and subsequent hunger.
Another perspective, a more moderate one, states that people with ambitions and the desire 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 the same profits? He/she certainly loses the aspiration to self-develop and will remain on his/her level. These would lead to the dissatisfaction of 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 a happy society by equating the income statements of people because of the historical evidence as well as the dissatisfaction of highly motivated people.
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.
ReplyDeleteOn 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.
The majority considers 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 delighted.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, 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 with 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 happiness.
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 the 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 the 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 that 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. It can slow down the development process and reduce work efficiency.
On the other hand, this kind of change 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. Besides, such will help to 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.
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.
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.
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 a great number of other problems that cause disbalance in the community. For modern people not only finance provides happiness. For instance, in many countries, social facilities and health care system leave something to be desired. The 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 a progressive society. Other critical social problems should be solved to create a dynamic community.
Secondly, minimizing the difference between the earnings of the richest and poorest will provide issues to the economy. The prosperity of the country mainly depends on its human resources. For example, if the income of the rich layer of society decreases, then workers will lose their motivation to succeed in their job. A non-competitive environment will lead to stagnation and even regression. It can have damaging outcomes for the country’s development.
To sum up, decreasing the difference between social layers cannot help in forming of advanced community. Moreover, it will have the opposite effect and result in destroying the economy.
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 a 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 society.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, dealing with the issues surrounding the welfare state of the people is best solved by enhancing the protection of poor individuals. For example, governments should ensure that humans who need 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 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 to other countries to work and develop, which also has 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, governments should not equate the welfare of the richest and poorest people. Instead, it is vital to assist persons in need and give everybody a chance to earn as much as it is possible to produce a happy society.
It is argued that currently the controlling of an economical-financial status of individuals in order to have a 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, although indirect relationship between the earned amount of money and personal well-being exists.
ReplyDeleteTo 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 the society. Nevertheless, the modern public always tends to measure the feeling of happiness by the financial potential or the amount of money at credit cards. The wrong point of view is that wealthier part of the society enjoys their life by allowing all things or pleasures what they want. Even though, there are numerous examples of the world famous actors and wealth people, earning millions and still remaining lonely and despondent.
Turning to the other side of an argument, in the globalization century there is an enormous difference between a life quality in the developing and developed countries. The public in the majority of developing countries faces issues such as starving, poverty and limit of the basic human rights. Moreover, the low economic status of the nation can be assumed as one of the essential factors identifying the happiness level of society members. Despite this, the international organizations, such as UNESCO make an effort to regulate the economics as well as create the work places in Africa, Syria, Somali and other poor countries in order to stabilize as well as increase the life quality of the 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 include so many various aspects.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt 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 satisfied with spheres like healthcare, education, and entertainment. Such essential needs are provided by the government, thereby the authority should be the one who 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 might become more laid-back and that would not make people happier.
In conclusion, I think the government plays a vital role in controlling public money and helps society become happier by enhancing local tangibles, not by cutting the salaries between the richest and the poorest.
It is thought by some people 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 harsh taxation. 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 right balance between governmental control and free market.
Secondly, profit is the most natural motivator. Centuries ago, traders used to travel all over the world to benefit from developing trade, in dark ages, knights had strived to gain titles from their overlords, even our far distant 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 believe that new generation will find out the correct consistence of governmental intervention.
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 cess 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 cess 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 considerable role in the happiness of its citizens and the equalization of wages between rich and poor is not an option.
Happy citizens are the main part of any country, they lead the state to new achievements. It is thought by some people that it is necessary to provide a small distinction in people's salary, to make them happy. I partly agree with this opinion and in the essay will give my opinion.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, it is a fact that today money plays an essential role in humans' life. We use cash daily in very different cases: to get to certain place; to use common services, such as electricity, water supply and so on. Moreover, it is not a secret that huge number of people around the world have not enough salary to live comfortably. Because of the lack of money, citizens have to save the cash and not to spend them to different entertainments. Such conditions make people lose interest in life, so they might become unhappy.
On the other hand, money is not the only item which is needed to produce a happy society. In addition to money, there should be a good support from country. Government must provide citizens with decent level of medicine, education and other fields of life. Such environment positively affects people's feel. When individuals feel that they live in safety, prosperous country, where they can live comfortably, they will be truly happy.
To sum up, in my point of view,even though the level of salary is crucial part of a person's life, governments must provide citizens with relevant life conditions as well in order to make them happy.
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.
ReplyDeleteFirst 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 would 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.
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 sometimes money is not a key to happiness.
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. However, at the same time happiness does not always depend on material wealth.
Some consider happiness to be directly connected with the amount of earning, whereas others completely disagree with this statement. I think everyone can be happy either they are rich or poor because even money can give certain satisfaction for someone, it is only in short terms and cannot be replaced with necessary components of happiness, such as family or job.
ReplyDeleteMoney could affect a lot of people`s happiness, however, that does not mean that it makes them happy. It is absolutely true that without enough financial resources, it is very hard to be satisfied with your life. Indeed, research shows that citizens of developed regions with high economics, such as Western Europe or North America are generally happier than in developing countries. Nevertheless, most people in developing countries also agree, that they feel happy because of strong family relationships they have or strong believe to God.
One of the most important factors that make us happy is doing the job you enjoy. For example, the number of volunteers working in poor countries in the low or non-profit base is increasing every year. Their feeling of satisfaction does not relate to their salary, they just enjoy what they are doing and even ready to do what they like despite the low profit.
Another reason that might make us happy is family. Being surrounded by 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 longer and more satisfied than those who prefer to live alone.
To sum up, money does not make us happy as well as a job or family. So to produce a happy society, everyone should try to find true happiness, not money.