It is argued that receiving financial support from the government and on a regular basis is liable to discourage the jobless from finding employment. Moreover, schemes of this nature are highly likely to encumber a country with heavy financial burdens. The given assertion will be discussed in detail before drawing a conclusion.
To begin with, the most cogent arguments against the efficacy of this system is concerned with motivation. To put it differently, if people are assured that there is no obligation for them to work, they are liable to feel demotivated and hopeless thereby, abandoning all their efforts altogether. In other words, being supported by authorities can easily jeopardize the chances of future employment prospects for the unemployed people would no longer feel obliged to secure a job. An instance of this is also evident among the affluent who may find it pointless to look for a profession as they are already provided for by their families.
Yet another rational justification is that large-scale and demanding initiatives like this can easily damage the national economy. Simply put, governments would have no choice but to distribute a sizeable amount of national monetary resources among those who cannot provide for their family members and have to rely on others. More specifically, authorities would have to tap into their tax revenues in order to keep up with the financial demands of the unemployed. This in turn is bound to affect the economy adversely since tax payers' money would be spent unwisely.
To conclude, I am inclined to believe that state pension for jobless citizens is by means a judicious plan as the reverberations are likely to cascade through the entire economy, taking its toll on the money received from tax earnings. Furthermore, guaranteed to be supported all the time, people would no longer feel motivated to seek employment and secure a steady income.
It
is argued
that receiving financial support from the
government
and on a regular basis is liable to discourage the jobless from finding employment.
Moreover
, schemes of this nature are
highly
likely to encumber a country with heavy financial burdens. The
given
assertion will
be discussed
in detail
before
drawing a conclusion.
To
begin
with, the most cogent arguments against the efficacy of this system
is concerned
with motivation. To put it
differently
, if
people
are assured
that there is no obligation for them to work, they are liable to feel demotivated and hopeless thereby, abandoning all their efforts altogether.
In other words
,
being supported
by authorities can
easily
jeopardize the chances of future employment prospects for the unemployed
people
would no longer feel obliged to secure a job. An instance of this is
also
evident among the affluent who may find it pointless to look for a profession as they are already provided for by their families.
Yet
another rational justification is that large-scale and demanding initiatives like this can
easily
damage the national economy.
Simply
put,
governments
would have no choice
but
to distribute a sizeable amount of national monetary resources among those who cannot provide for their family members and
have to
rely on others. More
specifically
, authorities would
have to
tap into their tax revenues in order to
keep
up with the financial demands of the unemployed. This in turn
is bound
to affect the economy
adversely
since tax payers' money would
be spent
unwisely
.
To conclude
, I
am inclined
to believe that state pension for jobless citizens is by means a judicious plan as the reverberations are likely to cascade through the entire economy, taking its toll on the money received from tax earnings.
Furthermore
, guaranteed to
be supported
all the time,
people
would no longer feel motivated to seek employment and secure a steady income.
7.5Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
7.5Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
7.5Mistakes