In this modernization epoch, vast dissmilarities have taken place in numerous fields for the wages being paid to the workers due to multifariou reasons. A school of thought claim that this disparance is positive for their nation; antagonists argue that authorites should better put a limit. This essay intendes to devise both the view points and finally arrive at a personal interference.
To commence with, masses who think it is adventageous for their motherland if some amount of individuals earn outrageously high, believes that certain proportion of charity is done by them to reinforce the local poverty-striken people. The vast cash which is received by high earners have chance to provide a helping hand to penurious citizen which may ultimately keep the flow of cash in circulation in the society. Moreover, they can set up their own firm providing employment to thousands of people, ultimately this may lead their motherland towards betterment.
On the flip side, those who opine bureaucrats ought to set a limit have their own justification, and foremost of all reasons is equality. They believe, in a community all the citizen should have no huge discrimination by any means and so by projecting an upper limit will break the barrier among rich and penury people. Albeit their efforts in work for earning, people are not supposed to be evaluated and treated special when it comes to giving salary. This view exist so that the citizens of any nation stay connected and interdepended rather than being holding any special power or position in the society.
Taking both the sides into consideration, it can be agglomerated that, although setting a limit in proving salary to vanish the barrier among citizen and uniting them is essential for peace in a nation, the opposite view holds a stronger weight. It is more rational that the masses earn what they deserve. 
In this modernization epoch, vast  
dissmilarities
 have taken place in numerous fields for the wages  
being paid
 to the workers due to  
multifariou
 reasons. A school of  
thought
 claim that this  
disparance
 is  
positive
 for their nation; antagonists argue that  
authorites
 should better put a  
limit
. This essay  
intendes
 to devise both the view points and  
finally
 arrive at a personal interference.
To commence with, masses who  
think
 it is  
adventageous
 for their motherland if  
some
 amount of individuals  
earn
  outrageously
 high, believes that certain proportion of charity  
is done
 by them to reinforce the local  
poverty-striken
  people
. The vast cash which  
is received
 by high earners have chance to provide a helping hand to penurious  
citizen
 which may  
ultimately
  keep
 the flow of cash in circulation in the society.  
Moreover
, they can set up their  
own
 firm providing employment to thousands of  
people
,  
ultimately
 this may lead their motherland towards betterment.
On the flip side, those who opine bureaucrats ought to set a  
limit
 have their  
own
 justification, and foremost of all reasons is equality. They believe, in a community all the  
citizen
 should have no huge discrimination by any means and  
so
 by projecting an upper  
limit
 will break the barrier among rich and penury  
people
. Albeit their efforts in work for earning,  
people
 are not supposed to  
be evaluated
 and treated special when it  
comes
 to giving salary. This view exist  
so
 that the  
citizens
 of any nation stay connected and  
interdepended
  rather
 than being holding any special power or position in the society.
Taking both the sides into consideration, it can  
be agglomerated
 that, although setting a  
limit
 in proving salary to vanish the barrier among  
citizen
 and uniting them is essential for peace in a nation, the opposite view holds a stronger weight. It is more rational that the masses earn what they deserve.