The governments should give each citizen a basic income, so they have enough money to live on, even if they are unemployed. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
From the perspective of some people, it should be the priority of the government to ensure constant pay for its dwellers to spend on basic needs such as food and shelter. Although I agree it seems logical, it is a narrow view in the long run.
First, giving financial support to all groups of people is not as fair as it seems. As there is no need for giving any help to high-income families for the reason that they can meet their needs and given money maybe spend on other expenses losing their original purposes such as more frequent vacations or meals at restaurants. Thus, the government can save up a considerable amount of money on other ways to encourage poor-level people or orphanages. Secondly, it may be a more feasible approach if governments provide basic facilities instead of simply giving money. As the amount of money they give may not be adequate for people building homes for themselves or feeding their children, governments can construct massive shared- apartments for free instead of splitting money to several years.
Thirdly, if the country gives money for each citizen a basic amount of money without the intention of returning it or asking proper requirements to get it, people would misuse this policy. For example, if people become aware that their neighbors are getting government assistance without the obligation of returning it, people would never miss reaping the benefit of getting extra pay for entertainment. Given that, all of their needs are met by public money, they may become more prone to laziness that even encourages them to work turnovers.
All in all, although I believe giving money to citizens is a good way to help people get out of the poverty line, I think it should be strictly regulated in order to reach real needy people
The
governments
should give each citizen a
basic
income,
so
they have
enough
money
to
live
on, even if they
are unemployed
. To what extent do you
agree
or disagree?
From the perspective of
some
people
, it should be the priority of the
government
to ensure constant pay for its dwellers to spend on
basic
needs
such as food and shelter. Although I
agree
it seems logical, it is a narrow view in the long run.
First
,
giving
financial support to all groups of
people
is not as
fair
as it seems. As there is no
need
for
giving
any
help
to high-income families for the reason that they can
meet
their
needs
and
given
money
maybe spend on other expenses losing their original purposes such as more frequent vacations or meals at restaurants.
Thus
, the
government
can save up a considerable amount of
money
on other ways to encourage poor-level
people
or orphanages.
Secondly
, it may be a more feasible approach if
governments
provide
basic
facilities
instead
of
simply
giving
money
. As the amount of
money
they give may not be adequate for
people
building homes for themselves or feeding their children,
governments
can construct massive shared- apartments for free
instead
of splitting
money
to several years.
Thirdly
, if the country gives
money
for each citizen a
basic
amount of
money
without the intention of returning it or asking proper requirements to
get
it,
people
would misuse this policy.
For example
, if
people
become aware that their neighbors are getting
government
assistance without the obligation of returning it,
people
would never miss reaping the benefit of getting extra pay for entertainment.
Given
that, all of their
needs
are met
by public
money
, they may become more prone to laziness that even encourages them to work turnovers.
All in all, although I believe
giving
money
to citizens is a
good
way to
help
people
get
out of the poverty line, I
think
it should be
strictly
regulated in order to reach real needy
people