In many countries, a small number of people earn extremely high salaries. Some people believe that this is good for the country, but others think that governments should not allow salaries above a certain level. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Sample 1:

Work pay has been the subject of intense debate, with one side believing that higher salaries benefit the employees’ country, and others partial to a state-enforced ceiling on such earnings. In this discussion, I am inclined to agree with the former view, despite the latter being somewhat justifiable.

On the one hand, supporters of salary caps may argue that this policy addresses some of society’s problems. One of the issues that it is hoped to redress is wealth inequality, to which income disparity is often cited as a contributor. By implementing a wage cap, the government can redirect excessive income to fund social programs that eliminate poverty. Another problem that can be resolved is exploitation of lower-level employees, where executives at a company receive disproportionate wages compared to the rank-and-file. To deal with this deficiency, a state-mandated limit on manager salary helps distribute the organization’s profits to benefit ordinary workers more. Setting a wage ceiling, therefore, would ensure that wealth is spread more evenly throughout society.

However, there are reasons to maintain that people are entitled to earn as much as possible. More often than not, high salaries are linked to positions critical to the country, so their compensation must be capable of retaining their services and enabling their talent to flourish. Nuclear scientists or aerospace engineers, for example, deserve a disproportionate income compared to the rest of society for their vital role in national security. Having no cap on salaries results in increased spending power as well, since high earners usually demand more highly of goods and services. The more income they possess, the more money potentially goes into circulation, consequently stimulating economic growth. As a result, having a select few in society who earn lucrative salaries is actually beneficial to the country rather than the other way around.

In conclusion, while implementing wage caps may redress inequality, high salaries retain employment of important personnel and stimulate economic growth. It is, therefore, prudent for authorities to leave the market to freely reward workers with as much as they deserve.

Sample 2:

While one school of thought holds that the presence of high-net-worth individuals could contribute greatly to the development of a country, others are of the opinion that the government should impose a ceiling on individual earnings. This essay will first closely examine both views before concluding that I agree with the former.

Advocates of earning limits often argue based on the principle of social equality and stability. By ensuring that wealth is distributed evenly among the population, the government could help bridge the income gap and build a more equitable society where fewer individuals experience poverty or financial hardship. Additionally, when income disparities are less pronounced, there would be fewer incidences of social unrest, political turmoil, and other social conflicts, which theoretically fosters social cohesion and long-term stability. However, this thinking often overlooks the illicit activities some individuals are willing to engage in just to circumvent the prescribed limits and augment their income. Bribery, corruption, tax evasion, and offshore accounts are some of the common means of wealth concealment. This could lead to a lack of transparency and erosion of public trust, undermining the very efforts to promote income equality and reduce social turbulence that this proposal sets out to do in the first place.

Furthermore, there is a stronger case to be made for allowing freedom in wealth attainment. This is because wealthy individuals could act as an economic stimulus through investments, job creation, and their high spending power. Of course, concerns about the widening gap between the rich and the poor are valid, yet the government often requires these high earners to pay taxes commensurate with their income. This substantial tax revenue could, in turn, be channeled into essential endeavors, such as infrastructure development, healthcare and educational facility improvement, which benefit society as a whole. Some extremely affluent people also actively engage in philanthropic activities, donating large sums of their wealth to charitable causes, social programs and other community development projects to help uplift those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In conclusion, the restriction on one's earnings should not be implemented as it could entail various negative implications and undermine social well-being. Individuals should instead be granted the freedom to amass wealth based on their ability and contributions as long as they fulfill their tax obligations. This helps inject an influx of wealth in society, promoting economic development and alleviating the hardship of the underprivileged.

Sample 3:

The disparity between the rich and the poor has been widening in many countries, with a few individuals earning huge incomes and many struggling to make ends meet. Some people argue that this is beneficial for the country, while others contend that governments should impose a limit on the maximum salary that anyone can earn. In this essay, I will explore both views before offering my personal opinion.

On the one hand, proponents contend that allowing individuals to earn exceptionally high salaries serves as a catalyst for economic growth. They argue that these high earners play a crucial role in the economy by initiating new businesses, pioneering technological advancements, and generating employment opportunities. Additionally, this group believes that such individuals contribute substantially to tax revenues, which can be utilized to fund public services and welfare programs. Consequently, they advocate for minimal government interference in the market forces that determine the salaries of different professions.

On the other hand, critics, including myself, argue that government intervention is the key to curbing income inequality and mitigating associated social issues. They assert that permitting a handful of individuals to accumulate substantial wealth is unjust, creating a stark divide between the affluent and the impoverished. This economic disparity, according to this perspective, could lead to heightened social tensions, increased crime rates, and a surge in violence. Furthermore, critics contend that the wealthy often exert tremendous influence over certain aspects of society, such as businesses and the media. Advocating for a more regulated approach, they propose implementing salary caps for top earners and redistributing wealth to address the needs of lower-income groups.

In conclusion, while some argue that allowing unrestricted high salaries encourages economic contributions, I am more aligned with the need for government regulation to foster a fairer and more harmonious society.

Sample 4:

It is argued that there should be a maximum wage limit on extremely high earners; others, however, believe that people should have the freedom to earn as much as they can. I agree with the second viewpoint.

On the one hand, the main reason why some people think that it is necessary to have a maximum wage law is that it could help reduce the pay gap between the highest and lowest earners. The decrease in income inequality would have beneficial effects on firms and society as a whole. Companies might cut a huge sum spent on executives’ salaries, and thus have more to invest in other important aspects, such as marketing and promotions, which help increase sales figures. Many studies show that countries with a narrower income gap often have lower poverty and crime rates than those experiencing growing economic inequality.

In spite of the above arguments, in my opinion, society would suffer a great deal if maximum wage legislation was adopted. Setting a limit on earnings would encourage the most skilled workers, who make significant contributions to their companies, to leave and work in a foreign country. This brain drain of the top employees would cause enterprises and the economy great damage. The absence of a skilled executive, for example, might cause a company a loss of thousands of dollars, and it would take quite a long time to hire another one. Another thing is that it would be almost impossible for an economy to thrive when its well-educated and skilled workforce is willing to work in another country where they are offered extraordinarily high pay packages.

In conclusion, despite the arguments for a maximum wage cap, I believe that governments should not set a limit on the wages of the highest earners as it would have adverse impacts on business and economic growth.

Sample 5:

There is a large earning discrepancy among the top and bottom percentage of individuals in many nations. This is due to the fact that certain people at the top are making exorbitant salaries. Many people think that this is an unfair distribution of wages as those at the bottom are struggling to make ends meet. Therefore, they advocate that the government should set a salary ceiling. In my perspective, I don’t agree with this opinion, as a high income motivates people to work more. In the following paragraphs, I shall discuss both views and give reasons to support my opinion.

Primarily, some people believe that the government should ensure that money is spread equally across the country. It would enable governments to keep a close eye on people’s earning potential and avoid income disparities within the country. It would also narrow the difference between affluent and poor people, eventually eradicating poverty. By adhering to these rules, society will advance in a consistent manner, providing a fair opportunity for all.

Nevertheless, people work hard in order to earn high wages and afford the lifestyles they desire. This goal drives people to enhance their job quality so that they can be regarded as the top specialists in their professions. Additionally, it is only through the efforts of these individuals that the country develops into a well-developed nation. Because the money produced by those with high incomes is taxed and distributed throughout the country, individuals are highly dedicated to their work, which should be rewarded with good pay. Therefore, instead of preventing individuals from obtaining high incomes, the government should invest in education programs for the weaker class so that they may earn high salaries as well.

Overall, some people think that capping salaries is the best approach to preserve social homogeneity since it promotes equal opportunity for everybody. However, rather than stifling people’s desires to improve their standard of living, the government should implement a variety of educational initiatives.

Sample 6:

The distribution of wealth and income is a subject that often sparks debate and differing opinions. In certain countries, a small fraction of the population earns exceptionally high salaries. While some argue that this phenomenon is beneficial for a country, others advocate for government control and salary limitations. This essay aims to explore both perspectives and argue in favour of not restricting individuals' salaries.

Proponents of salary control argue that it is necessary to ensure income equality and prevent excessive wealth accumulation in the hands of a few individuals. They believe that high-income disparities can lead to social and economic inequality, potentially widening the gap between the rich and the poor. For example, in some countries, a small group of wealthy individuals controls a significant portion of the nation's resources, which can exacerbate social divisions and create an unbalanced society.

On the other hand, those who believe that high salaries are advantageous for a country argue that they act as incentives for individuals to work hard and excel in their fields. The prospect of earning substantial incomes motivates individuals to invest their time, skills, and resources to achieve success. Moreover, high salaries can attract talented individuals to vital industries, leading to innovation, economic growth, and job creation. For instance, in sectors such as technology, finance, and entertainment, individuals with exceptional skills and expertise are often offered lucrative compensation packages. This not only rewards their talent and hard work but also drives progress and fosters competitiveness within these industries.

In my opinion, while it is important to address income inequality and ensure fairness in society, imposing strict controls on salaries is not the most effective approach as it would discourage talented and hard-working individuals to take on challenging careers. By addressing the root causes of inequality and providing avenues for upward mobility, societies can achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth without restricting individuals' freedom and right to earn high salaries. 

In conclusion, while some argue that high salaries act as incentives and drive economic growth, others advocate for salary control to address income inequality. However, it is my belief that governments should focus on creating a fair and inclusive society by providing equal opportunities and social mobility rather than imposing strict salary limitations.

Sample 7:

High wages are being offered to a select few in many nations. There is a vast salary gap among people. Many people think that this is beneficial for the nation. While some of them argue that the government needs to set a wage limit. I believe that this has an economically positive impact.

People will lose their motivation and zeal to work hard to achieve their goals if their income is limited to a certain amount. People work hard to earn high wages so they can live the lifestyle they prefer. Also, it is undeniable that the concept of the circulation of income or capital is important in the economy. Elaborating on it, people spend as their salary permits. A higher salary is paid in accordance with the employee’s experience, skills, and knowledge. Hence, it is unfair to cut their salaries to satisfy a specific group of people.

In addition, the management of payrolls by the state is a step that may be taken to prevent such cutthroat competition. However, this is not even close to being true. The regulation of pay leads to increased complacency in the workforce, which in turn increases the risk of nihilistic melancholy. Uneven distribution, on the other hand, might result in restrictions being placed on certain groups of staff members. Furthermore, demands such as social security, societal norms, and self-esteem may be impaired as a result of the developed anxieties as well as attitudes toward competition.
In conclusion, I believe that a few people earning hefty amounts can be beneficial for the country, not just financially but also economically, that is, for the growth and development of the country. However, there is a group that thinks that this is a good impact, while others counter that the government should limit salaries.

Sample 8:

In many countries, only a tiny percentage of the population earns the majority of the money. Although many argue that doing so would be beneficial to the country, others argue that authorities should enforce existing laws and cap people's incomes. Even though income limits would help reduce inequity and promote a more equitable society, I think affluent people benefit the country in many ways, including by creating jobs for their fellow residents.

One of the arguments in favor of salary caps is that they can eliminate inequality and injustice in the world. To put it another way, affluent people have a greater propensity to flaunt their money through conspicuous consumption, as seen by the purchase of expensive goods such as enormous houses, flashy vehicles, and expensive apparel, all of which can elicit sentiments of jealousy. It would help to prevent this from happening if wages were lowered, which would lead to living conditions that are more equal for everyone.

Wealthy individuals are often responsible for the creation of a large number of employees, which is to the overall nation's advantage. This is because they could run a factory that employs a large number of people or have housekeepers. Wealthy individuals are significant for the sake of this endeavor because job opportunities are critical to the success of a nation. For instance, a wealthy individual could have a housekeeper, a babysitter, and a driver, in addition to a large number of additional employees who ensure the smooth operation of his life.

In conclusion, I think it's good to have wealthy people in the country because they create jobs. However, I also think it's important to control the size of pay to avoid unfairness and inequality.

Sample 9:

There are several states on the globe in which only a small number of residents have high incomes, and the government has no authority over these residents. In other countries, everyone is required to pay taxes based on their income. This is a topic that is very significant throughout the world, yet not everyone thinks the same way about it. We are going to discuss the benefits of high incomes as well as the negative impacts that they may have.

In addition to gaining respect, in my view, amassing large wealth brings about benefits such as comfort, health, and safety, amongst others. A wealthy individual can also stimulate economic growth by increasing the number of job opportunities that are available and by contributing to the nation's financial system. This benefit depends on giving working people jobs instead of storing them as gold or any other commodity.

Yet, extreme wealth may exacerbate problems like economic inequality. Consider a community where many people are priced out of the best features. Most people in this nation have experienced bias because of the skewed distribution of resources. Poverty would rise and general happiness would fall if a small group of people owned the vast bulk of the world's riches. To put it simply, if a country just had a very small quantity of money, its economy would collapse.

To summarise, in my opinion, even if some people might have little advantage despite having high wages, this is still a reason to disrupt the equilibrium in society since it causes more people to have more money than they need. The government ought to maintain equilibrium by collecting taxes or putting a cap on the amount of salary paid out.

Sample 10:

There is an ongoing debate about whether governments should allow high-level salaries or not. Some people believe that it cannot be justifiable to have extremely high profits, others claim that having an opportunity to earn money inordinately is feasible for a country. I strongly believe that exemptions about the level of gained revenue might be a serious problem for the harmony of the society.

To begin with, many are on the side of the belief that earning a high level of money is the main key to an egalitarian society in today’s world. To expand the idea, several countries, which are revered for giving freedom to all people, do not have any restrictions over salaries as they are called liberal states. Furthermore, along with freedom, contributing to a country’s economic prosperity cannot be neglectable because the more they gain money, the more taxes they are responsible for paying. To cite an example, there is legislation about the tariffs that people must pay 36 per cent of their yearly salary to the government in European countries. That emphasises the significance of the excessive level of salaries, which is a boon.

With regard to the opposite side of the view, people believe that salaries should be restrained by governments to some extent. What is more, while taking people who are divided into 3 parts: prosperous, medium, and indigent into account, it is unavoidable that exorbitant salaries might lead to destroying the harmony of society in any country. For instance, India is well-known for its social divisions which have a great chasm between them because elite people get a high level of profit from their businesses, which is the main problem of the destruction. Consequently, I firmly opine that its advantages are eclipsed by its disadvantages, and for that reason, there should be rules in order to gain profit.

To conclude, although people tend to have freedom and free choices, and its benefits in the economy are obvious, the communities, occasionally, can fade into oblivion since a certain level of freedom is dangerous.

Sample 11:

High wages are paid to a few employees, who have distinct abilities, who make an immense contribution to improving their society or a nation. Some people opine that the state should have a limit on regular stipends, and these must not be above the limit. In my perspective, high income must be given to the deserved personnel as they are the ones who assist in escalating the economy of a nation as they pay high-income tax.

According to the first school of thought, they say because these people have extraordinary abilities and higher grades in academic programmes make them the most selective candidate in the staff hiring process. To exemplify it, such personnel as doctors, engineers, singers or leaders are best fit in certain jobs, owing to their qualifications and needs in society. Moreover, they have spent a huge amount of money on their education and their sleepless hours for their work make them able to get high remuneration. So, it is justice for them if they get bigger salaries.

By contrast, others have opposite views. They consider it is good to give them huge salaries; however, the government must not exceed the limit of their salaries. Firstly, it will create disparity among other employees. Resultantly, diffidence and enthusiasm for doing work will diminish, and they will not be ready to do something valuable for their companies. Secondly, relationships that the staff have with their seniors or subordinates will disappear. Employees will lack humanitarian feelings. Last but not least, the government’s economy will be at a standstill as these are the people who are great taxpayers, and in their absence, development in other areas will come to a halt. Because the money that is generated from taxes is used in many domains- education, medical, and to name but a few.

In conclusion, thus it is apparent that higher salaries generate higher taxes, and it also raises the standard of society; however, if it is kept within a limit; then, it will kill personnel’s interest, and they will avoid doing good for their nation, and they will be more focused on earning money by using illegal ways.

Sample 12:

Most people desire a handsome salary, but in many nations, only a few individuals receive lucrative remuneration. According to some, it benefits the nation, while others argue that the government should decide the upper limit of salary. However, I do not support the latter view as I believe that there should be no fixed limit decided by the government and people should receive the money that they deserve according to their job. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will discuss both views and my opinion.

There are few professions in which people are highly paid. These professions include engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers and many more. However, they receive this payment after working hard for it; moreover, their work includes daily challenges. To cite an example, to become a doctor, one has to sacrifice many important years of his/her life, and even after becoming a doctor, their life is not easy as they have night duties. So, sometimes they are sleep deprived and overburdened; furthermore, the medical field advances every day, so they have to keep learning for the rest of their lives. After doing this much hard work, they deserve a good amount of money. In addition, this will also benefit the country as high-earning individuals also pay high taxes and help boost the economy. If the government tries to limit salaries, many people will not prefer to stay in the nation and try to settle overseas for a better life. Hence, limiting salary is not a good option.

On the other hand, People who believe that the government should set a limit for it thinks that if some will receive a higher salary and others will receive a nominal or basic salary, it will create a discrepancy in society, and the difference between rich and poor will be increased, and this might affect the unity of the nation. Moreover, there will be a burden on the government to do something for the betterment of the poor. For instance, the government has to allot some jobs and college quotas to economically backwards classes. Because of this quota, many deserving individuals do not receive jobs or seats in college, which is quite unfair. Therefore, some people propose not to provide a salary above a certain limit to maintain a level in society.

In my opinion, there should not be any limit decided by the government because if citizens do not receive enough money for their hard work, many will not choose difficult professions or even if they choose the work, quality will be affected because a high salary is also a form of motivation and people feel responsible for their work. To illustrate, if any employee is working on an important project, but at the last moment something happens, he/she would be ready to do overtime and give his/her complete efforts if he/she is paid sufficiently. Moreover, High earning people can also offer help during difficult situations such as in covid 19 pandemic. Many individuals donated money to the needy. So, not limiting salary has much more merits than limiting.

To conclude, remuneration for work is a good form of motivation for many, and people work hard to receive a good amount of money. If the government tries to control this, many of us will definitely suffer in terms of quality of work. Also, to be fair, one must receive money according to his/her hard work, isn’t it?

Sample 13:

People have different views about whether governments should introduce a maximum wage. While in some ways it may seem reasonable to allow people to earn as much as companies are willing to pay, I personally believe that employee remuneration should be capped at a certain level.

There are various reasons why it might be considered beneficial to allow people to be paid extremely high salaries. If companies offer excellent pay packages, they can attract the most talented people in their fields to work for them. For example, technology companies like Google are able to employ the best programmers because of the huge sums that they are willing to pay. Furthermore, these well-paid employees are likely to be highly motivated to work hard and therefore drive their businesses successfully. In theory, this should result in a thriving economy and increased tax revenues, which means that paying high salaries benefits everyone.

However, I agree with those who argue that there should be a maximum wage. By introducing a limit on earnings, the pay-gap between bosses and employees can be reduced. Currently, the difference between normal and top salaries is huge, and this can demotivate workers who feel that the situation is unfair. With lower executive salaries, it might become feasible to introduce higher minimum wages, and everybody would be better off. One possible consequence of greater equality could be that poverty and crime rates fall because the general population will experience an improved standard of living.

In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be better, on balance, for governments to set a limit on the wages of the highest earners in society.

Sample 14:

The issue of income inequality is inarguably a growing concern. While many believe that it is a positive economic development, I believe the government should try to restrict the gap between rich and poor people.

There are several reasons why many people consider extremely high wages in certain occupations justified. Indeed, careers such as doctors, teachers, and lawyers are highly respected in most modern societies because of their necessity. Furthermore, not only are these jobs essential to a healthy collective, but they also often require considerable time and effort to master. Therefore, it stands to reason that individuals who pursue these difficult paths are better compensated than the average worker in an economy. Many would consider this fair pay relative to the investment of personal time and effort, and it would indubitably serve as an incentive to attract talents into these career paths.

However, the aforementioned argument starts to break down once we arrive at the salary of many executive-level positions. These jobs can sometimes reach 7 or 8 figures annually, which is an enormous amount of wealth for one person. Many would argue that the level of compensation found at these positions is well-deserved, because of the supposed positive impact on revenue and profit that this individual brings with their experience, connections, and expertise. However, researchers have pointed out that this historic increase in pay for company directors and executives is not proportionate to the value these individuals generate for their respective firms. Moreover, many studies have also shown that as the salary for these leaders rose dramatically, the wages for the average workers have stagnated, and in some cases, they have even failed to keep up with inflation. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, this phenomenon is untenable and should be tackled by governments all over the world before it evolves into an even bigger issue.

Nevertheless, putting an upper boundary on the earnings of citizens may be a step too far. This restriction is, in my opinion, too close to infringing on the rights and liberties of private citizens. Instead, a more reasonable proposal is to increase the tax rate above a certain income threshold substantially. This is undoubtedly a more rational and moderate approach, as it still leaves room for people to earn large sums of money, while acquiring more funds that can be diverted towards the public good. With this solution, the wealth and income gap can be considerably narrowed, while public services and infrastructure would improve, benefitting all citizens.

In conclusion, even though a small minority in certain countries are definitely over-compensated, I am an advocate of a more utilitarian approach such as raising taxes, instead of putting a hard limit on individual income.

Sample 15:

In many countries, there is a huge income difference among people. This is because some people are earning high salaries. At the same time, there are many more who are struggling to meet their needs. Some people, therefore, argue that the government should control salaries. I do not agree with this view. In my opinion, this difference in salary is good for the economy because it encourages people to work harder.

If there is a limit to what people can earn, most of them will lose the motivation to work harder. The reason that encourages people to work harder and harder is their urge to earn higher salaries. Therefore, if the government controls the salaries, it will hurt the morale of employees. Also, having a small number of people who earn too much is not necessarily a bad thing. They act as an inspiration for the poor. These super-wealthy people can also start enterprises that create jobs and improve the living standards of the poor people.

Of course, income disparity is not a good thing. It makes the poor feel inadequate. But at the same time, it encourages many of them to work harder and earn more. As human beings, we have a natural tendency to want more. We get inspired by the affluent lifestyle of the rich and want to be like them. This human desire to improve their living standards is the factor that drives all economies. The government can certainly do something to lessen the difference in the salaries. For example, it can impose higher taxes on rich people. It can also launch welfare schemes for the poor. By offering free education and health care for people living below the poverty line, the government can put them in a position to work and earn.

In conclusion, controlling salaries is not the solution to overcome the income difference. Instead, the government should empower the poor people. Help and encourage them to earn a good salary by offering them free education and training.