Is the economy fair?

FeaturedImage_FinancialCrisis_2.jpg

There is great inequality in our world: people are starving; some do not have shelter and sleep on the streets; some have to rely on loans and mortgages which could ruin them. All this is happening and some people, such as footballers and bankers, are earning in a week what a well-off person would earn in a year. Is this unfair, or is it justified?

In Yemen, at the moment there is a massive starvation crisis and millions of people have nothing to eat, whereas the countries of the UAE are living in luxury, builing ice rinks in shopping malls, employing thousands of people to work for them, buying their own private islands and huge yachts. The difference of lifestyle between them is huge, and people who struggle for their everyday needs are being completely ignored by those who have too much money to spare. Is this fair?

One point of view is that there are people on the brink of death and they should be helped by people who don't need the money to help them. This should not be left down to the government of the country in trouble, which would be ruined, they should have assistance. The UN should make these people who have lots of useless money put it to a good cause, or make rules about how much people sould be allowed to earn, so that the economy does not get out of hand, and money can be distributed to those in greatest need of it, not just the people who earn it. Also, the countries, Yemen for example, did not choose for this to happen, it probably happened because of war or drought or something similar to that.

They may also think that people such as footballers and bankers being paid massive amounts of money is unfair: all bankers do is sort out finance problems for their bank and only think about themselves. People such as nurses and teachers should get paid more becausethe benefit the community generally and make a positive difference. Also, teachers educate people, which is good for the general welfare of the country because a research has shown that those educated to a higher standard (eg. secondary) are much less likely to commit crimes and are more likely to affect the community positively. Education also produces money; those who have been educated are much more likely to earn more money for themselves and the country, thus benefitting the economy. This is all put in place by teachers. Nurses and doctors help to keep people alive and well, which benefits us generally and helps the economy as they keep the money-making people alive well, and do a vital job: many people could die without them.

On the other hand, the opinion of some people may be that the very rich and wealthy people have made their money themselves, they have put hard work into it, and they have a right to do what they want with it. After all, they have probably worked hard to get where they are, earnt their money through toil and perseverance, and can do what they want with it, it is their money. Legally nobody can force them to do anything with it, as it is their property. Also, the country which is in trouble has got itself there; it should have tried harder to sustain itself financially and should have taken more care with what they spent their money on; it is not the fault of the rich people who would be made to pay for it. Even if it was the fault of a war or some other disaster, whatever happened was almost definitely not started by the people who have the money to pay for it.

In the instance of the wages of richer citizens such as footballers and those of doctors, nurses and teachers, you might argue that they are paid as much as they are because of how much money they produce. In the instance of footballers, companies such as Nike, and businesses such as car firms, sponsor players to wear their products, or teams to have their logo on famous players' shirts. They generate this money, and businesses choose to pay it to them, so they deserve it, why should it be given to those who do not generate any money for the economy or much for themselves, but do their job not for the benefit of themselves but for others. They do not earn the money which the companies pay, so why should it be given to them?

A counter argument to this would be that doctors keep the people that earn the money for the economy alive, and teachers teach them what they need to know to earn the money they do. If nobody had an eduction taught by a teacher or a life kept going by doctors and nurses, then nobody would be able to earn the money, and there would not be any money made because nobody would hve invented it or know how to.

Another point of view is that more taxes should be chaged of richer citizens to be supplied to schools and hospitals. Although there is an income tax, some people believe that it should impact those earning millions more heavily as this would change the world greatly, positively. This would mean that governments could spend more money on helping the environment and humanitarian causes, as well as being able to provide more funding to schools and healthcre operations such as the National Health Service (the NHS).

My opinion is that, philosophically and what I believe, not think financially, more money should be paid to those who positively impact the community and do things just to make te world a better place, not to earn money for themselves (eg. police, doctors, nurses, teachers, etc.). However, if youu think about it from a financial point of view, I would say that, as police, etc., do not make the money, the people such as footballers do, then they are helping the economy, so they should get the money. This is a very hard decision for the government, and people all over the world have been puzling over it for decades.

What do you think?

Comments (7)

  • Tiff-Avatar.jpg Tiff @ the BNC 20 Nov 2018

    Thanks for a such a thoughtful post.

    Many of the jobs mentioned in your post are public sector jobs where the government does have control over wages. But lots of the other jobs you mentioned are in the private sector and the government do not decide how much they are paid. The government does decide income tax levels. In the UK the highest tax rate is 40-45% of your whole salary.

    How does this impact your opinion?

    Reply to this comment
  • Millbank-logo-250x250.jpg joyous_quince
    Millbank Academy 22 Nov 2018

    I think economy is not fair because lots of people have to spend a ridiculous amounts of money just so the bankers can keep it for themselves. Lots of people would have probably got over double the money they did if they hadn’t have given lots of unbelievable amounts of taxes to them. This good make a normal citizen become a poor citizen.

    Reply to this comment
  • Millbank-logo-250x250.jpg joyous_quince
    Millbank Academy 22 Nov 2018

    And by the way, what great work!👍

    Reply to this comment
  • Graveney-logo-250x250.jpg beloved_chocolate
    Graveney School 04 Dec 2018 in reply to Tiff @ the BNC's comment

    Thanks for telling me this. I think that if the government could not stop people in the private sector earning as much as they do, but they could raise the income tax for people who earn over a certain amount per year. This would mean that the government could get more money from people who do not need the amount of money they earn, but it would not negatively affect those who do not earn enough or earn enough but not excessive amounts. Then this money could be given to those such as doctors and nurses who do not earn much, and could be used to invest in programs such as those to combat homelessness and other major problems in the UK. However, there are some people who have a lot of money (e.g. from inheritance) but do not earn a lot. This would mean that they would be untouched by this tax rise, and their excessive amounts of money would not go to the government and good causes but be kept to themselves. This could be stopped if those who owned lots of money fro things such as inheritance would have to pay a yearly sum of this to the government, even if it was very small. However, many of the people this rule would cost may be angry because they have a claim on the money, or they have earns it previously. They may also be indignant because it may eventually make them run out of money if they are charged every year, which slowly reduces the amount they have until they have barely any left, meaning that they would have to start earning more and then be affected by income tax. Instead, if the government charged people taxes on the amount of money they earn AND the amount of money they have, by calculating them together, it may wok out fair, and gain the government more money for good causes.

    Reply to this comment
  • Millbank-logo-250x250.jpg stellar_guitar
    Millbank Academy 26 Dec 2018

    I understand your point. Good job. By the way, go check out my post.

    Just click on me :)

    Reply to this comment

You must be logged in to post a comment