In some countries, a percentage of the population makes far more money than their average counterparts. However, it is a recurrent discussion whether this is beneficial for the nation, or if the government should interfere and control people’s earnings, and also limit how much is made. In this essay I aim to discuss both points of views, giving reasons to support or not each viewpoint, as well as share my perspective on the subject.
Firstly, congressmen all over the world have been discussing whether or not to tax the super rich population. This topic has arisen recently due to the understanding that we do not live in an equalitarian society, and the government understands that action needs to be taken so as to solve the issue. Taxing this population is a form of controlling and redirecting funds to important initiatives. Also, limiting how much people make can seem a bit extreme. However, the corruption level would surely decline, for if one can only make up to a certain amount, it would be way harder to prove where the money came from.
Secondly, as far as it sounds good on paper, private initiative, such as big companies and corporations would be hugely affected. This control could be referred back to China’s socialist, and almost dictatorship regime. Some would argue that a democratic country could not control its population’s private earnings, let alone limit how much money they have. Additionally this could interfere with people’s way of living, as well as their drive and aspirations for a better future.
Furthermore, there are both benefits and drawbacks to both points of views. From my perspective, both ideas can coexist. The government could limit people’s salaries only if it surpasses an estimated amount, voted by the congress and approved by the population. Also, in order for someone to make more than it was permitted, they should make a formal request to the government stating the reason for making more than allowed, and also agreeing to donate part either to an institution or charity.