Band 5+: Providing a national system in a country where the unemployed receive a regular payment only encourages people not to seek work and puts an unreasonable strain on a country's financial resources. Discuss this statement and give your opinion.

It is true that many people in developed countries criticise their national regimen because it facilitates those who are lazy. I agree with this to some extent, but I do not think it is the case that everyone likes to take advantage of the country’s welfare.

I do believe that many citizens are relying on workless pay for a living. Rather than working to make ends meet, they are lazy and hesitate to deal with stress and tiredness when working. There are a lot of conflicts and responsibilities at work, and labour job requires vigour, and sometimes causes work fatigue. Redundancy pay, on the other hand, often is enough for citizens to survive as they can buy necessities such as food, drinks and clothes, and they, therefore, do not have the motivation to work. In this case, the fund that is allocated for them is absolutely a waste of national resources.

However, there are many others who are diligent, and laborious, and pay taxes based on their earnings. I am pretty sure that the majority of people live with purpose, love working, and see labour as the way to maintain their lives.

Furthermore, unemployment benefits can only help receivers live at a minimum level, and cannot bring them a comfortable and affluent life as they desire. Also, it is risky to depend on national subsidy which is uncertain and subject to cuts. For instance, I have never received an out-of-job grant since I graduated from high school as I have tried to keep working, and I feel proud of myself when spending my own money.

In conclusion, while I accept that a lot of society members do not attempt to find jobs due to national support, more percentages of people are working and contributing to the development of the country.