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 these views and give your own opinion.

Which can make a society ideal,allowing some

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

individuals to congregate wealth, while the majority are incapable to do

such

a thing, or prohibiting them by various rules.Whereas the

first

idea appeals to me more than the

second

,both views are uttered here. One of the most highlighted radices for banning the rich people from becoming the pioneers in

this

realm has to do with the uncontrollable power that their money bestow to them due to the fact that nowadays money talks,

in other words

, the opportunity for not observing the rules would be prepared for them as most of the individuals are unable to reject a lucrative source of cash.

Furthermore

,

this

issue has the potential to contribute to distancing the social levels, which in its term not only cause citizens to lose their trust toward the government(owing to the mindset of unfair wealth-sharing) but

also

terminate into losing the self-confidence of others.

On the other hand

, leaving the rich city-dwellers as free as a bird is considered as an encouraging step for absorbing the investments,which is the main infrastructure of all the societies around the globe,

hence

the unemployment rate that in some countries used to soared would plummet drastically by the job vacancies that would be provided.

Similarly

, based on the greedy capability of wealth more and more contributors emerge in the realm of trading that if

flourish

Wrong verb form

flourishing

show examples

, can become a resource for taxation. To conclude,providing the theme for flourishing the investments, most of the obstacles would be tackled as the main role of

this

era is played be money, which would be vanished from the countries by limiting the wealthy people.