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.

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 example

, 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.