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.

Social concerns about the impact on the nation by disproportionate distribution of income have been widely discussed. One party believes the merits are profound

while

others disagree.

However

,

this

essay is to illustrate both sides distinctively and weigh their pros and cons respectively. On the one hand,

government

interventions can make a better allocation of money to where it is needed the most.

For instance

, people with higher levels of income tend to place their interests as the priority.

Such

profit-aimed motivation often fails to fulfil social needs by withholding funding for healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Instead

, vast money is likely put into investment in real estate, land, and manufacturing machines.

In contrast

,

government

intervention by cutting the salaries of the upper class would lead to a much more effective and positive resource allocation through poll and database collections.

On the other hand

,

government

interference by raising taxes and setting salary ceilings could discourage the economy by depressing investors and startups.

For instance

, a cut in the income of a minority of successful individuals would be disappointing to youngsters who are willing to establish a business or startup.

Moreover

, a reduction in salaries would hurt members of the upper class who had made enormous contributions to the country, which is attributed to a lower inclination towards investments,

further

leading to economic recession. In conclusion, despite the disadvantages that the economy might bring by third-party interference, a comfortable social security guaranteed by

government

policy to a better allocation of money should be put in absolute priority.