Hi everyone, I'm about to take the ielts. So could you please give me some review? Thanks.
Families who do not send their children to government-financed schools should not be required o pay taxes that support universal education.
In general, an average person has to pay a large portion of his income in many kinds of taxes. The question that whether or not families who do not send their children to public- financed schools are obligated to pay taxes that support universal education is a controversial one. Whereas many people believe that such families have right to do not pay taxes that don't benefits themselves, many people disagree. From my perspective, each side has its advantages and this issue is needed to be scrutinized more carefully.
On one hand, people who argue that we should not pay taxes that do not benefit ourselves think that it is unfair to give money to the government to spend on something that doesn't affect us at all. The most obvious example of this argument is that government spending on corporate securities. While every citizen must extract a fraction of his payroll to support the national budget, not every one of us benefits from such government investment. Profits from those expenditures run into state companies, which are executed by government officials. These situations are especially prominent in many typical central planning economies such as China or Vietnam.
On the other hand, it is undeniable that much government spending does lucrative impact on our society and the economy. Expenditure on such aspect as national defense, transfer payment or public education benefits us all. Let consider an example, suppose that government is considering building a dam to prevent cyclical floods in one riverside area. If everyone in the area argues that he does not need this dam and refuses to pay the contribution, the dam cannot be completed. The following consequences are much more damaging if flood comes than paying just a little amount of money.
In summary, I think that families should pay the taxes that support education even though they don't send their children to public schools. Universal education helps to alleviate illiteracy, enhances further education and research, which is profitable to everyone. Imagine that if temporary students from poor families have their chances to study, they can play crucial roles in helping our country better. Without contribution from the whole society, government cannot build those schools and therefore will waste tremendous human resources.
__________________
Here are a few more ideas...
The question that about whether or not families who do not send their children to public schools should be are obligated to pay taxes that support universal education is a controversial one. Whereas many people believe that such families have right to do not should not be required to pay taxes that don't benefit themselves, many people disagree. From my perspective, each side has its advantages and this issue is needed to be scrutinized more carefully.
I crossed out a sentence above, but I did not cross it out because of bad grammar. That sentence has good grammar. I crossed it out because you did not take a side. I think it is important to choose a side at the end of the first paragraph.
On the other hand, it is undeniable that much government spending does lucrative positively impact our society and the economy.
Expenditure on such aspect efforts as ...
In summary, I think that families should pay the taxes that support education even though they don't send their children to public schools. Universal education helps to alleviate illiteracy and enhances ...
:-) Great argument! I agree...
