IELTS Essay # 29 - How many children a family can have should be strictly controlled
- Last Updated: Thursday, 19 May 2022 21:41
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 91454
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should spend no more than 40 minutes on this task.
As part of a class assignment, you have to write about the following topic.
Some governments say how many children a family can have in their country should be strictly controlled. They may control the number of children someone has through taxes.
It is sometimes necessary and right for a government to control the population in this way.
Do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer.
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1: (Disagreement)
Over population is a great concern for many under-developed countries and the government takes many steps to control the uncontrolled increase of population. In many countries, government impose rules to restrict the number of children a family can have and also restricts many facilities in case a family has too many children. But imposing a tax to restrict the number of children in a family is not a feasible solution. In my opinion, other ways of controlling the population in a country should be considered rather than imposing the tax.
First of all, the population is the main problem in most of the third world countries whereas the developed countries mostly have control over that issue. In countries like china, the population is not a burden rather they have been able to use the large population as the main workforce for the steady improvement of the country. Overpopulation in an under-developed country directly related to poverty, illiteracy, unhygienic lifestyle and crime. So controlling the population in these countries is a must and imposing a tax on the poor people would not be a good idea. The trends show that educated upper class and middle class do not take more than two children in these countries where the poor people seems like have no control on that. If the government imposes the tax on those poor people, their life would become more miserable.
I completely agree that each government should maintain some policies and should impose strict rules to control the population a country has but increasing awareness and implementing other policies than tax imposing would be better solutions.
In conclusion, I completely agree that the government of a country should take any initiative to control the over population growth but tax imposing to poor people is the least effective solution since there are many alternatives.
Model Answer 2: (Agreement)
The population is one of the biggest problems for some of the countries today. The population distribution is every uneven across different countries and while some countries have very less population, some other countries suffer from a large number of population. There are certain countries like India and China which are two highly populated area where as countries like Ireland, Russia and Switzerland are thinly populated. So I agree that the countries that are suffering from the huge population should take steps like imposing a tax on the number of children a family has.
There are various problems that appear due to the huge population, like poverty, unemployment, crime and illiteracy. Every country has limited resources and if the population rises beyond permissible limit, it results in rapid exhaustion of these resources. Therefore, I agree, sometimes it is necessary for a government to take harsh action to control population. And one of these harsh actions can be limiting the available facility to the persons who have more than an approved number of children and to impose a large amount of taxation due to the large number of children s/he has.
India and China are the world’s most populated countries. During the '70s, the population of both countries’ population was growing at rapid rate and in order to curb its population, china imposed 1-child policy and strictly implemented it. As a result, we can see their population growth rate has reduced drastically to 0.6 % per annum, whereas though India promoted 2-children policy but didn’t enforce any policy. It tried educating people about benefits of small families, give benefits to small families.
Though, there growth rate decreased but wasn’t significant as china. India’s growth rate is still hovering around 1.2% per annum and it is believed that they will surpass China’s population in next decade or so. Problems associated with population are quite evident in India. Healthcare system is abysmal; unemployment, illiteracy, and poverty are rampant.
On the contrarily, certain European countries have less population and encourage to have more children. Citizens in certain countries are also given extra grants if they have more than two children. The average age of Japan is over 70 years and Japanese government encourages people to have more children in order to have more young population. So countries who have a decent population and are forecasting to decrease the population in the coming ages, should not adopt this taxation strategy.
To conclude, I think it is of utmost importance that country’s population is proportional to its resources and total area and to strike that perfect balance, sometimes it is mandatory for the government to intervene and impose rules to control the population like taxing the individuals who contribute to increasing the population even more.
[by - Preeti Ghuraiya]
Model Answer 3: (Agreement)
Nowadays high population and population control have become two big critical issues all over the world. Some people of today’s society are of the opinion that it is the government’s sole concern how they will control the population of these countries while others oppose the idea but my inclination is toward the former.
On one hand, it is argued that it is family's responsibility to decide the number of children they will have. The most vital argument for the reason which can initially be mentioned is that it is the interference of human rights if a government decides the number of family member. It seems human basic right how they build and raise their family. For example, financially solvent people can raise a big family and they might want to have more children. Moreover, now people live in the global village and scatter the skilled manpower throughout the other countries and it’s the prominent solution of overpopulation of any selected area. To clarify this matter, Japan is facing the problem of negative population and Bangladesh is overcrowded. If Bangladeshi skilled people move to Japan to help them in different jobs and development, it would be a really good solution for both countries.
On the other hand, there is a quite plausible reason why it is essential for the government to take various steps to control population. What can be cited first regarding this is overpopulation is the main problem for developing and under-developed countries. It’s their prime concern to lower birth rate. For instance, some incentives for one child and imposing taxes for more than two children are the best ways to ensures lower birth rate. A further point is that we are exploited our resources very badly. In the future, there will be no natural resources for coming generations. So in order to make wise utilisation of our gas, oil and minerals, we need to control the population. Last but not least it is difficult to maintain big family and ensure proper education for them.
In a nutshell taking all the aforementioned pros and cons into account, I personally opine that government should control the population of the country for the betterment of the human civilisation.
[by - Monowara]
Model Answer 4: (Disagreement)
It is undeniable that the population size of the human is expanding with a significant speed. Thus, the country's birth control policy has become a major concern for many governments in the world. But should such policies control the number of offspring one family can have through taxes? In my opinion, that solution could be replaced with many more efficient methods.
Some people believe that taxes can lower the fertility rate in countries since it involves directly to one family’s financial state. This belief has some merits on the surface. However, with families which have low income, especially the ones below the poverty line, there is an extremely low possibility that they can manage to pay extra taxes for having many children. Therefore, tax evasion may occur, which leads to another unexpected problem the governments to deal with.
Although birth control policies are inevitable, there are more reasonable methods that governments can apply rather than raising the tax. For instance, sex education may be taught at elementary schools. Since elementary educating universalisation is becoming a trend, children would have a better perception about sex protection and unwanted pregnancy, thus reducing the birth rate. Another solution is to propagandise for citizens the benefits of having few children, such as more education and healthcare that a sole child would receive, or less financial pressure having only one to two children.
To sum up, I totally disagree with the idea of putting more taxes only to reduce the country's birthrate. Instead, more non-financial policies should be taken place to convince couples to the root, making them have fewer children with no objection but to their heart's content.
[by - Hung Vuong]
Model Answer 5: (Agreement)
Since overpopulation is often an unbearable burden to the national economy and development of a country, it is certainly very understandable that some governments should start looking at ways of limiting their populations to a sustainable figure. So I agree that some governments should take a one or two-children policy to curb the population growth problem, but that should be done in a way so that people do not feel that their freedom has been taken away.
In the past, populations were partly regulated by frequent war and widespread disease, but in recent years, the effects of those factors have been diminished. Countries can be faced with a population that is growing much faster than the nation's food resources or employment opportunities, and whose members can be condemned to poverty by the need to feed extra mouths. They identify population control as a means to improve living standards.
But the government should target to achieve it in gradual steps and not make citizens angry in the process. Clearly, this whole area is a very delicate personal and cultural issue. Many people feel that this is not a matter for the state to decide. For that reason, it would seem that the best approach would be to work by persuasion rather than compulsion. This could be done by a process of education, awareness campaigns and advertisements that point out the way a smaller family can mean an improved quality of life for the family members, as well as less strain on the country's perhaps very limited resources.
This is the preferred way, but, if this does not succeed within a reasonable time scale, it may be necessary to consider other measures, such as tax incentives or child-benefit payments for small families only. These are midway between persuasion and compulsion but would be effective, in my opinion.
It is sometimes logical, even necessary that governments should try very hard to persuade and educate people first to restrict the population growth. They should also remember that this is a very delicate area indeed, and should try to impose things gradually and never drastically.