The Importance of Social Welfare Programmes IELTS Writing Task 2

Without a certainty, local governments must invest a sizable sum of money in making sure that people are generally safeguarded. The military organizations should allocate qualified military personnel to their positions. As this will create a stress-free environment for the local residents. Scientists should work with the country's defense industry to ensure that civilians are protected against lethal machinery. particularly in light of advancements in nuclear technology. There are, however, other ways to give the general public similar defensive benefits. Such is mandating that each citizen obtain customized self-defense training. With this, they can protect themselves from any outside assault.

Public employees should make an effort to provide for the basic needs of the underprivileged. This will help the government's whole economy. Thus, more funding can be given to other facilities. Additionally, government workers should work to improve the health of the general public. People's health in general should be prioritized, free vaccines should be made available, and the government should help the management of chronic diseases. A healthy generation promotes a healthy nation since a good mind and body go hand in hand, and they are all more optimistic as a result.

Additionally, more higher education institutions must be built in order to offer everyone a free or affordable education. Reading ability increases a person's awareness of their safety. They'll do it to protect themselves. In conclusion, senior officials should invest more funds in regional advantages instead of defense. Since additional issues will strengthen the economy as a whole, the benefits of protection will be increased.

The desire of people to have a very powerful military presence in their regions is one of the key reasons why so many people are calling for increased funding. Since other nations would respect a state with a stronger military, they may even become a regional leader. It is undoubtedly very advantageous for their country. Another factor is the terrorism issue, which is a problem that many nations are currently dealing with. Terrorist attacks are even occurring in major cities. As a result, some claim that beefing up police presence will put terrorist organisations in danger. And it will even increase the likelihood that terrorists will be apprehended before they can carry out attacks. If the government increases its military defence budget, it will naturally reduce spending on social services that can affect people's prosperity. Especially on health. Considering that everyone has a constitutional right to access both necessary medicines and health treatment. Poor and middle-class people will struggle to access quality healthcare if the government does not allocate sufficient money in this area. If medical costs are cut, the cost of life-saving procedures and treatments will be so high as to impoverish many people. It will also have an impact on people who require aid. If the government denies unemployment benefits, it may cause broader issues including homelessness, theft, and an increase in crime. People who require support are less likely to pose a threat to other communities if they receive it, such as through work centres and financial aid. In conclusion, I disagree that cutting back on social benefits for the general public is necessary for national security. State security is crucial, but that does not preclude compromising social advantages for the well-being of the populace. Therefore, the government must balance spending on social benefits and safety.

I assume that the fluctuating behaviour of states makes the aforementioned idea obsolete. Moreover, compared to military plans, programmes to ensure the prosperity of the people will have more beneficial, long-lasting effects. First, I firmly believe that using the funds to support social projects will have an equivalent and long-lasting benefit. For instance, by giving social security priority, it enables the poor to receive cheap healthcare, education, and other necessities. In other words, social investment will increase citizen output and capacity. And if resident quality and fertility increase, it will undoubtedly increase state income over the long term. To summarise, the good effects of social expenditure will become more sustainable and equitable as compared to funding defence activities. Because they will benefit the entire society. Other than that, I firmly feel that it is pointless to spend a lot of money on the military at this time. I also think that "Military Keynesianism" is no longer relevant given the current scenario, despite the fact that the idea was quite well-liked in the 1900s. The war was previously common but is now rare. Several multilateral accords aimed to protect peace and that carefully govern the conduct of armed conflict, serve as evidence that the strategy is irrelevant. As a result, investing a lot of money in an army is meaningless in the context of today's world. It can be concluded that it is preferable to fund social initiatives that might raise a country's production and accelerate the development of the state. To summarise, things have changed. In the contemporary day, conflict is less likely to occur. Therefore, the government should not spend a lot of money on the defence industry. Social security programmes should be given top priority by the government as they will eventually lead to citizens being more productive if their needs are met.