2. 外语
  3. What if the government simply paid everyone enough so that no one was poor? That’s the so called "universal basic income" or UBI

What if the government simply paid everyone enough so that no one was poor? That’s the so called "universal basic income" or UBI

admin2021-08-06  37
问题         What if the government simply paid everyone enough so that no one was poor? That’s the so called "universal basic income" or UBI. It’s an insane idea that’s gaining an unlikely alliance of supporters. The follow excerpt provides details of this idea.
        Write an article of NO LESS THAN 300 words, in which you should:
        1. summarize the basic idea of UBI and its justification, and then
        2. express your opinion towards it, especially whether it is practical in the near future.
                                                                A Universal Basic Income Is the Solution to Poverty
        There’s a simple way to end poverty: the government just gives everyone enough money, so nobody is poor. No ifs, buts, conditions, or tests. Everyone gets the minimum they need to survive, even if they already have plenty.
        This, in essence, is "universal basic income " or "guaranteed basic income"—where, instead of multiple income assistance programs, we have just one: a single payment to all citizens, regardless of background, gender, or race. It’s a policy idea that sounds crazy at first, but actually begins to make sense when you consider some recent trends.
        The first is that work isn’t what it used to be. Many people now struggle through a 50-hour week and still don’t have enough to live on. There are many reasons for this—including the heartlessness of employers and the weakness of unions—but it’s a fact. Work no longer pays. The wages of most American workers have stagnated or declined since the 1970s.
        The second: it’s likely to get worse. Robots already do many menial tasks. In the future, they’ll do more sophisticated jobs as well. A study from Oxford University found that 47% of jobs are at risk of computerization over the next two decades. We’re approaching an era when there will simply be less to do.
        The third is that traditional welfare is both not what it used to be and not very efficient. The value of welfare for families with children is now well below what it was in the 1990s, for example.
        For these reasons and others, the idea of a basic income for everyone is becoming increasingly popular. The exact details of basic income still need to be worked out, but it might work something like this: Instead of welfare payments, subsidies for health care, and tax credits for the working poor, we would take that money and use it to cover a single payment that would give someone the chance to live reasonably.
        A pilot in the 1970s in Manitoba, Canada, showed that a "Mincome" not only ended poverty but also reduced hospital visits and raised high-school completion rates. There seemed to be a community-affirming effect, which showed itself in people making use of free public services more responsibly.
        Meanwhile, there were eight "negative income tax" trials in the U.S. in the ’70s, where people received payments and the government clawed back most of it in taxes based on your other income. The results for those trials were more mixed. They reduced poverty, but people also worked slightly less than normal. To some, this is the major drawback of basic income: it could make people lazier than they would otherwise be. That would certainly be a problem, though it’s questionable whether, in the future, there will be as much employment anyway. The age of robots and artificial intelligence seems likely to hollow out many jobs, perhaps changing how we view notions of laziness and productivity altogether.
选项
答案 Universal Basic Income Is Unrealistic As our society further progresses in creating wealth, the issue of poverty becomes more prominent and the elimination of it is more urgent. In order to end poverty, the idea of universal basic income is put forward which proposes that everyone gets the minimum they need to live regardless of what he or she already has, with considerations of the decline of salary, the computerization of work and the inefficiency of traditional welfare system. Despite the fact that policy derived from this idea has achieved quite promising results in pilot towns in Canada and America, I still believe that universal basic income is unrealistic. It is bound to fail if universally applied. First and obviously, the idea of universal basic income breaks the conventional balance between work and pay. If people reap without sowing, then there would be such individuals who would rather stroll around than work or do anything substantial for the good of society. The reason is as plain as day. Working or not, all people can anyway receive the minimal income sufficient to support their living. As a result, laziness will spread like virus among people who see through the "benefit" of not working. Another argument in favor of my view is that once idleness is regarded as a comfortable way of living, then the production of the whole society will without doubt slow down. I do not deny the computerization of much work, yet neither do I deny that robots and computers have to be controlled and operated by men. Therefore, laziness among the general public will, in one way or another, decrease the overall productivity of the world. And we should bear in mind that without sustainable sources of income it is a mission impossible to guarantee universal basic income to everyone. In a word, I contend that it is unrealistic to enforce universal basic income since it violates the rule of gaining pay through work. In fact, the implementation of universal basic income, instead of eradicating poverty, may put more people at the risk of it.
解析         材料探讨了“无条件基本收入”这一话题，大致可分为两部分内容，包括提出这一想法的原因和它在试点产生的结果。
        前六段中，作者陈述无条件基本收入政策得到支持的三方面的理由。一是现在工资太低不足以维持生活（Work no longer pays.）；二是大部分工作很可能会变成计算机化（at risk of computerization），结果是可做的工作越来越少；三是传统的福利政策也大不如前。因此，无条件基本收入政策有其合理性和必要性。
        最后两段则以加拿大和美国为例，介绍该政策试行后的结果。加拿大的一个试点（pilot）说明无条件基本收入不仅能消除贫困（ended poverty），而且能减少就医人数和提高高中结业率（high-school completion rates）。而美国的例子则体现了让人喜忧参半（more mixed）的结果：一方面减少了贫穷（reduced poverty），但另一方面人们却更懒了（make people lazier）。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/HikMFFFM
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)