EXEMPLAR ESSAY: “Evaluate the role of the government in reducing social inequality” (16)
Social inequality, referring to the unequal distribution of opportunities, resources, wealth and education
within society, is a prevalent issue globally and also regionally within the UK. It is without doubt that the
government plays a significant role in reducing social inequality and the measures put in place are mostly
successful.
The role of the government in reducing social inequality has undoubtedly been successful through the
implementation of a tax system, which focuses on the re-distribution of wealth on a national scale, from
the most prosperous to the least prosperous. In 2022 to 2023, HMRC collected £788 billion in taxes, with
56% of the population paying income tax. This has been a hugely effective strategy as it funds emergency
services, schools and the NHS, which is vital for all of society. Additionally, the progressive tax system
where people earning more than £50,270 pay 40% tax, helps to distribute the wealth and create a fairer
society with less of an income gap. Moreover, 0% tax on food ensures that the less fortunate can still
afford the basic necessities. Therefore, the government’s role in reducing social inequality has been
mostly successful through the implementation of tax due to the red distribution of wealth.
On the other hand, the government’s role in reducing social inequality has been less successful through
the provision of subsidies. Subsidies have a successful impact individually for those who require them the
most such as free school meals and a free bus pass for pensioners. This helps to reduce social inequality
by lifting some of the socio economic pressures providing short term humanitarian relief. However, they
have been largely unsuccessful on a national scale as places like Jaywick which has been the most
deprived in the UK for over a decade become reliant on benefits. This results in greater unemployment as
people on benefits have less incentive to work. Moreover, subsidies are funded through taxes highlighting
how they are less successful than taxes.
Conversely, the government’s role in reducing social inequality has been mostly successful on a national
scale through that instruction of laws targeting equality. The equality act of 2010 legally protects people
from discrimination in the workplace and why does society due to factors such as race, gender and age.
This ensures people across society have equal opportunities which in turn helps reduce social equality.
Additionally, the poorest groups and society are protected by the minimum wage legislation which
ensures the entire population has enough money for basic needs like food, water, and shelter. However,
the law enforced by governments have not always been successful on a global scale as after the group
areas act was removed in South Africa, the government did little to reduce the remaining effects of racial
inequality which still permeate the city of Cape Town today. Therefore, whilst laws can be successful,
they are not as significant at reducing social inequality as taxes.
To conclude, the government plays a significant role in reducing social inequality and the multiple
strategies have varying levels of effectiveness. I believe that the most successful strategy is the
progressive tax system due to its focus on distributing the wealth on a national scale.
Social inequality, referring to the unequal distribution of opportunities, resources, wealth and education
within society, is a prevalent issue globally and also regionally within the UK. It is without doubt that the
government plays a significant role in reducing social inequality and the measures put in place are mostly
successful.
The role of the government in reducing social inequality has undoubtedly been successful through the
implementation of a tax system, which focuses on the re-distribution of wealth on a national scale, from
the most prosperous to the least prosperous. In 2022 to 2023, HMRC collected £788 billion in taxes, with
56% of the population paying income tax. This has been a hugely effective strategy as it funds emergency
services, schools and the NHS, which is vital for all of society. Additionally, the progressive tax system
where people earning more than £50,270 pay 40% tax, helps to distribute the wealth and create a fairer
society with less of an income gap. Moreover, 0% tax on food ensures that the less fortunate can still
afford the basic necessities. Therefore, the government’s role in reducing social inequality has been
mostly successful through the implementation of tax due to the red distribution of wealth.
On the other hand, the government’s role in reducing social inequality has been less successful through
the provision of subsidies. Subsidies have a successful impact individually for those who require them the
most such as free school meals and a free bus pass for pensioners. This helps to reduce social inequality
by lifting some of the socio economic pressures providing short term humanitarian relief. However, they
have been largely unsuccessful on a national scale as places like Jaywick which has been the most
deprived in the UK for over a decade become reliant on benefits. This results in greater unemployment as
people on benefits have less incentive to work. Moreover, subsidies are funded through taxes highlighting
how they are less successful than taxes.
Conversely, the government’s role in reducing social inequality has been mostly successful on a national
scale through that instruction of laws targeting equality. The equality act of 2010 legally protects people
from discrimination in the workplace and why does society due to factors such as race, gender and age.
This ensures people across society have equal opportunities which in turn helps reduce social equality.
Additionally, the poorest groups and society are protected by the minimum wage legislation which
ensures the entire population has enough money for basic needs like food, water, and shelter. However,
the law enforced by governments have not always been successful on a global scale as after the group
areas act was removed in South Africa, the government did little to reduce the remaining effects of racial
inequality which still permeate the city of Cape Town today. Therefore, whilst laws can be successful,
they are not as significant at reducing social inequality as taxes.
To conclude, the government plays a significant role in reducing social inequality and the multiple
strategies have varying levels of effectiveness. I believe that the most successful strategy is the
progressive tax system due to its focus on distributing the wealth on a national scale.
