ielts essay on government and society

IELTS Preparation with Liz: Free IELTS Tips and Lessons, 2024

• Test Information FAQ
• Band Scores
• IELTS Candidate Success Tips
• Computer IELTS: Pros & Cons
• How to Prepare
• Useful Links & Resources
• Recommended Books
• Writing Task 1
• Writing Task 2
• Speaking Part 1 Topics
• Speaking Part 2 Topics
• Speaking Part 3 Topics
• 100 Essay Questions
• On The Day Tips
• Top Results
• Advanced IELTS

Government and Politics

IELTS essay questions for the topic of politics and the government.

Should governments make decisions about people’s lifestyle, or should people make their own decisions?

A government has a responsibility to its citizens to ensure their safety. Therefore, some people think that the government should increase spending on defense but spend less on social benefits. To what extent do you agree?

Some people think that the government is responsible for the rise in obesity in children, while others think it is the fault of the parents. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Some people think that the government should give money to creative people, such as artists and musicians. To what extent do you agree?

The government should lower the budget on the arts in order to allocate more money to education. To what extent do you agree?

Some people think that only the government can make significant changes in society, while others think that individuals can have a lot of influence. What is your opinion?

All IELTS Essay Questions

• Over 100 IELTS Essay Questions

Main IELTS Pages Develop your IELTS skills with tips, model answers, lessons, free videos and more. IELTS Listening IELTS Reading IELTS Writing Task 1 IELTS Writing Task 2 IELTS Speaking Vocabulary for IELTS IELTS Test Information (FAQ) Home Page: IELTS Liz

Advanced IELTS Lessons & E-books

Recent Lessons

50% discount advanced ielts lessons & e-books final day, answers to age group bar chart lesson, ielts bar chart of age groups 2024, 50% discount: advanced ielts lessons & e-books, ielts topic: urban planning, ielts listening transcripts: when and how to use them.

Click Below to Learn:

• IELTS Test Information

Copyright Notice

Copyright © Elizabeth Ferguson, 2014 – 2024

All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy & Disclaimer

• Click here:  Privacy Policy 
• Click here: Disclaimer

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2024 · Prose on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Reading Actual Tests

Download PDF ielts reading test

Listening Recent Tests

Download PDF ielts listening test

english-practice.net

Practice English Exercises to Improve Your Skills

english-exercises.net

Practice More English Exercises to Improve Your Skills

englishpracticetest.net

Practice More English Tests to Improve Your Skills

Cambridge Practice Test

Practice Cam Listening Test with Answer & Transcript

Listening Practice Test

Practice Listening Test with Answer & Transcript

Practice Cambridge Reading Test with Answer

Practice Reading Test

Practice Reading Test with Answer

Practice Reading Mock Test with Answer

Speaking Practice Test

Speaking Practice Test with with Band 8-9 Samples

42 Common Topics for ielts Speaking Part 1

100 TOPICS for ielts Speaking Part 2 with Band 8 Sample

70 TOPICS for ielts Speaking Part 2 with Band 8+ Sample Recordings

Vocabulary Words

Most Common Vocabulary Topics for ielts Speaking

Writing Practice Test

Writing Practice Test with Band 8-9 Samples

Writing Mock Test with Band 8-9 Samples

Writing Task 2 Topics with Band 7-8-9 Samples

General Reading Tests

Practice General Reading Test with Answer

IELTS Writing Task 2 – Topic: GOVERNMENT

ielts writing topics 2019

1.  Families who do not send their children to government-financed schools should not be required to pay taxes that support universal education. (AGREE)

Sample Answer

Families who do not send their children to government-financed school should not be  required to pay taxes that support universal education.

When families send their children to non-public (that is, parochial and private) schools,  they must pay tuition and other school expenses. Spending additional money to pay  taxes creates an even greater financial hardship for these families. They must make  sacrifices, trying to have enough money to pay for school in addition to other bills. For  example, my friend Amalia is a single mother with an eight-year-old son, Andrew.  Because they survive solely on her income, money is tight. Amalia works at least 10  hours of overtime each week to cover Andrew’s school expenses. This gives Amalia  and Andrew less time to spend together, and she is always so tired that she is impatient  with him when they do have family time. Clearly, this extra expense is an unfair burden  for hard-working parents like Amalia.

While some people may consider parochial or private school to be a luxury, for many  families it is essential because their community’s public schools fail to meet their  children’s needs. Unfortunately, due to shrinking budgets, many schools lack well qualified, experienced educators. Children may be taught by someone who is not a  certified teacher or who knows little about the subject matter. Some problems are even  more serious. For example, the public high school in my old neighborhood had serious safety problems, due to students bringing guns, drugs, and alcohol to school. After a gang-related shooting occurred at the high school, my parents felt that they had no choice but to enroll me in a parochial school  that was known for being very safe.

Unfortunately, even when families prefer public schools, sometimes they can’t send  their children to one. These families are burdened not only for paying expenses at  another school, but also by being forced to pay taxes to support a public school that  they do not use.

 (323 words)

2.  Families who do not send their children to government-financed schools should not be required to pay taxes that support universal education. (DISAGREE)

Families who do not send their children to public school should be required to pay taxes  that support public education.

Every child in my country is required to attend school and every child is welcome to  enroll at his/her local public school. Some families choose to send their children to other  schools, and it is their prerogative to do so. However, the public schools are used by the  majority of our children and must remain open for everyone. For example, my uncle  sent his two children to a private academy for primary school. Then he lost a huge  amount of money through some poor investments and he could no longer afford the  private school’s tuition. The children easily transferred to their local public school and  liked it even more than their academy. The public schools supported their family when  they had no money to educate their children.

Because the public schools educate so many citizens, everyone in my country-whether  a parent or not-should pay taxes to support our educational system. We all benefit from  the education that students receive in public school. Our future doctors, fire fighters, and  teachers people whom we rely on everyday-are educated in local public schools. When  a person is in trouble, it’s reassuring to know that those who will help you-such as fire  fighters-know what they’re doing because they received good training in school and  later. Providing an excellent education in the public school system is vital to the strength  of our community and our country.

Our government must offer the best education available, but it can only do so with the  financial assistance of all its citizens. Therefore, everyone-including families who do not  send their children to public school-should support public education by paying taxes.

 (291 words)

3.  Some people say the government should not put money into building theatres and sports stadiums; they should spend more money on medical care and education. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

What would the world be like without Shakespeare or the Olympics? While medical care  and education are perhaps the highest causes to which money can be contributed, the  arts and athletics are in some ways just as valuable. So, to ask the government to not  extend support to these two areas could be just as detrimental to the welfare of society  as the lack of sufficient health care and education.

The Romans believed in “mens sana in corpore sano”. In short, that there is indeed a  correlation between a healthy body and healthy mind. When we are healthy, we feel  better and so are more likely to be productive academically. Plus, the practice of sports  can also teach us the very same discipline we need for our studies. Why even a brisk  walk or watching an exciting athletic match can refresh the mind for greater work.  Moreover, sports can serve to create healthier bodies, which in turn would serve as a form of “preventive medicine” thereby cutting down on medical costs. In the same vein,  the arts are known to induce a sense of well-being in performers and audience alike,  reducing mental problems and their associated physical manifestations and again,  medical costs. As such, building theatres and stadiums, which spur interest in the arts  and sports respectively, actually would be practically identical to spending money on  medical care and education!

Now I realize the question specifically addresses the building of theatres and sports  stadiums by government. Some people would contend athletics and the arts can still be  enjoyed and practiced without such constructions. I would hazard that these buildings  stand as the altars to the sports and arts worlds, inspiring would-be athletes and  performers. Without such venues where would sports spectators and music aficionados  be able to enjoy these events? Now some other people would also say business could  support their construction, but we know the avarice of business could very likely  jeopardize the lofty spirit of athletics and the arts just as well. Therefore, allowing  government to retain some say in the matter on behalf of the people would, I believe, be  in the best interest of the people.

In short, as long as the government does no go overboard in its expenditures for these  buildings and uses such venues for the benefit of all, then, as mentioned above, people  will benefit in terms of both medical care and education as well. This is not to say the  government should neglect medical care and education, but rather to think of this not as  an either-or choice but as a win-win situation for all.

 (434 words)

4.  The costs of medical health care are increasing all the time. Governments are finding it difficult to balance the health care budget. Should citizens be totally responsible for their own health costs and take out private health insurance, or is it better to have a comprehensive health care system which provides free health services for all? Discuss.

A much debated issue these days is whether citizens should take out private health  insurance or not. The cost of providing free medical care for both the wealthy and the  poor is far too great for any government, and most people agree that if you can pay for  insurance, you should. In this essay, I will argue that all who can afford it should be  insured, but free medical care must be made available for those too poor to do so.

The most important reason for encouraging people to take out private health insurance  is the cost to the government of health care. Free health cover for people who are able  to pay for it is a waste of public money. Of course, people will only pay health insurance  premiums if they know that they are getting good value for their money. If they get sick,  they should pay very little or nothing at all. In addition, the privately insured are entitled to special benefits such as having the choice of their own doctors, and being able to  avoid long waiting lists for hospital beds.

On the other hand, those who really cannot afford to pay private insurance premiums,  which are often very high, are still entitled as citizens to the best medical care available  – they cannot be expected to pay their own medical bills. However, if they are working,  they should still pay a percentage of their wage (say 1 to 2%) as a tax which pays  towards the cost of providing “free” medical services.

In conclusion, most people should privately insure their health, but it is unreasonable to  suppose that all citizens can afford it. Therefore, a safety net in the form of a basic free  health care system must exist for the very poor and the unemployed.

 (300 words)

5.  All education, primary, secondary and further education, should be free to all people and paid for by the government. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Different countries have different education systems. I don‛t know all the education  systems in the world but all the ones I do know about have free school education at  primary and secondary level. I certainly agree with the statement that this should be the  case. I believe university education is different.

No matter what standard of income someone has or what society someone comes from,  everyone should have the opportunity to have a good standard of education. This is not  always what happens but it is what should happen. Private schools can be available for  those who want and can afford it but the free schools should always be there. This is  certainly one of the best attributes of western democracy and all countries it seems  strive to attain situation although some have problems due to the economic and political  situations in their countries. Governments should make sure that all their citizens have  access to a good standard of free education at primary and secondary level.

Further education is different. In an ideal world this should be free but governments  have a lot of demands on their money. I think that students should have to pay, maybe  not all, but at least a contribution towards their tuition fees. They will be able to earn it  back once they have graduated. The UK has this system whereas in the US students  have to pay all their high tuition fees which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars  over a full course. I am not sure if I agree with this but it certainly would make sure that  students make the best of efforts to pass or all their money would be wasted.

Therefore I conclude that primary and secondary education should be freely available  for all if possible but that further education should not necessarily be wholly free.

 (309 words)

6.  Most writers of fiction do not earn enough money to live from their writing. Do you think the government should give them financial assistance to help encourage good literature?

There are some conditions under which a novelist could reasonably expect some  government support. In general terms, if the writer has already proved that he or she can write well, and if the stories produced are stimulating and interesting, then I consider that some financial help might be given.

Language quality is difficult to define, but if the writing shows, for example, good  grammar, a wide vocabulary, and elegance and imagination, then I can see a valid  reason for assisting an author to spend some time free from money problems. Such a  writing needs to be encouraged. the entertainment value of a book would be also a  factor in deciding whether to provide assistance to an author. Further consideration  would include social and educational values expressed in the author’s work.

However, if the ideas were socially irresponsible, or if the stories contain unnecessary  violence or pornography for its own sake, then I would not want to see the author  sponsored to write stories which do not benefit society. Other exceptions are the many  writers of good books who do not require financial help. Books which proved to be  extremely popular, such as the Harry Potter stories, clearly need no subsidy at all  because the authors have become rich through their writing.

Views on what good quality writing means will vary widely, and so if any author is to be  given money for writing, then the decision would have to be made by a committee or  panel of judge. An individual opinion would certainly cause disagreement among the  reading public.

 (259 words)

7.  The costs of medical health care are increasing all the time. Governments are finding it difficult to balance the health care budget. Should citizens be totally responsible for their own health costs and take out private health insurance, or is it better to have a comprehensive health care system which provides free health services for all? Discuss.

A much debated issue these days is whether citizens should take out private health  insurance or not. The cost of providing free medical care for both the wealthy and the  poor is far too great for any government, and most people agree that if you can pay for insurance, you should. In this essay, I will argue that all who can afford it should be  insured, but free medical care must be made available for those too poor to do so.

The most important reason for encouraging people to take out private health insurance  is the cost to the government of health care. Free health cover for people who are able  to pay for it is a waste of public money. Of course, people will only pay health insurance  premiums if they know that they are getting good value for their money. If they get sick,  they should pay very little or nothing at all. In addition, the privately insured are entitled  to special benefits such as having the choice of their own doctors, and being able to  avoid long waiting lists for hospital beds.

8.  Should governments spend money on art, when they have so many other important issues and concerns?

Sample Answer 1

Many people’s lives are richer because of art – music, paintings, calligraphy, pictures,  sculpture, poems and dance. However , some people feel that governments should be  spending money on housing, medical care, or defence, instead of on art. This essay  will discuss whether governments should or should not spend money on the arts.

There are several reasons why governments should not finance artists. First of all ,  artists should have to follow the same rules as the rest of the market. If there is a  demand for their music or sculpture, then they will be rich. Secondly , politicians  generally do not have good taste. They will waste public money on popular art or on  their own preferences. But the main reason why governments should minimize  spending on the art world is that there are more important areas like housing, roads,  hospitals, and factories which need the money first.

However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any money at  all on art. Everybody needs some beauty in their life, but not everyone can afford a  Picasso or a piece of music. Governments should provide money for museums or  concert halls for everyone. Another point is that art allows people to express  themselves and this is good for society, culture and thought. Thirdly , artists can be  good for the economy by producing music, films, and attracting tourists.

All in all , governments should prioritize their spending carefully, but they should also  allocate some of their budget for art. It is part of their duty to society and to future  generations.

 (260 words)

Sample Answer 2

Throughout the ages, man has tried to create beauty through painting, music, sculpture  and other artistic expression. It seems to be a basic need of humans to surround  themselves with art. However some people feel that government money spent on art is  wasted, particularly when there are so many other demands on it. This essay will  examine the conflict between those who say art is important and those who feel it is a waste of money.

It can be wrong for governments to spend large sums of money on art. Too often,  governments spend unwisely. They spend money on art not because a picture is good  or a museum is needed, but for political reasons. Cities end up with huge statues or  empty expensive buildings that are used only by a few people or the elite. Another point  is that the artworks are often chosen to represent social or political rather than artistic ideas. The city gets yet another statue of the leader or an ugly monument to national  aspirations. A third point is that governments often respond to fashions, and tastes in art  can change very rapidly. Without careful advice an expensive collection of worthless  paintings or tasteless productions can be the result.

However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any money at all  on art. Painters, musicians, and composers cannot survive without financial support.  Rich people or large companies do finance art, but then it is often inaccessible to  ordinary people. Governments have a duty to make this art available to everyone.  However, the most important reason why governments should support the arts is  because an appreciation of art is one of the things that makes life worthwhile. Humans  do not need just shelter and food. Creative people have always tried to look at things in  a new way and to make the world a better place through painting, music, poetry,  calligraphy, sculpture, dance, and numerous other forms of expression. While art may  not make us immortal, it does make the world a richer place for future generations.

In conclusion, although people do need to be provided with the necessities of life, such  as housing and medical care, governments also have a duty to provide their citizens  with something more. They should make sure that they pass on beauty, ideas and  expression to the next generation and make art available to all instead of being the  possession of only the few. I firmly believe that spending money on art is a vital part of a  government’s responsibility, and I am confident that my country will be able to contribute  its share to the richness of the world’s art and creativity.

 (447 words)

9.  In the fight against crime, police forces and governments are increasingly using security cameras in public places. Some people are opposed to this, saying that it invades our privacy. What do you think?

Security cameras have become ubiquitous in many countries. Whereas before they  appeared only in banks and at high-security areas, they are now entering public places  such as malls, streets, stadiums and transport. Many people feel this affects their  privacy. This essay will examine whether the advantages of these cameras outweigh  their negative impact.

Surveillance cameras have several benefits. An obvious benefit is that the police can  catch criminals in the act, thus reducing crime. This will make the streets safer for  ordinary people. A more important point is that criminals, particularly young offenders or  petty criminals will be deterred. They will not be tempted to carry out crimes, and thus  society will be a lot safer. Cameras are also cost-effective and unobtrusive. Authorities  do not need to spend large amounts of money on police.

However, security cameras are far from being a perfect solution. The biggest objection  concerns privacy. Many people feel that they should be free to travel or move around a  shop, mall, street or country without being photographed or recorded. They feel that  being watched constantly is like being in a jail, and that ordinary people are losing their  freedom because of these devices. Another point is that although the police say that only criminals have something to fear from the cameras, many people do not trust  governments with too much information. Corrupt authorities could use information in the  wrong way or twist it to victimize some groups. Thirdly, cameras and computers can  make mistakes.

In conclusion, although there are definite advantages to using surveillance devices such  as cameras, we need to balance the need for security with respect for the individual’s  privacy and freedom. If we do not trust the members of society, a situation like George  Orwell’s “1984” could be the result.

 (297 words)

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Download ebooks