Globalization is a declarationof war upon all other cultures. And in culture wars, there is no exemption of civilians, there are no innocent bystanders. Why should it be expected that ancient and rooted civilizations are going to accept this peripheralisationwithout a struggle? The answer to that is that globalization carries an implicit promise that it will relieve poverty and offer security—perhaps the most ancient of human dreams. Because of the power of global capitalism to create wealth, it is assumed that this priority must sweep aside all other human preoccupations, including all existing institutions, interpretations and searches for meaning in the world.
It is disingenuous to assume that economy, society and culture operate in separate spheres. This suggests that, one, exposed to the globalizing imperative, no aspect of social life, customary practice, traditionalbehaviour will remain the same.
There have been, broadly, two principal responses in the world, which we may call the fatalistic and the resistant. It is significant that among the most fatalistic have been the leaders of G-7, Ex-President Clinton said globalization is a fact not a policy choice Tony Blair said it is inevitable and irreversible. It may be considered paradoxical that the leaders of the most dynamic and expanding economies in the world offer such a passive, unchallenging view of what are, after all, human-made arrangements. These are among the richest and most proactive regimes, which can wage endless war on the great abstraction, that is terror, topple regimes and lay down one WTO law for the poor and another for themselves. Is their helplessness in the presence of these mighty economic and cultural powers?
There are two aspects to resistance. One is the reassertion of local identities—even if local actually means spread over very large parts of the world. The reclaiming of the local is often focused in the field of culture—music, songs and dance. This suggests an attempt to guaranteeit from the effects of economic integration; a kind of cordon sanitaria set up around a dwindling culture. Some people believe it is possible to get the best of both world—they accept the economic advantages of globalization and seek to maintain something of great value—language, tradition and custom. This is the relatively response. The other has become only too familiar: the violent reaction, the hatred of both economic and cultural globalization which may not merely perceive, but feel in the very core of their cognition, as an inseparable violation of identity. The resentment of many Muslims toward the U.S and Israel, the defensiveposturing of Vindu fundamentalism, opposed both to Islam and Christianity, are the most vivid dramatizationsof this.
University graduates receive higher salaries than those who have a lower education. Therefore, some people say such students should pay for all their tuition fees. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
You should use your own ideas of knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.
Some people assert that government should be responsible for the full tuition of college students because they are the cream of society and contribute much to the society. This argument is true to some degree. Nevertheless, there are more reasons why university students should support themselves for the full tuition of their tertiary education.
First of all, it can ensure the quality of college education. Compared with the elementary and secondary education, the college education is operating in a quite different system, which covers a great variety of researching fields and involves numerous distinguished professors and projects. In other words, it needs a great sum of money. If this complicated system is supported by the nation without much income from the beneficiaries (the college students), it will exert very heavy pressure on the country’s economy. If the government is unable to invest enough money on university education because of the limited budget, the quality of education will be undermined.
In the second place, it is a quite fair practice. Most of the countries in the world are supporting the elementary and secondary education, which is reasonable since the citizens should be encouraged to receive basic education and which is advantageous for the development of the nation. However, it is unnecessary that all the citizens go to colleges. Some high school leavers give up their further study because they have their own life aim. That is to say, going to university is a totally personal choice. Therefore it is not unreasonable that the people who make such choice pay for it.
From the above views, I hold the opinion that college students should pay for the full tuition, which can both guarantee the quality of higher education and be a reasonable practice. (291 words)
Everyone complains about taxes, yet think about what would happen if there were no longer an income tax. In a 250-word essay, discuss the positive effects of an income tax, the negative effects, or both.
It hurts to look at a paycheck and see how much of it was taken out for income tax. That money could have paid some important bills. It is easy to dream of doing away with the income tax and keeping all that money for ourselves.
If there were no income tax, however, the government would have a lot less to spend. The money we send to Washington seems to fall into a black hole and disappear. Actually, though, many people depend on it. The money pays the salaries of government employees, who provide services from drug control to highway building. It supports our military defense. Also, much of the money is returned to people in the form. of student loans, veterans' benefits, and payments to farmers, for example. The government has been working to cut its budget lately. With every cut, someone complains loudly.
So if the income tax were eliminated, other taxes would have to make up for it. Paying those other taxes would also hurt. Sales taxes fall most heavily on poor people. Taxes on manufacturers only result in higher prices to consumers.
Income taxes are not fun to pay. But doing without them would be worse. In my opinion, income taxes should be made as fair as possible. Then we each must "bite the bullet" and do our share.
One’s materialistic happiness is dependant on one’s economic success, though not completely. Without a strong and steady economic background, one could never imagine an easy and simple life, let alone an affluent and luxurious one. If you aren’t able to afford a house, a car, or even a book, anybody would be horrified at the mere mention of this kind of life. Definitely, some people will feel happy right away if their basic demands for life are satisfied. However, we have to admit that these people still need to be successful materialistically to some degree.
On the other hand, one’s success in economy may not necessarily lead to one’s spiritual happiness. As we all know, money doesn’t get you everything and some even say that money is the root of all evils. One’s financial success may be built on the sacrifice of time, health and love, which are the three most essential elements of spiritual happiness. All of us are not new to this picture: a successful business man tasting loneliness alone with a broken heart.
In my point of view, one’s economic success is only one of the key factors of happiness, but never the only one. To be happy, one needs to be both spiritually and materially satisfied though each of us may have a totally different picture of happiness.