Original practice question
Some people think governments should spend more on public services than on attracting private investment. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
- 1
Position
Partly agree: clinics, schools and basic transport should not be raided to fund incentives, but a service budget that ignores whether any employer is left in the town eventually has fewer wages to tax.
- 2
Body paragraph 1
- Point
- A grant that lowers a firm’s tax bill does not staff a ward or keep a bus on a Sunday route.
- Explanation
- The firm may hire, and it may also book the grant and leave when a cheaper site appears. The clinic cut is immediate. The jobs, if they come, arrive later and are not obliged to fund the nurse who was already needed.
- Example
- A town that paused repairs to two school roofs in order to offer a ten-year rate discount to a warehouse that then employed fewer people than the brochure promised.
- 3
Body paragraph 2
- Point
- Public services still need a local tax base, so refusing every private project can shrink the very budget the first paragraph wants to protect.
- Explanation
- A council that blocks a workshop because it is "not a hospital" may be right about this year’s priority and wrong about year five, when the hospital’s wages are paid by people who no longer have work in the town.
- Example
- A coastal district that kept its clinic hours only after a small boat-repair yard, refused by the previous council, was later allowed on a vacant site and hired locally.
- 4
Conclusion
Protect the services people cannot buy one by one, and judge each investment offer by the jobs and the tax it actually produces, not by the slogan on the bid.