A very warm and pleasant good morning honourable jury members ..............

Respected
Principal Sir, teachers and my dear friends. I,................ of class ............. Delhi World
Public School Powayan, feeling very proud and bounced to get the golden opportunity to
deliver my views for motion of the topic ' Government policies benefits poor or Hardly
benefits poor.”

Poverty is a problem everywhere in the world. In some countries, it is more severe than in
others, but some people are always forced to live below the poverty line. The poverty line
describes an absolute level of income below which an individual or family is deemed to
live in poverty. In most European countries, this level is set at 60% of median income.

This definition already implies that poverty is a relative concept. Because of this, many
economists distinguish between absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty describes
a situation where individuals have no access to the basic requirements of life – food,
shelter, and clothing. By contrast, we speak of relative poverty when people are unable to
take part in what is considered a normal, acceptable standard of living in a society.

The government plays an essential role in the fight against poverty. However, there is an
ongoing debate on how this should be done. There are several different government
policies to reduce poverty. We will look at four of them in more detail below: minimum
wage laws, social security, negative income taxes, and in-kind benefits.

Minimum wage laws

Minimum wage laws require all employers to pay their employees a minimum amount of
wage that is determined by the government. The idea behind minimum wage laws is to
help the working poor without directly increasing government spending. Labor unions are
some of the most influential advocates of minimum wages. They often try to establish a
minimum wage for their members.

However, minimum wage laws are highly controversial. Critics argue that they ultimately
hurt the economy more than they help. This argument is based on the law of supply and
demand. If the minimum wage increases above the equilibrium wage, employers can’t
afford to hire the same amount of workers anymore. Hence, unemployment increases. As
a result, those who are still employed are indeed better off because they profit from a
higher wage. But at the same time, the increase in unemployment will put even more
people at risk of poverty.

Whether the effects of the employee’s higher incomes outweigh the increase in
unemployment ultimately depends on the elasticity of labor demand (see also shifts in
labor demand). Advocates of minimum wages argue that labor demand is inelastic (i.e., it
will not decrease much). At the same time, critics say it is elastic (i.e., it will decrease
significantly), especially in the long run, when firms can adjust their factors of production
more freely.
 Another thing to keep in mind here is that not all industries are affected equally by
minimum wage laws. Industries that rely on unskilled labor (e.g., cleaning, assembly line
work) would be hit much harder by a minimum wage than sectors that require a higher
skill level (e.g., banking, law). However, because most industries depend on each other at
some point, it is impossible to predict the exact effects of minimum wage laws on the
economy.

Minimum wage laws are a delicate and highly complex issue. There is no one perfect
solution for any economy, which makes it difficult to say if and where a government
should impose minimum wage laws. What we can say, however, is that answering this
question requires an in-depth analysis of the economy and a thorough understanding of
the respective country and its society.

Social Security

Social security refers to several different government benefits, such as income support,
tax credits, social welfare, or unemployment benefits. A countries social security system is
another option the government has to reduce poverty by supplementing the incomes of
low-income families and individuals.

Not unlike minimum wage laws, social security is a controversial topic. Critics argue that it
can create wrong incentives. For instance, people who work full-time at a low-paying job
might have an excuse to stop working and live on unemployment benefits instead. That
way, they might lose a small part of their income, but they would not have to get up
every morning and go to work anymore. Many countries require applicants to provide
proof that they are actively seeking employment, to prevent such behavior (e.g., a certain
number of job applications per month).

Again, social security is a complex issue. However, most people agree that any
government should provide at least a basic social security system (i.e., a “security net”) to
prevent people from falling too deep into poverty. In most cases, those people who
qualify for social security will still experience a difficult existence at best. Therefore, it is
widely regarded as unlikely that many people would be encouraged to pursue such a
lifestyle anyways.

Negative Income Tax

Negative income taxes are essentially a subsidy for individuals with a low income (i.e.,

they pay a negative tax). This works well in a progressive tax system, where individuals
with a higher income also pay a more significant percentage of their income in taxes. A
part of those additional tax revenues can be used to subsidize individuals and families
with a low income.

Many economists consider this a good option to redistribute wealth within a country.
According to this system, poor individuals and families receive financial assistance
depending solely on their income. However, this can be seen as an advantage or a
 disadvantage. On the one hand, it does not incentivize certain unfavorable lifestyles (such
as getting a divorce to increase income support). On the other hand, it may also support
people who are too lazy and unwilling to work.

In-Kind Benefits

In-kind benefits are a non-cash alternative to regular benefits. The idea behind this is to
provide low-income families and individuals directly with access to certain goods and
services they need most to increase their standard of living. For instance, there are a
large number of charities (government and non-government) that provide food, shelter, or
clothing for those most in need.

Advocates of in-kind benefits argue that this type of support ensures that the poor get
access to what they need most. They also prevent recipients from using government
benefits to buy undesirable products and services (e.g., drugs or alcohol). On the other
hand, critics argue that non-cash benefits are inefficient and disrespectful. They point out
that in-kind benefits essentially deprive the poor of their right of decision. According to the
critics, the government does not always know what people need most, so it has no right
or obligation to decide for them.

In a Nutshell

Poverty is a problem everywhere in the world, and governments play an essential role in

the fight against it. They can employ at least four different policies to reduce poverty:
minimum wage laws, social security, negative income taxes, and in-kind
benefits. Minimum wage laws require all employers to pay their employees a minimum
amount of wage that is determined by the government. Social security refers to several
different government benefits, such as income support, tax credits, social welfare, or
unemployment benefits. Negative income taxes are essentially a subsidy for individuals
with a low income. And last but not least, in-kind benefits are a non-cash alternative to
regular benefits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very warm and pleasant good morning honourable jury members ..............Respected
Principal Sir, teachers and my dear friends. I,................ of class ............. Delhi World
Public School Powayan, feeling very proud and bounced to get the golden opportunity to
deliver my views against the motion of the topic ' Government policies benefits poor or
Hardly benefits poor.”

Policy is a set of decision by the government to influence, change or frame a problem or

issue for the betterment of citizen of the country. Policies should be for the welfare of the
poor but nowadays its failure of government that policies are government centered not
public centered. Policy makers frame many policies for the betterment of the poor but
actualy the poor are not benefited by them
India has always been statist. All its political parties are Statist in one way or the other, from
Nehru to Narendra Modi, the state has been thought of as the most important player in
economic and social affairs. However, even with all this undue importance, the government has
failed to deliver even basic goods to its citizens and basic amenities like pure water , health ,
education and security. Sometimes due to corruption they fail to get the benefits of policies and
sometimes due to lack of awareness they don’t know anything about the new policies

Now a question hammers in our mind ….. why do poblic policies fail..?

Indian government’s intention to provide assistance to poor and their upliftment is clear, but at
the implementation part government fails. The reason of inefficiency can be attributed to
improper monitoring, lack of accountability, corruption and misalignment of incentives. For
example, integraed child development scheme failed in Bihar, Manrega in Maharashtra, Madhya
pradesh and Odisa

Making a policy and implementing it as a scheme has the same difference- What a cricket team
plans in a dressing room and what it executes on the ground. The government seems well
prepared in the dressing room but when it comes to the ground it fails far from the expectation.

So I think before launching any policy the government should plan well and monitor well so that
the results should be positive…

Now I would like to conclude my words thank you everyone for your attention …..

Thank you …………….