Band 9 model answer
Whether the affluent should shoulder a heavier tax burden is a perennial political question. While excessive taxation carries risks, I broadly agree that those with the greatest means should contribute proportionately more to the common good.
The primary justification is fairness. People on high incomes can part with a larger share of their earnings without compromising their standard of living, whereas the same demand would impose genuine hardship on the poor. A progressive tax system, in which rates rise with income, therefore distributes the cost of running a country according to the ability to pay. The revenue generated funds hospitals, schools and welfare that benefit society as a whole, including the wealthy themselves, who rely on an educated workforce and stable communities to sustain their businesses.
Moreover, higher taxation of the rich can help to narrow the widening gap between rich and poor. Extreme inequality breeds resentment and social instability, and may even fuel crime, so a measure of redistribution serves everyone's long-term interest.
Critics warn that punitive rates discourage enterprise and prompt the wealthy to relocate or conceal their assets. This concern is valid and should temper policy, but it argues for sensible, well-designed taxation rather than none at all. Provided rates remain reasonable and loopholes are closed, the affluent will continue to invest and innovate.
In conclusion, although taxation must be calibrated carefully to avoid stifling ambition, I believe the wealthy have both the capacity and the responsibility to support wider society through a fair, progressive system.
Examiner’s notes
- Establishes a clear stance and defends it with distinct economic and social arguments, fulfilling Task Response.
- Acknowledges and rebuts the counter-argument, demonstrating the balanced reasoning examiners associate with Band 9.
- Deploys economic register precisely: progressive tax system, redistribution, loopholes, stifling ambition.