How Many Children a Family Can Have in Their Country Should Be Strictly Controlled - IELTS Band 9 Sample Essays

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Sample Essay 1

Some argue that governments should regulate how many children families are permitted to have, even imposing tax penalties to enforce such limits. While population control may be necessary in extreme cases, I strongly disagree with using such authoritarian measures. Controlling family size through taxation infringes on personal freedoms and overlooks more ethical, sustainable solutions. This essay will explore the dangers of state-imposed child limits and the importance of education and empowerment as alternative strategies.

State control over reproduction—especially through financial penalties—is not only ethically troubling but also socially counterproductive. Governments that tax citizens for having more children essentially commodify human life, turning parenthood into a privilege reserved for the wealthy. This reinforces inequality, particularly in poorer communities where large families are often a cultural norm or economic necessity. For example, in rural regions of some developing countries, children contribute to household income through farming or informal labour. Penalising these families financially could entrench cycles of poverty and marginalisation. Furthermore, such policies risk echoing past authoritarian regimes—like China’s one-child policy—which led to serious demographic imbalances and human rights abuses, including forced abortions and a skewed gender ratio. Ultimately, population control through taxation is a blunt, dehumanising tool that disregards the complex socioeconomic factors influencing family size.

Rather than coercive measures, governments should invest in long-term, voluntary strategies such as education and reproductive healthcare. History shows that when women have access to education and contraception, fertility rates decline naturally. For instance, countries like Japan and Germany have seen shrinking populations due to higher levels of female education, urbanisation, and delayed parenthood—not because of government mandates. Such approaches respect individual autonomy while still addressing demographic concerns. Moreover, public awareness campaigns about sustainable living and the economic impact of overpopulation can foster collective responsibility without eroding personal rights. By empowering people to make informed decisions, rather than punishing them for their reproductive choices, governments can promote both social justice and demographic balance more effectively.

In conclusion, while concerns about overpopulation are valid, controlling birth rates through taxation is ethically questionable and socially damaging. A rights-based approach that prioritises education, healthcare, and informed choice is a far more humane and sustainable solution to population challenges.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Sample Essay 2

In the face of mounting global challenges, some governments advocate limiting family size through fiscal policies such as taxation. While such a stance may seem intrusive, I fully agree that controlling population growth via government intervention is both necessary and justified. This essay argues that unchecked population expansion severely burdens national resources, and that responsible state action—though seemingly harsh—is often the only viable way to ensure future sustainability and social stability.

An overpopulated nation inevitably struggles to provide even the most basic public services—education, healthcare, housing, and employment. When population growth outpaces infrastructure development, the result is often overcrowded schools, understaffed hospitals, and rampant unemployment. Countries like Bangladesh and Nigeria have witnessed these challenges firsthand, where explosive birth rates outstrip economic gains. A strategic population policy that discourages large families via targeted taxation can serve as a corrective mechanism to align reproductive behaviours with national planning objectives. This is not about punishing families but about internalising the broader social costs of unsustainable reproduction. Much like environmental taxes disincentivise pollution, child-based taxes can signal to citizens the long-term costs of demographic overload. In this sense, population control is not only rational, but a moral imperative for governments striving to preserve quality of life for all.

Moreover, such policies can pre-empt future crises tied to environmental degradation, food insecurity, and climate change. Every additional person places demands on finite resources—fresh water, arable land, and clean air—all of which are under increasing strain. Without proactive regulation, future generations may inherit a planet that is neither habitable nor just. For instance, urban sprawl and deforestation in rapidly growing countries are frequently linked to unregulated population growth, exacerbating carbon emissions and biodiversity loss. By using economic levers to influence reproductive choices, governments can steer populations toward sustainable patterns without resorting to coercion. Furthermore, such policies can be accompanied by opt-outs for vulnerable families or incentives for adopting sustainable family planning—creating a system that is firm but fair.

In conclusion, limiting the number of children through taxation is not only justifiable but essential for long-term national and planetary welfare. Through well-designed policies, governments can responsibly regulate demographic pressures while preserving equity, environmental integrity, and public well-being.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!