Some would argue that the government allocate most of its budget to public services such as health, education, transport, and employment programs, which are directly linked with the strength and development of any country. However, others claim that investing in art and culture plays a vital role in a country’s traditional growth. Although later view has its own advantages as it enriches our heritage and history, in my opinion, spending money on essential facilities is a practical and more sustainable approach for the overall prosperity of the society.
On the one hand, many individuals say that art and painting definitely represent our identity and history. They believe, if the government spends taxes to improve the museums, theatres, paintings, and infrastructure, it not only preserves our culture but also encourages tourism and boosts our economy. For instance, France and Germany earn billions through their art galleries and other attractions. Nevertheless, allocating excessive money on painting and art while ignoring basic public services may not benefit to citizens. Therefore, spending on these areas should be secondary to public service investments.
On the other hand, supporters of increasing funds for education, health, transport, and employment argue that if the government spends on these sectors, people gain direct access to better healthcare, job opportunities, and a local bus and train system. For instance, Japan’s administration focuses on health and education, resulting in a highly educated and healthier population compared to other nations in the world.
In conclusion, although art and culture can shape society, I firmly believe the government should spend on basic public services, ensuring a balanced and stable country, as these fields truly contribute in the sustainability.