People have different views about who has to maintain health and education systems, with some arguing that states should invest in these fields, while others claim that the public should focus on improving such essential domains. There are valid arguments on both sides, but I believe that governments can influence more in these areas.
Advocates of the latter side present various arguments to justify their stance. The major one is that society, by annual investments, can develop the quality of education and healthcare. When particular groups of people tend to invest regularly, the number of schools and hospitals increases, which leads to greater teaching and treatment, decreasing the number of unemployment and high death rates, ultimately increasing salaries and population. A case in point is Denmark, where high taxes are due to the investments in health services and building high-qualified schools and universities. Such a turn of events results in a highly educated and long-living population. If people did not spend money to improve it, these positive developments would not happen, which shows how important investing annually can be.
Despite this, I remain convinced that authorities can make more developments than society. The main reason is that they can control the currency system. When people protest because of low-developed health and education organisations, states improve these fields by investing a huge amount of money, eventually bringing about an explosion of capacity in educational institutions and public hospitals. This consequently gives rise to high public satisfaction and economic growth. Take Paris, France, as an example. Due to the fact that states play a crucial role in the most significant domains, the healthcare and educational systems are not suffering from corruption and criminals. Now, the residents can enjoy all facilities without issues, which has caused economic improvement and public satisfaction.
In conclusion, while both perspectives present valid arguments, I am firmly convinced that the benefits of the former position significantly outweigh those of its counterpart. Considering the profound and lasting consequences such decisions may have, it is imperative that policymakers adopt a long-term and forward-thinking approach before reaching any final judgment.