The government should lower the budget for arts in order to allocate more money for education. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
40 minutes, 250 words at least.
There is no doubt that the governments’ budget should be reasonably distributed
in to a multitude of aspects (multiple areas) (education, healthcare are not aspects. They’re areas, domains) such as education, healthcare infrastructure, arts and so on. However, it is the responsibility of a government to wisely allocate these funds to upgrade the provide better education (upgrade education infrastructure) by a reduction of allocation on arts. I completely agree this view due to unsubastantial recognition of arts and lack of employment. (You can comfortably club the last two sentences into one: However, I believe that it is the responsibility of a government to wisely allocate funds to provide better education than to arts since education helps secure employment.)
Unfortunately, even though the sculptures and paintings are beneficial for a country to enhance its identity, it is appreciated only by a neligible number of
populace there people (populace refers to community of people and is an uncountable noun). To elaborate, art can bring quality into one’s life who (misplaced pronoun. There is no noun to refer back to.) is interested, and others neither even acknowledge nor try to learn its significance of arts (its refers to art) due to the lack of understanding the expression of arts (To elaborate, though art brings quality to the life of those who are interested, most people fail to appreciate its importance.). According to them, art is merely a status symbol, which is hardly advantageous to their lives or to the country of a country. For example, in 2018 fiscal year, the President Trump has proposed that there will be a cut down in the allocation of financial resources for arts since people pay a hefty tax for facilities, by which they are benefited (how are they benefitted? The United States government has recentely proposed a drastic reduction in financial allocation to arts and divert these funds to education to help American students compete with students from other countries.). Thus a decrese in subsidy for art will be a pragmatic approach.
Furthermore, high unemployement has become a perennial issue in many countries. Specifically, a vast number of individuals in the developing countries face this issue since
either they cannot avail themselves of a better education or and suffer from a poor academic facilities in their nation. In such condition, commissioning of sculpture or paintings is an insult to tax-payers who lack quality education. For instance, the Indian government was recently criticized for consuming a huge amount of its national budget, almost 300 billion dollar, for construction of a Shivaji statue. Moreover, many citizens charged a petition against the Indian government, asking to invest this money for infrastructure and educational development instead. A research report claimed that had this money been invested in education infrastructure, this would have funded all schools in the country for one month. (Maintain better task response in example.) Therfore, to combat the unemployement, every government should prioritise the expenses for education.
In conclusion, the main responsibility of every government is to
provide fulfil essential needs for a society. Despite the importance of arts in a culture, I strongly believe that a government should minimise the funds for arts since not only education takes precedence but also arts have low acceptance.
Please subscribe to my Youtube Channel.