Some people think that the (government should provide (assistance) to (all kinds of artists) including painters, musicians, and poets. However, other people think that (this is a waste of money). Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Whether governments should support artists or not, has always been a debatable topic. Whereas some people think that tax-payers money should not be spent on artists, others, including me, believe that a sort of government aid is better offered for artists. On the one hand, those who believe that financial aid should never be given to support arts, defend their standpoint by arguing that, government focus should be on the more pressing matters. Health care and education are usually brought up as examples of sectors that could benefit from more governmental spending.

In addition

, the opposers argue that more spending on artists means one of two things; either more taxes, which puts a huge strain on the economy or less spending on the previously mentioned sectors, which, of course, is undesirable.

On the other hand

, as many would agree,

art

plays a vital role in developing personalities; It can

also

be used to promote good values; like sympathy and coexistence. Not subsidizing any money for the

art

and artists might negatively affect society. The reason for

this

is that artistic careers like painting and creative writing are usually not as financially rewarding as other careers. That being said, if we do not help aspiring

art

creators, they might not be able to make a living and provide for themselves and their families.

As a result

, they might quit

art

altogether in order to look for higher-paying jobs. To conclude, by looking at both sides of the argument, I can say that,

although

those who oppose having any money spent on arts in fear of it leading to affecting other sectors hold a valid point, I believe that providing reasonable financial support for those who are starting a career in arts would be beneficial to the society and is worth it.