Many governments in the world spend large amounts of money on art which helps to develop quality in people’s life. However, governments should spend money on other things rather than art. Do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion.

Issues related to an

art

budget are discussed these days. It is argued that due to the limitation of a nation's budget, other things apart from

art

should be invested by governments for the development of all citizen's life. I firmly agree with

this

assertion and the explanation will be shown in the following paragraph. The principal reason is that supporting money on

art

has an advantage in some particular jobs;

such

as artists and architects.

This

means that

art

cannot increase the quality of life in terms of economics for most people in the nation. Generally, salary workers are the most popular career in many countries;

thus

their needs to get a higher standard of living should be focused more than

art

. A good case

in

Verify preposition usage

at

show examples

this

point is governments should give more attention to public transportation topics because insufficient travelling can impact their work more than spend too much money on decorating some museums. An additional point is that

art

matters are often used in terms of improving people's emotions more than helping improve the quality of their life.

Hence

,

firstly

, settles should be greatly acquired the education. Actually, education is key to progress in order to enhance a nation, especially in developing countries.

For example

, over recent years, the government of Singapore has massively invested in education,

as a result

, Singapore is the most influential country in Asia. All things considered,

although

art

is important for its values in various beneficial ways, others section should be more realized for getting higher investment.

Therefore

, governments should strike some balance which is the most suitable issue for their countries.