Investment in local amenities such as leisure centers is the best way for the government to foster a good community spirit. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?

Nowadays, there is a big debate about whether funds should be used to provide leisure. While some people defend money has to be spent in that because of the good vibe surrounding dwellers, others think taxes must be used to provide health, education, and transportation. I particularly believe happiness is

also

part of your health, and all societies must provide centres for sparing. At the outset, the purpose of life is having good moments, and because of lack of opportunities some poor people cannot provide go to private parks and museums, or even practice sports, so it is not fair to be unhappy just due to having born in a social unfavourable environmental.

For example

, societies, where art galleries or cinemas are free, are better ranking in the best place for living. For

this

reason, to shrink the gap between low- and high-income people governments must provide free recreation.

On the other hand

, there are other measures that could allow individuals to afford happiness on their own. In cities, where the social wealth gap is smaller citizens, could be happy using their salary, so funds for schooling or health could

also

foster a good spirit around.

For instance

, Germany does not provide free parks or museums, but Germans have enough for paying for themselves.

However

, research shows responders would frequent more parks if they were free.

Consequently

, education and healthcare funding are vital but do not replace leisure centres. To summarize, chilling around is very important and government must spend our taxes on that issue.

Nevertheless

, other vital things,

such

as well-being and literacy are not less important. In my opinion, leisure is too good to be put a part of public expenditure.