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

Many countries around the world spend big budgets on

art

to increase the quality of people's lives. While some folk may agree, others see that the money should be distributed to the essential sectors, like education and health. I agree to allocate the

budget

to the primary areas and

this

essay will explain the reasons.

Firstly

, Government should spend money on essential things like education, health, and housing which impact larger communities. These sectors are

also

basic needs for the majority of citizens,

in contrast

with

art

which is seen as a mere entertainment tool.

Furthermore

, many developed countries successfully elevate many people's lives by focusing on important fields.

For instance

, the United States, which is often seen as a benchmark for

budget

allocation, gives

art

only a mere 2% of its total annual

budget

, compared to education and housing which get around one-fifth of the total

budget

.

Secondly

,

art

's contribution to the economy is little, compared with health, and housing,

thus

, focusing on these fields is seen to be more primary.

In other words

, the government should focus more on the essential sectors rather than on the arts which have less contribution to the economy.

Moreover

, there is no relationship between

art

and quality of life as

art

is only a tertiary and entertainment tool.

For example

, people cannot live without proper houses and a poor healthcare system, but they certainly can survive without possessing any arts. To summarize, there are many fundamental needs other than

art

that impact many folks directly,

moreover

,

art

only has little contribution to the nation's economy.

Hence

, I agree with the thesis that government should spend money more on these essential things.