Government should focus their spending on public services rather than on arts. To what extent, do you agree or disagree?

An ongoing debate related to national budget allocation is whether the national regulators should endow public convocation or artistic fields. Though the tangible and intangible values offered by arts for people are undeniable, these merits are not as fruitful as a public system.

Thus

, I articulate total opposition towards money distribution on arts. On examining the multitude of public service benefits,

it is clear that

public facilities play an indispensable role in society, where residents can interact and foster social connections.

Therefore

, a quantum leap for public dawning like libraries, and recreational destinations is synonymous with an increase in residents’ satisfaction, which will unleash the productivity and ingenuity of civilians to contribute to society.

Hence

, it is supremely important for governments to subsidize more in public systems. On the light of environmental scales, public services generally can reduce the environmental issues, which are sounding an alarm bell to all nations across the world. More noteworthily, air pollution, which is caused by gaseous pollutants like discharge from clusters of factories, and exhaust fumes from big and small vehicles, can be abated incrementally by using public transit. A wealth of recent evidence indicates that utilizing trams and buses in 1 day can mitigate up to 1000 tons of toxic gas.

Thus

, it is essential for the government to invest more in public networks. To recapitulate, the viewpoint mentioned above offer offers evidence for the fact that public services can be phenomenally beneficial and are reasonably eligible to be subsidized by the governments.