Mission band 8-9, kindly comment on my essay 2
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:39 am
Government investment in the arts, such as music and theatre, is a waste of money. Governments must invest this money in public services instead.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Government spending on arts, has long been a contentious issue. Many counter the idea of government incurring expenses to promote arts. However, I feel governments should continue to spend money on arts. This will be argued by analyzing how arts can contribute to a country’s economy as well as serve as a platform to achieve one’s goals.
To begin, arts such as music and theatre are steady sources of income for a country. A case in point would be New Zealand, where the government supports new artists by lending them money to kick-start their careers, which in turn enables the state to collect taxes on the revenue earned by these artists. This stream of income would be lost if there’s no spending to foster local artists. Hence it is clear that arts are vital for a country’s economic health rather than being a liability to it.
In addition, having a decent infrastructure for creative industries, would mean realization of dreams of millions who wish to be artists. For instance, in UK, a person could choose to adopt arts as a career path, enabling him or her to earn a fair livelihood, rather than having to reluctantly pick a profession that he or she does not feel passionate about. A state where government doesn’t invest in arts would most likely prevent people to go after what they long for, resulting in frustration on the part of people. Therefore arts play an important part in contentedness of the individuals of a nation.
In summary, government should continue to devote resources to arts since, its significance, in a country’s tax system and bringing happiness to people, should not be underestimated. Henceforth, government’s funding of arts is not a waste of a country’s resources.
~290 words
P.S I cheated quite a bit in this essay, mainly because I'm still coming to grips with Ryan's structure.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Government spending on arts, has long been a contentious issue. Many counter the idea of government incurring expenses to promote arts. However, I feel governments should continue to spend money on arts. This will be argued by analyzing how arts can contribute to a country’s economy as well as serve as a platform to achieve one’s goals.
To begin, arts such as music and theatre are steady sources of income for a country. A case in point would be New Zealand, where the government supports new artists by lending them money to kick-start their careers, which in turn enables the state to collect taxes on the revenue earned by these artists. This stream of income would be lost if there’s no spending to foster local artists. Hence it is clear that arts are vital for a country’s economic health rather than being a liability to it.
In addition, having a decent infrastructure for creative industries, would mean realization of dreams of millions who wish to be artists. For instance, in UK, a person could choose to adopt arts as a career path, enabling him or her to earn a fair livelihood, rather than having to reluctantly pick a profession that he or she does not feel passionate about. A state where government doesn’t invest in arts would most likely prevent people to go after what they long for, resulting in frustration on the part of people. Therefore arts play an important part in contentedness of the individuals of a nation.
In summary, government should continue to devote resources to arts since, its significance, in a country’s tax system and bringing happiness to people, should not be underestimated. Henceforth, government’s funding of arts is not a waste of a country’s resources.
~290 words
P.S I cheated quite a bit in this essay, mainly because I'm still coming to grips with Ryan's structure.