Korrekturen

Among a multitude of complex and ambiguous problems, the issue of prioritizing financing of social programs to the detriment of cultural programs has always provoked and will cause many disputes among citizens of any state.

Some, mostly conservative members of society, believe that major of the money need to be directed to the development of medicine and educational programs, the other part of the community is convinced of the need for state support for sports and art.

This essay will discuss the main points of the disputing parties before my own opinion is expressed.

It is impossible to disagree that health care and education are those pillars on which any civilized society relies and progresses.

Financing these spheres, any state, in fact, makes a global investment, which will undoubtedly bring dividends in the form of a healthy and educated society.

It is worthwhile to say that, in the future, it will also significantly strengthen the economy, help create new jobs and increase the flow of taxes to the budget.

For example, according to recent studies, people with higher education have a 25 percent higher labor productivity than those who did not.

On the other hand, the state is structurally similar in its structure to an evolving ecosystem, as it has many complex interconnected relationships and reacts appropriately with an uneven distribution of resources.

In other words, if you do not pay enough attention to other areas, such as sports or culture, you can not get a fully-fledged and comprehensively developed society.

It can be safely asserted that in the absence of sufficient support, for example sports, it is impossible to get a healthy community, no matter how much resources are allocated to health care.

Moreover, it is obvious that both groups under consideration are closely interrelated, for example, visiting theaters, akin to education, enhances the intellectual level of the individual.

In conclusion, this essay supports the idea that the financing of a particular sector needs to be implemented primarily from the point of view of rational necessity, having previously conducted appropriate monitoring and research.

Otherwise, there is a high probability that the allocated funds, regardless of their number, can be spent inefficiently or even to the detriment.