Every independent and big city has public facilities that could be used by population of the town. Some people discuss that they must be paid by taxpayers or even by each person who could use them. Their opponents, in contrast, believe that all public zoos, museums or parks should be for using by cityzens.
On the one hand, public facilities should be free, because they have been created just for all of citizens. Furthermore, people already have paid taxes on them. Moreover, public places should be acceptable for all economic classes of people, cause the main gist of that facilities is to entertain, educate and inspire population. Especially, for people from lower classes who can’t afford themselves pay for these.
On the other hand, community facilities should be paid, cause people’s fees will support surface and infrastructure of them, also hold them befitting for usage. If people didn’t pay for them, then they wouldn’t be so attractive and well-groomed now.
Personally, I think all employees that hold these areas in properly condition have to receive a decent reward. Like zoo watchers, cleaners, janitors, museum workers. If people stop pay fees or taxes for using public facilities, employees won’t get decent salary, therefore they will lose their job places cause they will canceled. It doesn’t promise something good, cause facilities will become terrible places without any services. As society know, most of people can’t confine themselves from obscene behavior.
As a conclusion, both opinions have a place to be, but if community choose “pay”-variant, it will takes one clause: there should be quotas and/or discounts for people who can’t pay for themselves. This will be worth cause decent public facilities and welfare holders are better than free entry and destroying inside. If society choose “free”-variant, the government will have to increase taxes on public facilities to hold them efficiently.
Every independent and
big
city has
public
facilities that could be
used
by population of the town.
Some
people
discuss that they
must
be paid
by taxpayers or even by each person who could
use
them. Their opponents,
in contrast
, believe that all
public
zoos, museums or parks should be for using by
cityzens
.
On the one hand,
public
facilities should be free,
because
they have
been created
just
for
all of citizens
.
Furthermore
,
people
already have paid taxes on them.
Moreover
,
public
places
should be acceptable for all economic classes of
people
,
cause
the main gist of that facilities is to entertain, educate and inspire population.
Especially
, for
people
from lower classes who can’t afford themselves
pay
for these.
On the other hand
, community facilities should
be paid
,
cause
people’s
fees will support surface and infrastructure of them,
also
hold them befitting for usage. If
people
didn’t
pay
for them, then they wouldn’t be
so
attractive and well-groomed
now
.
Personally
, I
think
all employees that hold these areas in
properly
condition
have to
receive a decent reward. Like zoo watchers, cleaners, janitors, museum workers. If
people
stop
pay
fees or taxes for using
public
facilities, employees won’t
get
decent salary,
therefore
they will lose their job
places
cause they
will
canceled
. It doesn’t promise something
good
,
cause
facilities will become terrible
places
without any services. As society know, most of
people
can’t confine themselves from obscene behavior.
As a conclusion, both opinions have a
place
to be,
but
if community choose “pay”-variant, it will
takes
one clause: there should be quotas and/or discounts for
people
who can’t
pay
for themselves. This will be worth
cause
decent
public
facilities and welfare holders are better than free entry and destroying inside. If society choose “free”-variant, the
government
will
have to
increase taxes on
public
facilities to hold them
efficiently
.