Some people think that the governments should give financial support to artists, musicians and poets. Others think that it is a waste of money. Discuss both views and give your opinion. v.1

Some people argue that there should be financial assistance required for the artists, musicians and poets by the government. While others feel its redundant. Let us discuss about these two arguments in detail in the following paragraphs. As a matter of fact, actors, music and lyricists are creative people and they are providing entertainment to the public with their performance. So it's necessary to encourage these kind of human beings. In addition to this, art shows the true culture of the country and through artists only one would know the greatness of the state. For instance, nations with rich culture and performers have produced more intellectuals as compared to other countries. So, it's obvious by supporting artists monetary state would be thriving. On the flip side, there is another argument that financial support to performers could lead to the economic downfall of the country. For example, France, which has a deep cultural and an inclination towards the artists, has been economically drained because of 20% of the nation's income gone to the performers pockets. However, this is not the only parameter to judge. By taking all the scenarios into consideration, we would say that there must be a balance of giving support to the artists. Otherwise, it leads to the monetary distress and creates havoc in the economy of the nation. The conclusion is, although performs should be respected, but not at the cost of the nation's interest. In my view, government should encourage artists by creating wealth through performances and distribute this money to the performers so that it could be a win-win situation.