Entertainment or leisure activities should be subsidized by the government. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
People need to relax from their hectic daily lives and to do this they usually have hobbies. On many occasions leisure activities are expensive, for example buying sports equipment, as are entertainment activities such as going to a concert. Currently these expenses are paid by the individual.
If an individual benefits from an activity, it may be a good idea for the government to subsidise this. This will also benefit artists taking part in these events. Visiting an art exhibition, going to concert, watching a performance or play etc. makes people think about important issues, relaxes the audience, and contributes positively towards their spiritual development.
On the other hand, the government has more important issues to tackle such a poverty and unemployment so some might think that partially funding entertainment and free-time activities is wasteful. What people decide to do outside their work is their personal choice and each individual should fund their own entertainment options. What is more, individuals are not likely to appreciate something that is provided for free or cheaply priced. If they know they are going to pay for an entrance ticket, people will go somewhere because they really want to.
I think the government should only sponsor events that are useful for the public, for example a film promoting environmental awareness. Other leisure activities are a matter of personal choice and each individual should pay the full-cost of this themselves and let the government allocate its budget to more pressing matters.
Question taken from Direct to IELTS, Student's book p.51