It is true that housing is a basic necessity in any society. As such, a school of thought holds that it should be provided freely to the destitute who are not able to purchase. I completely disagree with this notion for the reasons outlined below.
It is understandable why some believe that the provision of free-of-charge houses to poor people who cannot afford them can bring about a major advantage. A key rationale is that with the wholly financial support from governments to obtain a house, the underprivileged are not likely to take care of how to pay for their housing debts while making ends meet. Therefore, they can allocate more money to improving their living standards such as spending more money on their children’s education and their older generation’s healthcare. However, this line of reasoning is not sound, since providing destitute individuals with housing without fees can place a colossal burden on the government coffers, resulting in budget deficits, tax hikes, or reduced welfare among others. As such, the viewpoint that the authorities should provide houses to poor people for free seems counter-productive.
On the other hand, I opine that the poor should not be provided housing freely by governments. This is predicated on the assumption that it may exacerbate the housing crisis that has occurred in metropolitan areas. For example, Hanoi’s government tried to provide its residents with a home to live in 2008. However, due to the limited housing areas and the escalating population to Hanoi after knowing about that scheme, the local government had to stop that plan. Furthermore, more houses are constructed for the poor, which is synonymous with hindering residents in that area from having other necessities such as healthcare, schooling, and entertainment areas.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that housing should not be provided for free to the poor since it can lead to a worsening housing crisis and limit the residents’ opportunities to enjoy other basic necessities.