Some individuals believe that the authority should subsidize free accommodation for the poor class. While this policy has certain benefits, it also causes several downsides. This essay will discuss advantageous and harmful views.
On the one hand, there are several arguments in favour of a support house for the poor. One noticeable benefit is that improving living standards for the low-income citizens. This is because the house burden is removed and they have time to pursue their passion; it allows them to break the cycle of poverty. Another reason is enhancing public health and safety. This is because houses play a crucial role in protecting their lives when some urgent cases happen, such as thieves or climate issues. As a result, these reasons can serve as a catalyst for increasing the number of workers, which leads to boosting national outcomes and making images of their country more beautiful in the eyes of international friends.
On the other hand, the potential downsides of providing free houses should not be overlooked. One of the most major harmful reasons is the high financial burden on government budgets. This is because instead of spending this expenditure on other facilities to improve their nation, such as roads and universities, they spend a significant amount of money on housing problems, accidentally causing a range of budget issues. Another reason is the possible unfairness or abuse of the system. This is because many workers should earn money to have an opportunity to buy a house, even though the poor do not do anything and can have a free house. Consequently, it can cause many problems due to unfair policy or the financial burden of the government.
In conclusion, although providing free houses offers significant benefits regarding living standards and reduces social equality, it is not without a high burden on the authority and consideration of unfair policy with other factors or workers.