Some believe that because everyone needs a place to live, governments should provide houses for those who are too poor to afford their own. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

When thinking about solutions to homelessness, many turn to providing houses for those who are too poor to afford one. I agree that this is a good solution, but the government should consider other problems arising as well.

Providing homes for the homeless has many benefits to both those poor individuals and society. One of which is a reduction of crimes and an increase in social stability. Poor people usually resort to committing crimes, such as thefts, robberies, sexual assault, or minor social indecencies like being fake beggars or flashing oneself. Providing housing will help them stay more stable and find themselves a job, which lessens actions like the aforementioned. Moreover, homeless people are also vulnerable to harsh weather conditions. For example, recently, among hundreds of deaths in Canada due to heatwaves, the majority of them are homeless people.  

However, because charity is often a double-edged sword, the government should consider the following potential problems before investing in homes for the poor. Firstly, this solution does not guarantee to be successful in helping the homeless. Many have become accustomed to the begging life for so long that they are now incapable of feeling inclined to work, especially when they know they can beg for money and food. For example, many still act like they are disabled to ask for charity when they can work. Another problem is that this investment in charity housing will take a toll on taxpayers. Building houses is expensive and takes a great deal of time to finish, which means the government will delay other social development, like providing better healthcare, improving infrastructure, or investing in education.

In conclusion, I agree that providing housing for people who cannot afford one due to poverty is a good solution. However, the government should take into account potential problems from this solution.

Sample 2:

Many reformers are of the opinion that it is the responsibility of governments to provide public housing for members of the public too poor to afford their own homes. In my opinion, although there are some situations when this might be necessary, it is better to allow people the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty.

Those who support government assistance in housing programs point out the institutional shackles that keep people in poverty. In the United States, there is a long, painful history concerning African Americans that began with slavery, discrimination and still shows its impact in various more muted forms of racism. These people have few chances to escape poverty and own their own homes because they have difficulty getting a good education and then a job. If governments provide them with housing, that frees up their money to go to the education of their children and can break the long chain of poverty that has blighted their path in America.

Although the above-mentioned argument has its merits, in my opinion people who help themselves are more likely to be able to maintain their success. Charity is a notoriously double-edged sword because it fosters dependence. Someone who is in poverty who works hard and finds and escape and manages to own a home will develop reserves of willpower and determination that will serve them their entire life. Their self-respect will also help them in their work and encourage them to hold onto their house, regardless of obstacles. If the government simply gifts this person a house, they will be much less inclined to take care of it and will not develop any of the qualities that will spell out their success in life more generally.

In conclusion, people who are more self-reliant are more likely to be successful and hold onto their homes. The role of government ought to be more subtle and include educational reforms aimed at opening up opportunities that individuals can themselves seize.

Sample 3:

It is true that having a safe and stable home is a reasonable and real need for all individuals. I completely agree with the proposal that the government is responsible for ensuring a place to live for poor residents.

Individuals and families without stable accommodation can find it a struggle to access essential public services such as education and healthcare. For example, in certain cities, having no permanent homes can mean children may not be allowed to attend affordable public schools and adults may face difficulties in registering with state-funded hospitals. In addition, a stable and comfortable living environment is closely linked to mental and emotional well-being. It is obvious that having a place to call home provides a sense of security, peace and belonging, generally enhancing our happiness and fulfilment. Therefore, having a safe place to live is a fundamental need.

However, not all people are fortunate enough to afford their own house. Some suffer from abusive home environments, unemployment, a significant rise in costs of living which are beyond their means, driving them onto the streets. Since the government bears responsibility for ensuring the well-being of each individual, it is legitimate for them to provide safe and stable accommodation to the disadvantaged. Governmental departments should work closely with local authorities to develop unused land, renovate run-down, abandoned buildings or inner-city slums, and provide housing benefits to people without homes. Despite the initial enormous investment, these schemes are likely to be beneficial as they lay the foundation for a sustainable growth of a every individual.

In conclusion, stable accommodation is an essential need for the well-being of every individual. In spite of significant financial resources required at first, I reckon that governments must make every effort to satisfy this need, especially for the impoverished population.

Sample 4:

Many reformers argue that governments have a huge responsibility to provide public housing to citizens who are too poor to be able to afford to buy their own. In my opinion, although there are some situations where it may be necessary, it is better to give everyone a chance to get out of poverty.

Advocates of government support in housing programs point to institutional inadequacies that keep people in constant poverty. In the United States, there is a long and traumatic history involving African Americans, beginning with slavery, discrimination and still showing its impact in many other forms of racism. together. These people have little chance of escaping poverty and owning their own home because it is difficult for them to get a good education and then a job. If the government provides them with housing, it will give them better conditions to work and send their children to school. That could break the long chain of poverty that has ravaged their way in America.

While the argument above has its merits, in my opinion people who help themselves are more likely to remain successful. Charity is a notorious double-edged sword because it promotes dependence. People from poor backgrounds who work hard to own a home develop the will and determination to serve them throughout their lives. Their self-esteem will also help them in their work and encourage them to hold on to their home, despite obstacles. If the government just gave this person a home, they would be less inclined to take care of it and would not develop any of the qualities that would mark success in their life in general.

In conclusion, people with more self-control were more likely to succeed and keep their homes. The role of government should be more subtle and include educational reforms that open up opportunities that individuals themselves can seize.

Sample 5:

A house is a basic need for every person, and everyone deserves to own one regardless of economic status. Some people believe that the government must provide houses to less privileged individuals for free and I agree with that but with conditions.

To begin with, having a shelter to live in is a basic need and a right of every person in a country despite their social status. People who belong below the poverty line should be given assistance by the government in acquiring at least a small house to live in yet a decent one. As it is the government's responsibility to improve the morale of its people, giving those underprivileged citizens a place to live for free is the right thing to do. By doing this, homelessness can be avoided and the common crimes brought by homeless people cannot take place, as well.

However, the government must clearly lay down conditions for the beneficiaries of free houses before providing them so that they will not take advantage of the system. First, the government must create a regulation that beneficiaries of free housing are not allowed to sell the house given to them in any way. Second, they cannot request another house from the government in case the house granted to them becomes unlivable due to negligence. In this way, they will give value to what is given to them and take good care of it. Besides, this is one good way to maintain orderliness in different places in a country which some other countries with a considerable number of homeless people fail to achieve.

In conclusion, underprivileged people deserve a comfortable house to live in and it is the government's responsibility to help them and setting conditions is necessary to avoid exploitation of the government's free housing program.

Sample 6:

Certainly, the question of whether the state should offer complimentary housing to its financially strained citizens is a subject of continual debate. Given the fundamental nature of shelter, the perspectives on this issue are manifold and merit nuanced consideration.

On one hand, the argument for universal free housing rests on the idea of social welfare. If the government were to allocate resources for this purpose, the homelessness rates in cities like Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City would undoubtedly plummet. These actions would not only fulfill the social contract between the citizens and the state but also indirectly boost public health and safety. However, the counterpoint here is the economic strain such a policy would place on the national budget. Sufficient quality housing requires significant capital, something that could jeopardize other critical sectors such as healthcare or education.

However, I believe that free housing, although noble in its intention, is not the most efficient approach to solving the housing crisis in Vietnam. Investment in affordable housing schemes and subsidies offers a more sustainable model. By implementing a sliding scale based on income, more people could secure adequate housing without draining public coffers. This would also encourage personal responsibility, ensuring that citizens do not become overly dependent on state-sponsored programs. It should be noted that this viewpoint is not devoid of empathy, but rather it encompasses a more realistic long-term vision for The Vietnamese society.

In conclusion, while the provision of free housing holds emotional and ethical appeal, it may not be the most judicious course of action from a governance standpoint. It seems more practical for the authorities to foster affordable housing, allowing citizens to acquire homes within their financial means. This strikes a balanced compromise between social welfare and economic viability, preserving the nation’s resources for the multitude of other challenges it must confront.

Sample 7:

Government-funded housing for low-income groups is a debated topic. Some experts claim that it falls within the scope of the welfare state. However, I disagree with this approach for several reasons.

Firstly, governments have limited resources, and providing free housing for all who cannot afford it is not sustainable. Other pressing issues, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure, need to be addressed. Instead of providing free housing, authorities should focus on creating more job opportunities and increasing the minimum wage, enabling people to purchase their own homes.

Furthermore, waiving accommodation fees can reduce occupants' motivation and increase laziness. With no rent to pay, there is no incentive to work hard and improve their economic situation. This can lead to a decline in productivity and economic growth. In addition, it may also result in an increase in demand for public services, such as healthcare and education, which in turn puts a strain on the government's resources.

In addition, this policy can create a sense of entitlement that may lead to a negative impact on the community. With free housing, people may start to believe that they have a right to it and become dependent on their city council for support. This dependency can lead to reduced motivation to work and contribute to the community, further increasing the number of people relying on government support.

In conclusion, while housing is a basic need, I believe that it should not be provided for free to everyone who cannot afford it. Instead, the government should focus on creating more job opportunities and increasing the minimum wage to enable lower-income groups to purchase their own homes.

Sample 8:

The rise in property prices in recent years has led to a significant increase in homelessness, prompting discussions around providing free accommodation to disadvantaged groups. As this approach may seem like an impractical solution to housing insecurity, I am firmly opposed to this idea.

One of my main reasons for disbelief is related to the impracticality of the policy itself in terms of management and execution. Providing free housing would require a significant budget, including costs associated with land acquisition, construction, maintenance, and ongoing operational expenses. This would pose a substantial financial burden for the government and eventually lead to a national budget deficit. In this case, the government may resort to unsustainable funding programs, such as imposing heavy taxes on people, triggering frustration and anger among the public. Moreover, creating a system of free housing would present many complex administrative challenges for the government, including the development of complex eligibility criteria and the establishment of fair allocation mechanisms, which also requires a large financial resource.

The second idea that supports my argument is that this counterproductive proposal might have negative impacts on a country’s economy and society. It is important that everyone takes responsibility for affording his or her own housing by working hard and saving up. Providing free accommodation for people might not encourage recipients to take necessary steps towards becoming financially independent, instead, it may foster a sense of entitlement, leading to a reliance on others for basic needs. More seriously, on a large scale, this could potentially lead to a societal trend where individuals become overly reliant on government-provided housing, ultimately resulting in enormous financial pressure on the government and even budget dificit problems. If this proposal were implemented, it could discourage private investment in housing, impede initiatives, and hinder market competition, which might eventually disrupt the housing market – a vital sector of any country’s economy.

In conclusion, I disagree strongly with the idea that the government should provide free housing to disadvantaged groups who cannot afford it, due to the infeasibility and negative effects on the economy and society. Instead, the government should concentrate on providing job opportunities for people and developing sustainable and affordable housing initiatives for citizens.

Sample 9:

In my opinion, governments should play a significant role in providing housing for those who cannot afford it, though I believe this support should be carefully implemented and not necessarily entirely free.

Firstly, housing is a basic human need, essential for physical and mental well-being. When individuals lack stable housing, it can lead to a cascade of other social problems, including poor health, difficulty maintaining employment, and challenges in education. By ensuring that all citizens have access to adequate housing, governments can prevent these issues and create a more stable society overall.

Moreover, government intervention in housing can help to reduce inequality and promote social mobility. In many cities, rising property prices have made it increasingly difficult for low-income individuals to find affordable housing, exacerbating social divides. Government-provided housing can help to bridge this gap, giving disadvantaged individuals a foundation from which to improve their circumstances.

However, it’s crucial to implement such programs thoughtfully. Rather than providing entirely free housing, which could potentially discourage self-reliance, governments could offer subsidized housing or rent assistance programs. This approach would still make housing accessible while encouraging individuals to contribute what they can.

Additionally, government housing initiatives should be part of a broader strategy to address poverty and homelessness. This could include job training programs, mental health support, and addiction treatment services. By tackling the root causes of housing insecurity, governments can create more sustainable solutions.

In conclusion, while I strongly support government intervention in providing affordable housing, I believe this should be done in a way that balances assistance with personal responsibility. By implementing well-designed housing programs as part of a comprehensive approach to social welfare, governments can significantly improve the lives of their most vulnerable citizens and strengthen society as a whole.

Sample 10:

Housing, undeniably, stands as a fundamental need for all human beings. The notion of governments providing free accommodations for those financially incapable sparks significant debates. While I partially agree with the proposition due to its potential socio-economic benefits, concerns about its feasibility and unintended repercussions are equally valid.

Firstly, offering free housing can serve as a potent tool in alleviating poverty. By securing shelter for the less privileged, governments can ensure a basic standard of living, fostering societal harmony and security. A person with a roof over their head can focus better on other aspects of life, such as education or employment.

Additionally, by meeting the housing needs, governments can motivate individuals to actively participate in the workforce. When the burden of housing expenses is lifted, people may pursue career opportunities more aggressively, leading to economic progress and decreased reliance on other social services.

However, the counter-arguments hold their merit. For starters, budgetary constraints play a pivotal role. Governments often grapple with allocating funds across various sectors, from healthcare and education to infrastructure and defense. Dedicating vast resources to provide free housing might sideline other pressing matters.

Furthermore, free housing might inadvertently create a culture of dependency or entitlement. When individuals receive substantial benefits without any counter-responsibility, it might dampen the incentive for personal growth and economic contribution.

In conclusion, while the concept of free housing paints a compassionate picture and boasts potential socio-economic advantages, the challenges associated with its implementation cannot be ignored. It is crucial for policymakers to find a balanced approach that upholds societal welfare without compromising on other aspects of national development.

Sample 11:

Housing is a fundamental human need, and the question of whether governments should provide it for those who cannot afford it is a complex and contentious issue. While I acknowledge the arguments against such a policy, I strongly believe that governments should indeed provide housing assistance to those in need, albeit with certain conditions and limitations.

Firstly, providing housing for the less fortunate is a moral imperative for any compassionate society. Homelessness not only causes immense suffering for individuals but also leads to a host of societal problems, including increased crime rates, public health issues, and economic inefficiency. By ensuring that all citizens have access to basic shelter, governments can significantly improve overall social welfare and stability.

Moreover, government-provided housing can serve as a steppingstone for people to improve their situations. With a stable living environment, individuals are better positioned to seek employment, pursue education, and contribute positively to society. This, in turn, can lead to reduced dependency on government assistance in the long run, making it a sound investment for the future.

However, it is crucial to implement such programs carefully to avoid potential pitfalls. For instance, the quality and location of government-provided housing should be carefully considered to prevent the creation of isolated, low-income ghettos. Additionally, these programs should include incentives for recipients to work towards financial independence, such as time limits on assistance or requirements for job training and education.

Critics may argue that providing free housing is an unsustainable burden on taxpayers and may discourage personal responsibility. While these concerns are valid, I believe they can be addressed through thoughtful policy design. For example, housing assistance could be structured as a temporary measure with clear pathways to independence, rather than an indefinite entitlement.

In conclusion, while the implementation of government-provided housing requires careful consideration and planning, I firmly believe that the benefits to both individuals and society as a whole outweigh the potential drawbacks. By providing this basic necessity, governments can create a more equitable, stable, and prosperous society for all citizens.

Sample 12:

It has been argued whether the municipality should introduce a public housing scheme in order to assist deprived families. In this essay, I will outline my arguments that disadvantaged households should be supplied with government accommodations.

Those opposing the provision of complimentary residences believe that this would exert financial constraints on the public funds. By offering free dwellings to poor families, colossal sums of government money would be largely invested in the construction and operational costs. Consequently, such heavy reliance on public money would increase the likelihood of placing more financial burdens on the community in the form of taxes, and thus this may cause social unrest.

Nevertheless, there are several compelling arguments that the officials need to supply subsidised housing to those unable to afford, with the enhancement of public health being the driving force. This is because some life-threatening diseases, such as tuberculosis, malaria or diarrhea are commonly found in substandard living conditions with water leaks, poor ventilation, or pest infestation. Therefore, with granted state-owned accommodations that are adequately constructed, underprivileged dwellers are likely to reduce the chances of catching these adverse health risks. Another reason for the authorities to offer dwellings to low-income earners is that poverty can be mitigated. Since the deprived population are housed without payment, their relentless worries about daily necessities could be partially relieved, allowing them to save considerable household expenditures.

In conclusion, although the introduction of complimentary housing can place pressure on state funds and result in the remaining community adhering to higher tax rates, I feel that the government should make residences available to disadvantaged families as this is a viable solution to public healthcare and poverty.

Sample 13:

While many people have abundant luxuries, others suffer from unimaginable poverty and lack the basic human needs like food and shelter. Home is one of the five most fundamental needs for every human and government of a country should try in every way possible to make sure that there is no homeless in the country.

From the very ancient time till today, people’s need for a safe place to live in is considered to be a very fundamental need. This is how the concept of home has emerged, and only homeless people can understand the sufferings of not having a shelter. Poor people who cannot manage a decent meal every day often live under the open sky. This is inhuman and the government of a country has a natural obligation to ensure the living places for people. When a government has the responsibility to ensure economic development, infrastructure development, education, roads and highway, protecting people from criminals why providing such a basic need like home for homeless people is in a debate? A huge amount of money spent on researches every year and what good those research could bring to the citizens of a country when there are large numbers of people who are living without any shelter?

Natural calamities like flood, tsunami and earthquake make many people homeless and the national and international supports then should always keep the shelter in priority for such victims. War is still a curse in the world we live in and because of that a great number of people are forced to leave their houses and become homeless. Should not rich nations, the government of the country and capable individuals raise their helping hands to ensure the shelter of homeless people? The answer is always yes. That’s what makes us human. When we live in a luxurious building, many others are sleeping beside the pavement. Should not a government be considered a failure when they would spend millions of dollars for space research while there would be thousands of people homeless in the country?

Homeless people would unsurprisingly get involved in crimes and the society would face more trouble controlling them. So from this perspective, a government should focus on ensuring homes for every family. In fact, the loan, mortgage and subsidiary system we notice in many developed countries like the UK and the USA are aimed to help people to have their own home.   

To conclude, a living place is one of the most basic needs of every human being and the government of a country should always take initiatives to make sure that there are no homeless people in the country. 

Sample 14:

It's the fact that people need to eat, live in a house, and wear clothes to survive. Since everyone cannot afford to buy a home, some people believe that the government should provide housing for those in need. However, I believe that unless a proper location system is prepared, such plans would cause economic inflation. I will explain the reason and provide justification in this essay.

People have more money to spend on other things if everyone owns a house. They will, for example, arrange for international trips and buy new clothes to increase their disposable income. Even though people will put money into something, they will spend a lot more on expensive things. In fact, people will switch products more frequently than they normally do. Evidently, increased spending would result in economic inflation. However, housing costs will have a significant impact. A lot of money is put into building homes and renting them out to others. Many of these investors will be impacted by the strategy to provide free housing because home prices will reach their lowest point. Since everyone has a home, no one will spend money on building a new one unless they absolutely have to. For instance, a recent program implemented by the Indian government to provide homes at a subsidized rate has resulted in a significant drop in home prices. Because of these government actions, people won't put their hard-earned money into the housing sector.

I also believe that people will start taking advantage of this scheme. They will find loopholes to loot the government. This will result in the needy or homeless people not getting home. They will have to stay on the streets.

In conclusion, the plan to provide free housing to everyone who cannot afford it is having a significant impact on the economy and its structure. It shouldn't be done unless the market has a lot of income inequality.

Sample 15:

The price of a home is rising at an alarming rate right now. Because apartments are a basic need for people, the government should provide free housing to everyone who can't pay for it. In this essay, I will state reasons that the authorities should provide homeless people with free lodging.

First and foremost, the country's citizens pay taxes to the government. Officials are tasked with taking care of the nation's citizens and ensuring that no one is left homeless. They ought to construct brand-new buildings to accommodate those who are unable to purchase such pricey properties. For instance, according to a survey report that was submitted to the India Times, the new government in Hyderabad has built several high-rise buildings in various locations for people whose annual income is below 50,000 rupees. The regime has the potential to be a valuable resource for the general public in need of such housing in this way.

On the other hand, regardless of caste or religion, men and women vote for the nation's leaders in the hope that they will improve their lives and provide them with better employment opportunities and living conditions. A lot of people who live in poverty hope that the ruling judiciary will help them and their children. For example, they hope that the ministry of the republic will provide them with a spacious apartment and free education. For instance, a report that was submitted by a Chinese newspaper, states that as part of a family scheme, the Chinese ruling party has given 80 3 bhk flats to the poor. To make the world a better place for all underprivileged communities, other kingdoms should follow China's lead and implement this law.

In conclusion, this essay argued that low-income tribes who are unable to afford these contemporary, opulent residences should be provided with personal housing. Underpaid individuals who require a suitable residence ought to receive housing boards from land executives, in my opinion.

Sample 16:

Every human being has three basic needs: food, shelter and clothes. Although all must be fulfilled, predominant is providing accommodation to needy people that catches more attention. So, I completely agree that the regime should provide free housing for destitute people as they are a citizen of a country and incapable of purchasing a home and another point is to solve the problem of homelessness.

First off, it is a very pity for a country to develop or develop if its people live on footpaths and roads. So, here it is the government’s responsibility to provide homes to helpless people who are downtrodden because they have no jobs, and they earn their bread and butter by begging and doing labour work on daily wages. How can they purchase a home? Besides, sometimes if they sleep hungry and having their own home remains a dream for them, so in that case, it is the first responsibility of the government to provide residential places to these people. For example, it has been telecast many times in Asian countries that poverty can be seen in slum areas, and the situation becomes worse when motorists kill them due to living in an unsafe place.

Moreover, as people of any nation contribute to escalating a nation’s economy, the masses pay tax on time, so I think there is no extra burden on the government to provide free housing to needy people. Government can help them by creating jobs according to the abilities and provide them with loan facility. So that needy people can pay the amount smoothly. With taxpayers’ help and providing a loan scheme, this underprivileged section can be helped, and they can live with pride at the own home. For instance, there many schemes such as Apna Ghar, and miserable people can also avail themselves the opportunity with the Government’s help.

Furthermore, countries are known by their people. If people’s living standard is healthy, then the country makes advances and its reputation all over the world is also enhanced. So, the government of any country must have some privileges to these people.

To conclude, in my perspective, the government should provide free houses to people who live below the poverty line. To reduce the government’s financial burden, help can be provided in loans that the masses can repay at low instalments. This will curb the problem of homelessness, and people can live with a sense of pride in their homes.