Housing is essential for people. Some argue that the government should offer free housing for people who cannot afford it. Do you agree or disagree with the statement? v.1

Housing is one of the basic necessity for human survival. However, there are many unfortunate lives that cannot afford it. One of the highly debatable issues today is whether the government should provide free housing. I partially agree with this viewpoint, but I also believe that it is not the only solution for several reasons outlined in my essay. On one side of the argument, it could be said that providing free housing would ensure that many people who cannot afford one will get a shelter rather than sleeping on the roads. In addition, it would ensure better standards of living and bring prosperity to the economy. A good illustration for this is the United States, wherein public authorities ensures that the citizens have a basic accommodation which enhances their living standards. Thus, it is pertinent that government takes such step for extremely poor people who needs a house. On the other hand, it is can also be argued that such free housing is not a sustainable idea as the population increases. This is true especially in the developing countries such as India and China. Moreover, the states in these economies has to also spend on other essentials such as food and education. To overcome this barrier, government can either subsidize housing or redevelop slum areas to build more houses and make it affordable for the mass. A classic example of such an initiative is a country like Indonesia, where the country offers up to 60% home loan subsidy to the needy people, this resulted in a 40% growth in home dwellers. Having considered a range of arguments, I have come to a conclusion that free housing to extremely poor families and subsidization for the mass population of lower socioeconomic class, needs to adopted to tackle this issue.