Topic : Free housing | Bài mẫu IELTS Writing Task 2
Quan điểm người viết: totally disagree vì 2 lý do
Body par 01 – Lý do 01: Sự bất khả thi trong việc quản lý và thực hiện
Body par 02 – Lý do 02: Tác động tiêu cực đến nền kinh tế và xã hội của một quốc gia
I approve of the notion that free housing can lead to enhanced societal stability, which subsequently fosters national progress. In many societies, homelessness and housing insecurities plague the population, causing ripples of discontent and disenfranchisement. Ensuring everyone has shelter, a direct impact would be a reduction in street crimes, as desperation often drives people to unlawful acts. For instance, countries with robust social housing programs, like Denmark, report lower rates of vagrancy-related crimes. Additionally, a stable living situation can enhance individuals' mental and emotional well-being, leading to more productive and content citizens. As more people become productive, it contributes to the broader development and prosperity of a nation.
I concur that providing free housing can also result in a boost to economic mobility, paving the way for a more equitable society. When people aren’t burdened by exorbitant rents or the threat of eviction, they can allocate resources to education and skill development. This alignment of priorities leads to a more skilled workforce. For example, in nations where housing is heavily subsidized, such as in certain Nordic countries, there is a higher percentage of the population pursuing higher education and vocational training. As these individuals climb the socioeconomic ladder due to their enhanced skills, it reduces wealth disparities and fosters a more harmonious and balanced society.
On the other hand, I disagree with the proposition solely due to the potential strain on governmental budgets, eventually resulting in the potential neglect of other critical sectors. Allocating funds for universal free housing would undoubtedly divert financial investments in other sectors like healthcare, education, or infrastructure. For instance, countries that have attempted large-scale free housing projects, such as Venezuela, faced challenges in managing their budgets, leading to economic downturns. This financial strain can culminate in inadequate facilities, poorer healthcare systems, and compromised educational quality. The eventual outcome might be a society where housing is free, but other basic necessities and quality services become scarce or subpar.
To sum up, while the merits of offering free housing are significant in fostering societal and economic growth, it is paramount to weigh these benefits against the potential strains on a nation's resources.
Nowadays, many people are struggling to find a place to stay. In fact, many people believe free housing should be provided for everyone who cannot afford it. I firmly disagree with this opinion.
Firstly, if governments started to provide free housing to everyone who is struggling, it would not be sustainable. Indeed, in the initial period of the solution, it might seem a good idea. However, after the initial period, people could not push themselves to earn more money. They could become less and less productive because what they need is already given to them. Furthermore, laziness could push people to rely on the government and some of them could even quit their jobs and become unemployed.
Moreover, the government's funds are not unlimited. If the government started to provide too much housing, it would spend less money on other needs, such as healthcare, education or public transportation. Thus, this would lead to even more problems for the society. For example, by investing less money in healthcare, people wouldn't benefit from the latest medical devices, which are necessary for the right diagnosis and the best treatment.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree that governments should provide free housing for people in need because people would probably take advantage of that and because the funds are limited. Instead, governments could help those who are struggling by finding new jobs for them.
One of the first ambitions of people is to own a house, someone is lucky and they maybe receive it like a heritage from their parents others probably never have this chance. In these cases, the government should help to give these people the possibility to sleep in a safe place. In this essay, I will explain which is my opinion and why this argument is so delicate.
First of all, having a safe place where you can sleep is vital for people. Life in the street could be really dangerous because of robbers, climate and hygiene conditions. In fact, there are a lot of homeless that die every year around the world. For example, a friend of mine that work in a hospital in Milan told me how the number of homeless that present pathologies during winter increases every year.
However, there are a lot of countries where a huge percentage of homeless are migrants. This phenomenon produces a lot of difficulties in the organization of help because each government can afford to help a limited number of people. Moreover, deciding who has to put money to help the homeless is always difficult. For ,instance during the last ten years, a lot of countries decided to do not to accept migrants anymore
To sum up, too many people die around the world because they don’t have a safe place called home. However, some countries often cannot afford this need because the number of homeless is too high. In my opinion, housing is crucial for people for this reason even if sometimes it could be difficult, organizations like NATO have to find a way to provide a solution to this worldwide problem.
Housing, being a fundamental need for individuals, has sparked debates about whether the government should offer it freely for those who are economically disadvantaged. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.
I approve of the notion that free housing can lead to enhanced societal stability, which subsequently fosters national progress. In many societies, homelessness and housing insecurities plague the population, causing ripples of discontent and disenfranchisement. Ensuring everyone has shelter, a direct impact would be a reduction in street crimes, as desperation often drives people to unlawful acts. For instance, countries with robust social housing programs, like Denmark, report lower rates of vagrancy-related crimes. Additionally, a stable living situation can enhance individuals' mental and emotional well-being, leading to more productive and content citizens. As more people become productive, it contributes to the broader development and prosperity of a nation.
I concur that providing free housing can also result in a boost to economic mobility, paving the way for a more equitable society. When people aren’t burdened by exorbitant rents or the threat of eviction, they can allocate resources to education and skill development. This alignment of priorities leads to a more skilled workforce. For example, in nations where housing is heavily subsidized, such as in certain Nordic countries, there is a higher percentage of the population pursuing higher education and vocational training. As these individuals climb the socioeconomic ladder due to their enhanced skills, it reduces wealth disparities and fosters a more harmonious and balanced society.
On the other hand, I disagree with the proposition solely due to the potential strain on governmental budgets, eventually resulting in the potential neglect of other critical sectors. Allocating funds for universal free housing would undoubtedly divert financial investments in other sectors like healthcare, education, or infrastructure. For instance, countries that have attempted large-scale free housing projects, such as Venezuela, faced challenges in managing their budgets, leading to economic downturns. This financial strain can culminate in inadequate facilities, poorer healthcare systems, and compromised educational quality. The eventual outcome might be a society where housing is free, but other basic necessities and quality services become scarce or subpar.
To sum up, while the merits of offering free housing are significant in fostering societal and economic growth, it is paramount to weigh these benefits against the potential strains on a nation's resources.
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.
Xem thêm các tài liệu Tiếng Anh hay, chi tiết khác:
TOP Việc làm "HOT" dành cho sinh viên:
Đăng nhập để có thể bình luận
Nếu bạn đang tìm cách nâng trình tiếng Anh thú vị hơn thay vì học theo cách truyền thống, việc học qua phim ảnh và video có thể là lựa chọn lý tưởng. Cùng 1900.com.vn khám phá Top 13 website học tiếng Anh qua phim ảnh & video online chất lượng hiện nay — giúp bạn vừa giải trí vừa tiến bộ, nâng cao khả năng nghe nói và phản xạ tự nhiên hơn.
1900.com.vn tổng hợp bài viết về Câu điều kiện loại 1 (First Conditional) đầy đủ các kiến thức bao gồm: Định nghĩa, cấu trúc ngữ pháp, cách dùng, các ví dụ minh họa và bài tập vận dụng. Từ đó giúp bạn nắm vững kiến thức và học tốt Tiếng Anh hơn.
1900.com.vn tổng hợp bài viết về Speaking Forecast 2023 | Bộ đề dự đoán chi tiết mới nhất cung cấp cho người học một loạt các chủ đề, câu hỏi và phương pháp luyện tập để giúp họ nâng cao khả năng giao tiếp tiếng Anh của mình. Từ đó giúp bạn nắm vững kiến thức và học tốt Tiếng Anh hơn.