Renting a house in the free sector is becoming more expensive. Should the income limit for social housing constructions therefore be stretched?

Not knowing all the factors, you might generally be able to say that considerations will be based on a general understanding and sound of the nature of the Dutch society.

In doing so may hear the following questions: How far do you go in supporting the weaker, at the expense of the stronger?What do we base a fair distribution on? To what extent is “helping” be productive in pursuit of the idea that everyone is responsible for the maintenance of themselves and their “dependents”?

That can only remain an ongoing discussion in the continual development of the notion of a righteous community seeking the well-being of all.

Thank you for your question, Bastiaan.

No because then you talk the rent increases just fine.As long as people keep paying and there is a dire housing shortage, this trend will continue. By continuing to provide more subsidies, in my opinion, you are only more in the hand.

What the solution is: no idea

That could be.However, about half of all home ownership in the social sector is in private hand. These individuals are being duped by this measure.

Social housing is also a farce.In Amsterdam e.g. Project developers only have to give such guarantees for 15 years. The newly built dwellings were then released. Is then forgiven all land, descending with every move from a social dwelling the number of these dwellings. In Other large cities The situation will be no other.

No, it is not necessary to stretch the income limit.It would be much better to help increase the lower incomes.

I personally do not think so.This is because in this debate you are on 1 of 2 sides. Or you take advantage of it because you are part of the population who gets a home with social subsidies, or you are part of those who pay the subsidies, and I hear from the last group.

It’s actually all not that difficult.In my opinion, you are entitled to life. That is to say, a minimal medical supply, a windproof, waterproof home and inexpensive food. All the rest is luxury. You are not entitled to a car, you are not entitled to a holiday. You have no right to double glazing, solar panels or a 3-double insulated, ventilated home.

And when pulling that boundary, most discussions happen.

In my opinion, you are entitled to certainty that the government is keeping you alive.A hard, hard life. If you want more, you work for it. We do not need more social security. We need a system that once again teaches people responsibility and cares about their own existence.

No government nipple that everyone is very happy to depend on.Of course there will always be people who are at the shortest end, and do not get their lives for a long time. But it’s a small price that has to be paid to make sure we don’t create a perilous, weak society.

TLDR More social services are a negative, people are rather lazy than tired.Do not improve their lives; Give them the tools to improve their own lives.

No because then you get inflation.

Leave a Reply