In some countries, owning a home rather than renting one is very important for people. Why might this be the case? Do you think this is a positive or negative situation?

It is often argued that it is better to own a house than rent one for living in some nations. The primary reason for

this

is, in many developing nations, the family would not be able to pay monthly rent on time due to lack of employment. I think it is a negative development as most of the society who work in a different place could not afford to buy a house, and live in poor conditions.

To begin

with,

people

are unable to pay money to landlords on time because they may not have a salaried job or a steady income.

Moreover

,

in addition

to the rent, tenants have to pay for essential services like electricity and water, and if these are not paid on time, they have to face harassment from the residence owner as well as the government officials.

Therefore

, a self-owned building would guarantee a person shelter to live, and they just have to earn for food and services.

For instance

, a report in a daily showed that about two-thirds of

people

in Mumbai spent more than half of their annual income on apartment rents. It is a negative situation as all population cannot buy a dwelling place.

Furthermore

, most of the residents who live in a different place far away from home could not earn enough to feed their family three times a day.

For example

, in Mumbai, a Metropolitan city in India, renting a single bedroom flat would cost about 10000rs,

hence

people

move to slums and live in the worst conditions with many diseases related to unhygienic situations. To conclude, it is better to have own house than to be a tenant.

People

do not have proper income to pay monthly bills in most of the places and

therefore

are forced to dwell in poor living conditions and frequent ailment related to poor hygiene.