John Consiglio is indulging in his fantasy when he asserts (August 22) that I write in favour of keeping existing housing stock vacant and unutilised.

On the contrary, I am in favour of incentives to bring vacant housing back into the market, which would be much more effective than penalties. Maltese legislation is littered with penalties, which are never or rarely enforced. On the other hand, fiscal incentives usually generate a strong positive response.

Consiglio’s assertion (July 14) is clear and unequivocal. He proposes that rents should be based on the tenant’s ability to pay, which is precisely the form of rent control that led to a string of judgments condemning the State, that is, Maltese taxpayers (myself included), to compensate individual property owners for unjust treatment.

The State has an obligation to play fair with both tenant and owner. If the State considers it necessary to subsidise the rent of a particular tenant, then it should be the State, that is, all taxpayers, which forks out the subsidy.

The subsidy should not be imposed on an individual property owner as a personal penalty. This is the gist of recent decisions by the European Court of Justice. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not socially just or, for that matter, Christian.

I thank God I live in a country that provides a safety net for the less fortunate members of society. This safety net should be funded by the State, for which purpose it generates revenue through a reasonable level of taxation and other means.