For some to be subsidized, others actually have to make surplus income that can be used for that subsidy. This is their private property, and the right to private property is a very fundamental human right. Social Contractarians would say that it is only by being in society that the accumulation of wealth is possible, therefore society has a right to a call on that wealth. That is true, but only in so much as society uses it for the common good. The wasting of taxes is theft, and to pay a group of people to buy something which they can afford to buy for themselves is a waste.
People generally live where they do in the first place because that is where they can earn a living.
If the costs exceed the income, then people have to move to somewhere that they don't, and while they have this option, there is no justification for raiding the savings of those who live in remunerative environments to subsidize their life style. Paying people to live where they cannot make a living holds back the whole of society because it squanders some of the common wealth. And the money doesn't just come out of the pockets of rich people. Proportionately more of it comes out of the pockets of the poorest people. People in Inala or Redfern can end up paying higher taxes or receiving less welfare benefits so that a country grandee in Roma can enjoy running water.