I'm sure it will be challenged. In the meanwhile, renters have that protection. The other part doesn't matter much at the moment because few are moving who are not forced to do so.
This seems like something that will be challenged in court. It also seems like it's going to make finding a rental impossible if you don't have an 800 credit score and a fair pile of money in the bank.
The more I think about it the more I'm of the opinion that this will absolutely be challenged within a week. This has to be a multi billion dollar industry, and there are contracts in place on every one of those units. Can the government simply declare those contracts void? Can they force any business to give away it's services? I understand that the Feds are going to reimburse most of the landlords, but how long will that take? Three months, four, longer? Who pays the bills once all those landlords have burned through their cash? What if they can't afford maintenance and some units become unlivable?I'm sure it will be challenged. In the meanwhile, renters have that protection. The other part doesn't matter much at the moment because few are moving who are not forced to do so.
I'm having trouble coming up with a system that would be better. Should the government own all housing and assign it based on some criteria? Or should the feds simply be paying everyone's rent?This topic is one which we wouldn't have to worry about if our national religion wasn't Deathcult Capitalism.
You could easily Gordian it with UBI.I wouldn't want to be the fellow who has to unravel that knot.
I mean everything in the US is challenged in court. Trying to make a bus lane can take years because of this. (we should drastically reduce the ability of private lawsuits to limit government action!)This seems like something that will be challenged in court. It also seems like it's going to make finding a rental impossible if you don't have an 800 credit score and a fair pile of money in the bank.
I'd like to see how that one works as well. Does a person in South Dakota get the same amount as a person in San Francisco? Would UBI be enough to pay all of ones expenses, or just rent? If just rent, how would they be forced to pay rent instead of buying food?You could easily Gordian it with UBI.
The more I think about it the more I'm of the opinion that this will absolutely be challenged within a week. This has to be a multi billion dollar industry, and there are contracts in place on every one of those units. Can the government simply declare those contracts void? Can they force any business to give away it's services? I understand that the Feds are going to reimburse most of the landlords, but how long will that take? Three months, four, longer? Who pays the bills once all those landlords have burned through their cash? What if they can't afford maintenance and some units become unlivable?
Maybe I'm not understanding the entire picture, but it seems this could well become a clusterfuck of biblical proportions. I wouldn't want to be the fellow who has to unravel that knot.
The issue is that government can't simply slam the door on one section of the economy. All that's happening is they're kicking the can into another yard.There's always the Hooverville option. We were seeing a lot of that even before the pandemic. Meanwhile, thieves can tear out the plumbing in vacant properties to sell it for scrap. Win-win, right?
Regarding how much to pay out, you could give everyone a flat amount and let people migrate to less expensive areas if they still cannot make ends meet. Alternatively you could base the payments off the DOD'd BAH guidance (albeit with increasing the values, maybe 20-50%?).I'd like to see how that one works as well. Does a person in South Dakota get the same amount as a person in San Francisco? Would UBI be enough to pay all of ones expenses, or just rent? If just rent, how would they be forced to pay rent instead of buying food?
Using conservative numbers and a napkin, it looks like an added two and a half trillion dollars of federal spending every year, that's a lot more taxes. I could afford an extra thousand a month in taxes, as long as I was getting an extra thousand a month in UBI.
Who knew governing would be so hard? All these problems would disappear if we could show more republicans how to make money off the pandemic.The issue is that government can't simply slam the door on one section of the economy. All that's happening is they're kicking the can into another yard.
I don't know the answer, but I can identify a flawed solution. Clearly some collectivism is required here, we can't let our friends and neighbors die simply because it's convenient, but the other side of that coin is we can't simply strip people of everything to do it. As this order stands, a small segment of the population is going to take an unreasonable hit. You don't mind because it's a segment you don't like, I mind because I might be next in line.
The issue is that government can't simply slam the door on one section of the economy. All that's happening is they're kicking the can into another yard.
I don't know the answer, but I can identify a flawed solution. Clearly some collectivism is required here, we can't let our friends and neighbors die simply because it's convenient, but the other side of that coin is we can't simply strip people of everything to do it. As this order stands, a small segment of the population is going to take an unreasonable hit. You don't mind because it's a segment you don't like, I mind because I might be next in line.
Regarding how much to pay out, you could give everyone a flat amount and let people migrate to less expensive areas if they still cannot make ends meet. Alternatively you could base the payments off the DOD'd BAH guidance (albeit with increasing the values, maybe 20-50%?).
Regarding the cost, the usual notion is to just eliminate all other social programs, such as SS, SSI, food stamps, etc. That's about a trillion not including SS, if you include SS it's closer to 2T. There's 200M Americans in the US over 18, so including SS that's $10k/yr without even adding any funding to it. You can easily up that by spooling down other programs, or just, you know, taxing the rich. A key to this is to keep it simple, though. This isn't a program that should have $100M in planning, coordinating, etc. Just a check to everyone, regardless of income level.
That's fine, and when people refuse to rent your property because other people are cheaper, you won't get a tenant. Renters don't get to unilaterally decide that all the new govt money goes to them.It will raise the rent. If I rent something for $1k per month and I know every person gets $1.5k per month, I’m increasing my rent to $1.7 or maybe $2k per month.
That's fine, and when people refuse to rent your property because other people are cheaper, you won't get a tenant. Renters don't get to unilaterally decide that all the new govt money goes to them.
There'll probably be an increase in rent costs, as there always is (not like rent ever goes down), but it won't be in line with the amount of UBI, or moreso (lol).
I don't think anyone would have ever stated it would decrease rental or property costs. Inflation alone increases those every year.Depends on the local market (of course) seems like we agree no way would it decrease rental or property costs.
Fanatical raises a good point. Without controls, universal basic greed will jump housing, food, clothing and, insurance costs. Corporate America isn't about to leave money on the table for working class people to use to improve their lives. Where would the easy money come from then? Next thing you know, we'd have a middle class again and profit for the few would fall in the dumpster. Why do you hate America?That's fine, and when people refuse to rent your property because other people are cheaper, you won't get a tenant. Renters don't get to unilaterally decide that all the new govt money goes to them.
There'll probably be an increase in rent costs, as there always is (not like rent ever goes down), but it won't be in line with the amount of UBI, or moreso (lol).
Lol, but for serious, you could just place a federal hold on rent increases for 5 years. Mortgage increases would be buffered a bit by that (as any investment properties would likely see lower sale prices than they otherwise would), and it'd give the rest of the economy time to 'feel out' the extra money floating around before the actual rent seekers start trying to vulture the free money.Fanatical raises a good point. Without controls, universal basic greed will jump housing, food, clothing and, insurance costs. Corporate America isn't about to leave money on the table for working class people to use to improve their lives. Where would the easy money come from then? Next thing you know, we'd have a middle class again and profit for the few would fall in the dumpster. Why do you hate America?
Price controls like rent freezes and rent control are bad ideas.Lol, but for serious, you could just place a federal hold on rent increases for 5 years. Mortgage increases would be buffered a bit by that (as any investment properties would likely see lower sale prices than they otherwise would), and it'd give the rest of the economy time to 'feel out' the extra money floating around before the actual rent seekers start trying to vulture the free money.
The more I think about it the more I'm of the opinion that this will absolutely be challenged within a week. This has to be a multi billion dollar industry, and there are contracts in place on every one of those units. Can the government simply declare those contracts void? Can they force any business to give away it's services? I understand that the Feds are going to reimburse most of the landlords, but how long will that take? Three months, four, longer? Who pays the bills once all those landlords have burned through their cash? What if they can't afford maintenance and some units become unlivable?
Maybe I'm not understanding the entire picture, but it seems this could well become a clusterfuck of biblical proportions. I wouldn't want to be the fellow who has to unravel that knot.
Lol, but for serious, you could just place a federal hold on rent increases for 5 years. Mortgage increases would be buffered a bit by that (as any investment properties would likely see lower sale prices than they otherwise would), and it'd give the rest of the economy time to 'feel out' the extra money floating around before the actual rent seekers start trying to vulture the free money.
The issue is that government can't simply slam the door on one section of the economy. All that's happening is they're kicking the can into another yard.
I don't know the answer, but I can identify a flawed solution. Clearly some collectivism is required here, we can't let our friends and neighbors die simply because it's convenient, but the other side of that coin is we can't simply strip people of everything to do it. As this order stands, a small segment of the population is going to take an unreasonable hit. You don't mind because it's a segment you don't like, I mind because I might be next in line.
Oh please, we have competitive rental prices just like we have competitive gas prices, current costs not withstanding. Add in barriers to building "affordable housing" and, we're back where we started. Price controls are a necessary counter to universal basic greed. No one ever manages to understand in government or, in society that everyone making a buck is better than a few making all the money. Limiting the greed is the only way to do it.Price controls like rent freezes and rent control are bad ideas.
As for the idea that if people have more money inflation will go up that's probably true to an extent but the US has had super low inflation for many years now - the country would be better off it we had a few years above normal. The whole thing where rents would just increase to soak up the extra money implies we don't have a competitive rental market and I have not seen any indication that's the case. The main problem our housing market has is that the US hasn't built enough houses for the past 40 years so the demand for them is insanely high.