4 ms·

It's borderline irrelevant. I'd want to see things like rent/mortgage payments alleviated or suspended for the duration.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Pretty much everybody has either rent or a mortgage. Therefore giving someone $1000 towards their rent/mortgage is basically equivalent to just giving them $1000, except that it's a ton of extra administrative complexity and it also screws over a few people who somehow don't qualify but still need help. Whereas if you make the assistance "we pay the amount of your mortgage" instead of "we pay $1000" then you're giving much more of the money to affluent people, who presumably need it less.
- GeorgeWBasic 7y ago
  That's not what he said. He didn't say, "give everyone $1000 towards their rent or mortgage". He said, temporarily suspend all rent and mortgage payments. As in, nobody pays any of it. Recurring expenses are what's going to destroy the economy so thoroughly that the great depression will look like a minor downtown. If nobody gets kicked out because they can't pay rent, or their mortgage, or the lease on their business, things might actually be able to resume once there's a handle on this.
  - eudoxus 7y ago
    I understand how that would work for Mortgage payments as they are controlled/facilitated by banks, and the government has the ability to coordinate with banks (in an ideal case). But how might the federal government enforce suspension of rent payments? Rent just goes to landlords (regular people) and is part of their gross income filed on their taxes. If you don't have to pay your rent, wouldn't we just be moving the buck from renters to landlords in terms of finnancial needs?
    - magduf 7y ago
      The landlords are using the rent to pay the mortgage on the property. If the banks suspend mortgage payments, then the landlords don't need to collect rent any more. If the landlords desperately need that rent just to do basic maintenance and repairs, and don't have enough saved to deal with a possible problem that might happen in the next month, then they don't deserve to own the property.
      - FillardMillmore 7y ago
        > If the landlords desperately need that rent just to do basic maintenance and repairs, and don't have enough saved to deal with a possible problem that might happen in the next month, then they don't deserve to own the property. I'm not saying you're wrong, but what's the argument for that? On its surface, the proclamation that they 'don't deserve to own their property' seems a little draconian to me. What if a repair is required that was unforeseen and not basic?
        magduf 7y ago
        That's what insurance is for, or maybe a loan. If the repair is not basic, then it sounds like it's going to be very costly. If it's very costly, then the tenants missing a month or two of rent is not going to be enough to make a difference on the landlord being able to afford it. After all, the amount of money they should be raking in above the mortgage on the property is not generally going to be a large fraction of the total rent. So if the landlord can't swing a few hundred dollars for an unforeseen repair, then they aren't in sufficient financial shape to be owning and renting out that property, since the landlord (in normal circumstances) is fully responsible for keeping the property in good repair at all times. "I can't afford it" is not a valid excuse for not doing repairs, and the court system agrees with me.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > The landlords are using the rent to pay the mortgage on the property. If the banks suspend mortgage payments, then the landlords don't need to collect rent any more. How do you know it goes to a mortgage? The property could be owned by a retired couple and the rent is the income they live on, or a charity and the rent is how they fund their operations. Or it could be owned by a regular old smelly landlord who just takes the rent money and invests it in the S&P 500 -- which, if you take it away multiplied by millions of landlords, does a Bad Thing to the stock market right when you want the opposite of that. Sometimes rent includes utilities. What does the landlord pay that with? I imagine you also expect to waive property tax or the landlords would have nothing to pay that with either, but then what are you using to fund local governments? You can't just delete an industry and expect it to have no untoward effect.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Recurring expenses Then what about all the other ones? Are we also suspending utility bills? Car loans? Property tax? Grocery bills? Why should someone paying the same total amount in recurring expenses have more of them waived just because they happen to pay more in rent and less in transportation and utilities than somebody else?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

Pretty much everybody has either rent or a mortgage. Therefore giving someone $1000 towards their rent/mortgage is basically equivalent to just giving them $1000, except that it's a ton of extra administrative complexity and it also screws over a few people who somehow don't qualify but still need help. Whereas if you make the assistance "we pay the amount of your mortgage" instead of "we pay $1000" then you're giving much more of the money to affluent people, who presumably need it less.

GeorgeWBasic 7y ago
That's not what he said. He didn't say, "give everyone $1000 towards their rent or mortgage". He said, temporarily suspend all rent and mortgage payments. As in, nobody pays any of it. Recurring expenses are what's going to destroy the economy so thoroughly that the great depression will look like a minor downtown. If nobody gets kicked out because they can't pay rent, or their mortgage, or the lease on their business, things might actually be able to resume once there's a handle on this.
- eudoxus 7y ago
  I understand how that would work for Mortgage payments as they are controlled/facilitated by banks, and the government has the ability to coordinate with banks (in an ideal case). But how might the federal government enforce suspension of rent payments? Rent just goes to landlords (regular people) and is part of their gross income filed on their taxes. If you don't have to pay your rent, wouldn't we just be moving the buck from renters to landlords in terms of finnancial needs?
  - magduf 7y ago
    The landlords are using the rent to pay the mortgage on the property. If the banks suspend mortgage payments, then the landlords don't need to collect rent any more. If the landlords desperately need that rent just to do basic maintenance and repairs, and don't have enough saved to deal with a possible problem that might happen in the next month, then they don't deserve to own the property.
    - FillardMillmore 7y ago
      > If the landlords desperately need that rent just to do basic maintenance and repairs, and don't have enough saved to deal with a possible problem that might happen in the next month, then they don't deserve to own the property. I'm not saying you're wrong, but what's the argument for that? On its surface, the proclamation that they 'don't deserve to own their property' seems a little draconian to me. What if a repair is required that was unforeseen and not basic?
      - magduf 7y ago
        That's what insurance is for, or maybe a loan. If the repair is not basic, then it sounds like it's going to be very costly. If it's very costly, then the tenants missing a month or two of rent is not going to be enough to make a difference on the landlord being able to afford it. After all, the amount of money they should be raking in above the mortgage on the property is not generally going to be a large fraction of the total rent. So if the landlord can't swing a few hundred dollars for an unforeseen repair, then they aren't in sufficient financial shape to be owning and renting out that property, since the landlord (in normal circumstances) is fully responsible for keeping the property in good repair at all times. "I can't afford it" is not a valid excuse for not doing repairs, and the court system agrees with me.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > The landlords are using the rent to pay the mortgage on the property. If the banks suspend mortgage payments, then the landlords don't need to collect rent any more. How do you know it goes to a mortgage? The property could be owned by a retired couple and the rent is the income they live on, or a charity and the rent is how they fund their operations. Or it could be owned by a regular old smelly landlord who just takes the rent money and invests it in the S&P 500 -- which, if you take it away multiplied by millions of landlords, does a Bad Thing to the stock market right when you want the opposite of that. Sometimes rent includes utilities. What does the landlord pay that with? I imagine you also expect to waive property tax or the landlords would have nothing to pay that with either, but then what are you using to fund local governments? You can't just delete an industry and expect it to have no untoward effect.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Recurring expenses Then what about all the other ones? Are we also suspending utility bills? Car loans? Property tax? Grocery bills? Why should someone paying the same total amount in recurring expenses have more of them waived just because they happen to pay more in rent and less in transportation and utilities than somebody else?