3 ms·
A less drastic solution, which doesn't require much money, is to just force lenders to allow landlords who lost tenants or whose tenants can't pay to allow the
by AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
A less drastic solution, which doesn't require much money, is to just force lenders to allow landlords who lost tenants or whose tenants can't pay to allow the landlord to defer loan payments (extending the final date of the loan).
It's not exactly fair to landlords who own the properties outright, but, I can live with that.
- t-writescode 6y agoIs it turtles all the way up? Do the landlords who are paying down their mortgage also get a deferment? What do we do about the people that presently have no money? Do we also give them a stipend to pay for food, etc? Or force them onto credit cards?
- peteretep 6y agoIf you can borrow from the central bank, the buck stops at you. Seems fair
- nradov 6y agoMany commercial property mortgages already contain clauses allowing the borrower to defer payments if they don't have a tenant. For those that don't, well they should have negotiated better terms before taking out the loan.
- respondo2134 6y ago>>It's not exactly fair to landlords who own the properties outright, but, I can live with that. Well of course you're OK with that, you're obviously not a property investor who worked to get free and clear. What if instead we levied a special premium salary fee on technology workers who make more than the median salary? Not really fair but us worker bees are OK with it...
- imtringued 6y agoYou can live with endangering the banking infrastructure? The place where all your hard earned money is stored at? This will end with a bank bailout because nobody wants to lose their money because some idiot decided to implement deferment of loan payments.