3 ms·

I was careful to define the needs in the other block of text above. However I'll disagree with the binary solution you've reached. For direct end renters a co

I was careful to define the needs in the other block of text above. However I'll disagree with the binary solution you've reached. For direct end renters a combination of rent reduction (E.G. 25% of the contracted rate), the option to continue in-contract rate on a per-month basis until the end of the crisis (which is currently optimistically thought to be mid-next year), as well as forbearance and interest free payment at a rate of X (I'll say 2 per 25% months, this number should be tweaked in tandem) forborne months per year after the crisis, for any hardship including loss of job, any illness that prevents full 'normal' work, etc. For people making payments on primary properties also 25%, as a figure to start the discussion at. Businesses that are shuttered entirely (E.G. should be gyms) should just have their current contracts frozen, and terms extended accordingly after the pandemic is over. Buisnesses that are open should be required to pay their employees as normal, but have reduced rent (again I'll just start the discussion with 25%) and automatic forbearance if the numbers aren't adding up.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The problem with blanket figures like this is that you're not dealing with a homogeneous landscape. Are we only doing this for the people who actually need the assistance? Aren't you then punishing landlords who rent to lower income people and financially vulnerable populations? What are the long-term effects of that policy expectation going to be? Suppose there are two people, one who pays $1000/month in rent and $1000/month in utilities, another who pays $2000/month in rent for an equivalent unit with utilities included. Does it make sense for one of them to get 25% of $1000 and the other to get 25% of $2000? What about someone who rents a less expensive apartment which is further away, and so has lower rent but higher commuting expenses and no less need for assistance. Is there some justifiable reason they should receive less? What happens to someone who isn't paying rent? It's common for a part time superintendent to not get paid but to get a free apartment. If they lose their primary job they're still in trouble -- they get free rent, not free food -- but a discount on rent doesn't get them anything because they don't pay it. What is this going to do to people who need to move? Isn't the new landlord just going to raise the asking price by 25%? The amount of rent someone pays has only a tenuous relationship with the amount of assistance they need, so it makes no sense to tie them together.
- mjevans 6y ago
  I wonder if you're trying to get bogged down in details and looking for the points where a back of the napkin start to a discussion break down under closer observation. My general idea phrased differently: The current global situation is a __war__ against a microscopic enemy that hijacks our very bodies to release deadly gasses indiscriminately among anywhere else a compromised citizen goes. It is not unreasonable to take drastic ''war time'' economic actions the likes of which have not been seen in my entire lifetime. Efforts and adjustments far more like those seen during the first and second world wars. An orderly idle-mode adjustment to the economy and stabilization of social situations built around a plan to minimize suffering and maximize safety is extremely rational. Trying to break this down a bit more since you had specific questions: === Payment for places to live (as seen by buyers / renters) === Everyone needs assistance, and if they don't currently they probably would in an orderly idling of the economy to promote health and safety. Across the board, 'qualifying circumstances' would enable forbearance of payments and a no-interest repayment over a reasonable time after the crisis . Those who are buying their primary residence* (it might be arguable that anyplace lived in for 40% or more of the year is such a residence; mostly as a concession to those who have a summer and winter home; however if someone's doing that maybe they don't need this help and would have to pick ONE accommodation location) would only be required to pay "the rate" (25% of the non covid-19 plan rate), and would not be penalized for paying a reduced quantity. This would also include, during the duration of the crisis, a corresponding reduction in, or outright elimination of, the interest on the loan. Similarly anyone renting would have their primary residence reduced similarly; only the term on the rental would still continue, all other conditions would apply. === Those being paid for places to live === All land owners and renters would see the equally reduced rate of income, across the board. Since I think the housing market is distorted I'm against leverage financing, but people need to live places now and this is the situation we're in. An actual economist should try to figure out a fair solution to cutting through this gordian knot; ideally with the elimination of rent-seeking as a net drag on the overall economy and fair distribution of resources. Offhand, I believe that with a proper social safety net, so that the unemployed can still eat and pay rent, it's actually _more_ likely that the rent of the poor would still be paid. === The other circumstances and situations you bring up make it sound like you've misunderstood the idea I was talking about; this is not about giving anyone more money (that's an entirely different topic); this is about reducing (part of) the cost of living, by making payment / rent 25% (a thrown out figure, not something an economist has adjusted and arrived at) of the currently contracted value during the pandemic.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

The problem with blanket figures like this is that you're not dealing with a homogeneous landscape. Are we only doing this for the people who actually need the assistance? Aren't you then punishing landlords who rent to lower income people and financially vulnerable populations? What are the long-term effects of that policy expectation going to be? Suppose there are two people, one who pays $1000/month in rent and $1000/month in utilities, another who pays $2000/month in rent for an equivalent unit with utilities included. Does it make sense for one of them to get 25% of $1000 and the other to get 25% of $2000? What about someone who rents a less expensive apartment which is further away, and so has lower rent but higher commuting expenses and no less need for assistance. Is there some justifiable reason they should receive less? What happens to someone who isn't paying rent? It's common for a part time superintendent to not get paid but to get a free apartment. If they lose their primary job they're still in trouble -- they get free rent, not free food -- but a discount on rent doesn't get them anything because they don't pay it. What is this going to do to people who need to move? Isn't the new landlord just going to raise the asking price by 25%? The amount of rent someone pays has only a tenuous relationship with the amount of assistance they need, so it makes no sense to tie them together.

mjevans 6y ago
I wonder if you're trying to get bogged down in details and looking for the points where a back of the napkin start to a discussion break down under closer observation. My general idea phrased differently: The current global situation is a __war__ against a microscopic enemy that hijacks our very bodies to release deadly gasses indiscriminately among anywhere else a compromised citizen goes. It is not unreasonable to take drastic ''war time'' economic actions the likes of which have not been seen in my entire lifetime. Efforts and adjustments far more like those seen during the first and second world wars. An orderly idle-mode adjustment to the economy and stabilization of social situations built around a plan to minimize suffering and maximize safety is extremely rational. Trying to break this down a bit more since you had specific questions: === Payment for places to live (as seen by buyers / renters) === Everyone needs assistance, and if they don't currently they probably would in an orderly idling of the economy to promote health and safety. Across the board, 'qualifying circumstances' would enable forbearance of payments and a no-interest repayment over a reasonable time after the crisis . Those who are buying their primary residence* (it might be arguable that anyplace lived in for 40% or more of the year is such a residence; mostly as a concession to those who have a summer and winter home; however if someone's doing that maybe they don't need this help and would have to pick ONE accommodation location) would only be required to pay "the rate" (25% of the non covid-19 plan rate), and would not be penalized for paying a reduced quantity. This would also include, during the duration of the crisis, a corresponding reduction in, or outright elimination of, the interest on the loan. Similarly anyone renting would have their primary residence reduced similarly; only the term on the rental would still continue, all other conditions would apply. === Those being paid for places to live === All land owners and renters would see the equally reduced rate of income, across the board. Since I think the housing market is distorted I'm against leverage financing, but people need to live places now and this is the situation we're in. An actual economist should try to figure out a fair solution to cutting through this gordian knot; ideally with the elimination of rent-seeking as a net drag on the overall economy and fair distribution of resources. Offhand, I believe that with a proper social safety net, so that the unemployed can still eat and pay rent, it's actually _more_ likely that the rent of the poor would still be paid. === The other circumstances and situations you bring up make it sound like you've misunderstood the idea I was talking about; this is not about giving anyone more money (that's an entirely different topic); this is about reducing (part of) the cost of living, by making payment / rent 25% (a thrown out figure, not something an economist has adjusted and arrived at) of the currently contracted value during the pandemic.