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 obse

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.