5 ms·

> I think the eviction moratorium wasn't thought out very well. You can't just stop evictions while not compensating landlords Sounds like something that's imp

> I think the eviction moratorium wasn't thought out very well. You can't just stop evictions while not compensating landlords Sounds like something that's impossible to administer. How would you prevent widespread fraud - landlord's claiming their tenants aren't paying rent when in fact they are? The US really doesn't have the bureaucratic infrastructure to handle such matters - or at least couldn't spin one up on short notice.

vorpalhex 5y ago
The same way you crack down on other forms of fraud? Ask for proof, bank statements, etc.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  You're asking them to show proof of a null, which is tricky. For example, a landlord could tell their tenants to make the check out to their spouse, deposit rent checks into their account, then turn around to the government with their usual tenant bank account and say "They're stiffing me on rent!" The government doesn't have perfect information.
  - derekp7 5y ago
    The government would still go after the tenant to potentially pay back the money that the gov fronted to the landlord (or a portion of it based on means testing). Then the tenant would have incentive to provide proof to the gov that those checks were written out. And the landlord then gets thrown into federal prison for government fraud.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    They could catch you retroactively when you report the rental income. Of course you could simply not report the income and hope you don't get audited but at that point you're now also guilty of tax fraud with the intent to conceal your wire fraud, and tax fraud is the type of thing the IRS can sniff out even years after the fact. There will be no plausible deniability possible since the unreported income will correspond to the defrauded payments, it'll be an open and shut case.
- Simulacra 5y ago
  We don't exactly prosecute for fraud very much in this country. Otherwise we would see a lot more business owners going to jail for immigration fraud, tax fraud, and wage theft.
wongarsu 5y ago
Yes, it's a real hassle to prevent fraud. Just giving everyone the same and without conditions is much simpler, hard to game and fairer. That's why universal basic income is such an attractive solution compared to more traditional safety nets.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  How would that relate to landlords? If everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money to compete for the better rental properties. The landlord would have to get their UBI directly, and that might still not be enough.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    If everyone has UBI, then people still have some money with which to pay rent (or at least pay a portion of the rent). That makes it much less likely that you need an eviction moratorium, and lessens the impact of having one. And of course the assumption "if everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money" isn't right, since UBI as "proposed" my comment would replace other safety nets like unemployment benefits. Many people would get basically the same, just with less bureaucratic overhead. And to pay for the rest of UBI you wouldn't just print money but instead raise taxes, so you would expect the money of someone earning median income to not really change at all (depending on the exact tax scheme).
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      > people still have some money with which to pay rent And as a result, money will devalue, and rents will go up. So long as UBI recipients are competing with each other over housing, that's how it will work. > since UBI as "proposed" my comment would replace other safety nets like unemployment benefits. If UBI is universal, why would unemployment benefits be cut? wouldn't that mean the unemployed get comparatively less? > to pay for the rest of UBI you wouldn't just print money but instead raise taxes The problem with this is that tax rates now follow from UBI. Previously we might say "The tax people pay is X% of income". Now we pay a fixed sum $Y to everyone and we need to make up for $Y * P ; where P is the size of the population. that means the average tax payed needs to be $Y per person. This obviously can't be equally distributed (otherwise Y = 0) but now the relative tax rate depends explicitly on population size. You've just moved the goalpost by making income less relevant, and citizenship more relevant; Now every new immigrant making less than average wage, increases the tax rate for everyone making more than average wage. Instead of opposing tax rates, the wealthy will oppose immigration rates. The benefit of not guaranteeing tax-derived UBI, is that no one has to care who enters the country, b/c it doesn't have any effect on them.

vorpalhex 5y ago

The same way you crack down on other forms of fraud? Ask for proof, bank statements, etc.

spamizbad 5y ago
You're asking them to show proof of a null, which is tricky. For example, a landlord could tell their tenants to make the check out to their spouse, deposit rent checks into their account, then turn around to the government with their usual tenant bank account and say "They're stiffing me on rent!" The government doesn't have perfect information.
- derekp7 5y ago
  The government would still go after the tenant to potentially pay back the money that the gov fronted to the landlord (or a portion of it based on means testing). Then the tenant would have incentive to provide proof to the gov that those checks were written out. And the landlord then gets thrown into federal prison for government fraud.
- root_axis 5y ago
  They could catch you retroactively when you report the rental income. Of course you could simply not report the income and hope you don't get audited but at that point you're now also guilty of tax fraud with the intent to conceal your wire fraud, and tax fraud is the type of thing the IRS can sniff out even years after the fact. There will be no plausible deniability possible since the unreported income will correspond to the defrauded payments, it'll be an open and shut case.
Simulacra 5y ago
We don't exactly prosecute for fraud very much in this country. Otherwise we would see a lot more business owners going to jail for immigration fraud, tax fraud, and wage theft.

wongarsu 5y ago

Yes, it's a real hassle to prevent fraud. Just giving everyone the same and without conditions is much simpler, hard to game and fairer. That's why universal basic income is such an attractive solution compared to more traditional safety nets.

Chris2048 5y ago
How would that relate to landlords? If everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money to compete for the better rental properties. The landlord would have to get their UBI directly, and that might still not be enough.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  If everyone has UBI, then people still have some money with which to pay rent (or at least pay a portion of the rent). That makes it much less likely that you need an eviction moratorium, and lessens the impact of having one. And of course the assumption "if everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money" isn't right, since UBI as "proposed" my comment would replace other safety nets like unemployment benefits. Many people would get basically the same, just with less bureaucratic overhead. And to pay for the rest of UBI you wouldn't just print money but instead raise taxes, so you would expect the money of someone earning median income to not really change at all (depending on the exact tax scheme).
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > people still have some money with which to pay rent And as a result, money will devalue, and rents will go up. So long as UBI recipients are competing with each other over housing, that's how it will work. > since UBI as "proposed" my comment would replace other safety nets like unemployment benefits. If UBI is universal, why would unemployment benefits be cut? wouldn't that mean the unemployed get comparatively less? > to pay for the rest of UBI you wouldn't just print money but instead raise taxes The problem with this is that tax rates now follow from UBI. Previously we might say "The tax people pay is X% of income". Now we pay a fixed sum $Y to everyone and we need to make up for $Y * P ; where P is the size of the population. that means the average tax payed needs to be $Y per person. This obviously can't be equally distributed (otherwise Y = 0) but now the relative tax rate depends explicitly on population size. You've just moved the goalpost by making income less relevant, and citizenship more relevant; Now every new immigrant making less than average wage, increases the tax rate for everyone making more than average wage. Instead of opposing tax rates, the wealthy will oppose immigration rates. The benefit of not guaranteeing tax-derived UBI, is that no one has to care who enters the country, b/c it doesn't have any effect on them.