4 ms·

People who paid their rent aren't hurt by this at all, they just aren't directly helped by it.

by burkaman 5y ago

s1artibartfast 5y ago
They are paying or at least on the hook for the cost of everyone else.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  How so?
  - ar_lan 5y ago
    Because they paid rent (responsible), and now their taxes are going to pay landlords for other's rent. It's basically saying there is an incentive to stop paying rent if the government will just pick up the tab. Note: I'm not saying I agree with the mindset above, but this is a how a good chunk of people think.
    - nielsbot 5y ago
      I assume those who could pay, did. Others (and their landlords) are getting a government bailout.
      - ar_lan 5y ago
        Yes, I assume as well. I think "government bailout", while technically true, is a bit loaded, however. Landlord's hands were forced by the eviction moratorium - so it's a bailout for a problem the government caused. Now, that "problem" is probably better then the alternative (a bunch of people suddenly becoming homeless in the middle of the pandemic), but the state did force landlords to not evict even if rent wasn't getting paid (not allowing them to find new renters who could try to).
        beerandt 5y ago
        It's not a bailout. It's money that's either contractually owed by the renter, or constitutionally owed by the government, as a private taking. The landlords are being made whole, not getting "free" government bailout money.
        ar_lan 5y ago
        The renters who couldn't pay are getting a bailout.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > It's basically saying there is an incentive to stop paying rent if the government will just pick up the tab. Well, no, its not; its saying that if the government declares an eviction moratorium (which is extremely rare) without a rent moratorium, it might also, later, if finances ard convenient and it otherwise feels it expedient, retroactively decide to pay off unpaid rents before the end of that moratorium gets you evicted for unpaid rent. (OTOH, the Fifth Amendment litigation already happening around the eviction moratorium itself might make that non-optional, anyway, and mooting that by providing full compensation now potentially saves the additional costs associated with litigation.)
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        That doesn't address the question of where the money comes from (taxes & debt). I totally agree that the government screwed over landlords with the moratorium. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature at the time agreed a better solution was better unemployment insurance for those who lost their jobs.
        risk000 5y ago
        Money doesn't come from taxes and debt. It is created de novo within a computer system. It is conceptualized, according to intellectual paradigms, as originating as a 'debt' and being "paid back" by taxes. But this accounting is fallacious. There is a movement in economics called MMT which is going to challenge these paradigms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AyT9zftNrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AyT9zftNrE
    - kbelder 5y ago
      Elsewhere on HN there's an article about how Americans no longer think hard work will lead to success. I suspect these sorts of political actions are a large part of the reason. It is just one more kick to a person who worked hard to cover their responsibilities. One more thing to make them wonder why they even try.
      - Spivak 5y ago
        This is such an odd position. Completely seriously with no /s or irony whatsoever, why should you even try? There is no inherent piousness in hard work. I don't believe for a second that my success has anything to do with hard work. I fell into a career field that pays well and I got my opportunity by being raised by white middle-class parents. I work less hard than all of my peers while making more than them because mysterious market forces completely beyond my control. In a parallel universe the financial situations would be reversed with no change to our jobs except I would be labeled lazy.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        The entirety of democratic society is built on the belief that on average success is correlated with individual effort and output. One can argue how much or in what way. One persons result doesn't translate to another's result. Take your example, If you stopped going to work, I expect your success would probably go down. If you tried harder, your success would probably go up. If there is no correlation between work and outcomes, why ever get a job, why ever get an education, or do anything remotely challenging? I think it is crazy that people are propagating the idea that there is no advantage to self improvement, education, and trying anything.
        Spivak 5y ago
        I actually don’t think we’re disagreeing all that much. My success is absolutely correlated to my work, but not at all how hard I work. The grind, the hustle, putting in overtime, all that BS on average gets you nowhere. You work on challenging things because it’s interesting to you, not because you’ll necessarily get paid more for it. If you work for JJ as a researcher you’re probably paid well, if your a postdoc you’re paid like shit. Same work. Being an ICU nurse is extremely challenging, but the paper pusher administrator above them will make more. Education and self-improvement on average will increase your success. Toiling away at your job 80 hours a week, working two jobs, gigging on the weekends on average won’t.
- burkaman 5y ago
  You don't pay tax on rent, so I don't see the connection. Some people might have stopped paying rent but kept paying income tax, so they contributed to this as well. One could argue (I would disagree) that taxpayers are hurt by this, but taxpayers and people who paid rent are not the same group.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    The people I was pointing to being hurt is the income tax payers at large. How would you argue that they are not hurt by it?
    - burkaman 5y ago
      This policy was necessary to avoid mass evictions, which would have required the state to spend even more in social services for those evicted. So taxpayers ultimately save money. Also, seems like this is largely being paid for with pandemic-related federal aid money, which I think had restrictions on how it can be used, unlike tax revenue.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >This policy was necessary to avoid mass evictions, which would have required the state to spend even more in social services for those evicted. So taxpayers ultimately save money The mass evictions have already been prevented, spending the money now will not retroactively change history. are you saying this will prevent future evictions? >Also, seems like this is largely being paid for with pandemic-related federal aid money, which I think had restrictions on how it can be used, unlike tax revenue. I don't see how the money coming from federal aid changes the cost to the tax payers? The money is either spent at the taxpayers expense or not.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        > The mass evictions have already been prevented, No, they have not, because the eviction moratoriums were expiring, which allows landlords to start evicting now. You don't think the rent was just forgiven, do you? The law only stopped evictions, it didn't go and change all the rental contracts and force anything to be forgiven. It's still owed, and landlords can pursue tenants for the balance, they can add liens and garnish income whether an eviction happens or not. So there is a big overhang of unpaid rent that is going to be burning through people's credit histories, their future income, and their future ability to not be evicted or find housing elsewhere. The existence of that debt has nothing to do with whether the tenant is evicted -- it is owed even after eviction -- it can't just be ignored because there was a temporary moratorium on evictions.
jude- 5y ago
They are being directly helped -- they don't have to deal with the massive negative externalities of so many people being made homeless all at once.
- ergocoder 5y ago
  That does not sound direct at all.

People who paid their rent aren't hurt by this at all, they just aren't directly helped by it.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

They are paying or at least on the hook for the cost of everyone else.

nielsbot 5y ago
How so?
- ar_lan 5y ago
  Because they paid rent (responsible), and now their taxes are going to pay landlords for other's rent. It's basically saying there is an incentive to stop paying rent if the government will just pick up the tab. Note: I'm not saying I agree with the mindset above, but this is a how a good chunk of people think.
  - nielsbot 5y ago
    I assume those who could pay, did. Others (and their landlords) are getting a government bailout.
    - ar_lan 5y ago
      Yes, I assume as well. I think "government bailout", while technically true, is a bit loaded, however. Landlord's hands were forced by the eviction moratorium - so it's a bailout for a problem the government caused. Now, that "problem" is probably better then the alternative (a bunch of people suddenly becoming homeless in the middle of the pandemic), but the state did force landlords to not evict even if rent wasn't getting paid (not allowing them to find new renters who could try to).
      - beerandt 5y ago
        It's not a bailout. It's money that's either contractually owed by the renter, or constitutionally owed by the government, as a private taking. The landlords are being made whole, not getting "free" government bailout money.
        ar_lan 5y ago
        The renters who couldn't pay are getting a bailout.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > It's basically saying there is an incentive to stop paying rent if the government will just pick up the tab. Well, no, its not; its saying that if the government declares an eviction moratorium (which is extremely rare) without a rent moratorium, it might also, later, if finances ard convenient and it otherwise feels it expedient, retroactively decide to pay off unpaid rents before the end of that moratorium gets you evicted for unpaid rent. (OTOH, the Fifth Amendment litigation already happening around the eviction moratorium itself might make that non-optional, anyway, and mooting that by providing full compensation now potentially saves the additional costs associated with litigation.)
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      That doesn't address the question of where the money comes from (taxes & debt). I totally agree that the government screwed over landlords with the moratorium. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature at the time agreed a better solution was better unemployment insurance for those who lost their jobs.
      - risk000 5y ago
        Money doesn't come from taxes and debt. It is created de novo within a computer system. It is conceptualized, according to intellectual paradigms, as originating as a 'debt' and being "paid back" by taxes. But this accounting is fallacious. There is a movement in economics called MMT which is going to challenge these paradigms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AyT9zftNrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AyT9zftNrE
  - kbelder 5y ago
    Elsewhere on HN there's an article about how Americans no longer think hard work will lead to success. I suspect these sorts of political actions are a large part of the reason. It is just one more kick to a person who worked hard to cover their responsibilities. One more thing to make them wonder why they even try.
    - Spivak 5y ago
      This is such an odd position. Completely seriously with no /s or irony whatsoever, why should you even try? There is no inherent piousness in hard work. I don't believe for a second that my success has anything to do with hard work. I fell into a career field that pays well and I got my opportunity by being raised by white middle-class parents. I work less hard than all of my peers while making more than them because mysterious market forces completely beyond my control. In a parallel universe the financial situations would be reversed with no change to our jobs except I would be labeled lazy.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        The entirety of democratic society is built on the belief that on average success is correlated with individual effort and output. One can argue how much or in what way. One persons result doesn't translate to another's result. Take your example, If you stopped going to work, I expect your success would probably go down. If you tried harder, your success would probably go up. If there is no correlation between work and outcomes, why ever get a job, why ever get an education, or do anything remotely challenging? I think it is crazy that people are propagating the idea that there is no advantage to self improvement, education, and trying anything.
        Spivak 5y ago
        I actually don’t think we’re disagreeing all that much. My success is absolutely correlated to my work, but not at all how hard I work. The grind, the hustle, putting in overtime, all that BS on average gets you nowhere. You work on challenging things because it’s interesting to you, not because you’ll necessarily get paid more for it. If you work for JJ as a researcher you’re probably paid well, if your a postdoc you’re paid like shit. Same work. Being an ICU nurse is extremely challenging, but the paper pusher administrator above them will make more. Education and self-improvement on average will increase your success. Toiling away at your job 80 hours a week, working two jobs, gigging on the weekends on average won’t.
burkaman 5y ago
You don't pay tax on rent, so I don't see the connection. Some people might have stopped paying rent but kept paying income tax, so they contributed to this as well. One could argue (I would disagree) that taxpayers are hurt by this, but taxpayers and people who paid rent are not the same group.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  The people I was pointing to being hurt is the income tax payers at large. How would you argue that they are not hurt by it?
  - burkaman 5y ago
    This policy was necessary to avoid mass evictions, which would have required the state to spend even more in social services for those evicted. So taxpayers ultimately save money. Also, seems like this is largely being paid for with pandemic-related federal aid money, which I think had restrictions on how it can be used, unlike tax revenue.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      >This policy was necessary to avoid mass evictions, which would have required the state to spend even more in social services for those evicted. So taxpayers ultimately save money The mass evictions have already been prevented, spending the money now will not retroactively change history. are you saying this will prevent future evictions? >Also, seems like this is largely being paid for with pandemic-related federal aid money, which I think had restrictions on how it can be used, unlike tax revenue. I don't see how the money coming from federal aid changes the cost to the tax payers? The money is either spent at the taxpayers expense or not.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        > The mass evictions have already been prevented, No, they have not, because the eviction moratoriums were expiring, which allows landlords to start evicting now. You don't think the rent was just forgiven, do you? The law only stopped evictions, it didn't go and change all the rental contracts and force anything to be forgiven. It's still owed, and landlords can pursue tenants for the balance, they can add liens and garnish income whether an eviction happens or not. So there is a big overhang of unpaid rent that is going to be burning through people's credit histories, their future income, and their future ability to not be evicted or find housing elsewhere. The existence of that debt has nothing to do with whether the tenant is evicted -- it is owed even after eviction -- it can't just be ignored because there was a temporary moratorium on evictions.

jude- 5y ago

They are being directly helped -- they don't have to deal with the massive negative externalities of so many people being made homeless all at once.

ergocoder 5y ago
That does not sound direct at all.