6 ms·

Nobody is being harmed by having unpaid rent paid off. The people who haven't paid their rent have done so by and large because they couldn't afford it, not be

Nobody is being harmed by having unpaid rent paid off. The people who haven't paid their rent have done so by and large because they couldn't afford it, not because they just chose not to. Paying off their rent helps those people, the people who couldn't afford to pay it themselves, and ensures they don't lose their housing as a result. It certainly is true that landlords benefit from this package as they get their money, as opposed to an alternative like forcing all rent debts to be forgiven. But "landlords benefit" isn't a harm. Perhaps a more equitable solution would have been to determine the median rent across the state and then give that amount of money to all renters. But that has a lot of difficulties, such as how do you handle folks who rented only for part of this time (including those who had to stop renting due to job loss). And what about folks who own their homes and are dealing with mortgages; paying off rent is likely to be more accepted by non-renters than a plan where non-renters get money and renters don't. Of course, the plan could be extended to people with mortgages too. Or heck, just give this money to every person over 18 (or 21?) in the state. This would presumably significantly expand the costs involved in the plan though, but it would certainly be the most equitable.

hn8788 5y ago
At a minimum they should at least force you to submit a financial report and show that you couldn't pay your rent. Back when the housing bubble burst, I knew people who stopped paying their mortgage because the only way to qualify for a short sale was if you weren't paying your mortgage. They could still afford to pay it, they just felt like moving and didn't want to lose money on the house.
- content_sesh 5y ago
  What proof is there that means-testing this to weed out "unworthy" renters will save more money than it costs?
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    If anything, adding an intrusive means test (like a "financial report") is likely to exclude a lot of deserving renters, especially ones who are unbanked/underbanked.
gruez 5y ago
> Nobody is being harmed by having unpaid rent paid off. opportunity cost?
- fattire 5y ago
  You mean the cost of having thousands of renters go insta-homeless and thousands of landlords getting stiffed for a year's worth of rent?
godshatter 5y ago
> Nobody is being harmed by having unpaid rent paid off. I wasn't really objecting to the initiative necessarily, just lamenting the fact that the people who decided to sacrifice more to keep their rent paid up during a tough time instead of just letting it slide hoping they can figure something out later are the ones that aren't really gaining anything here. I don't know what the best solution would be here.
rajin444 5y ago
The middle class family that halted saving for a home to pay for rent is not harmed here? I would be furious. There’s certainly harm in policies that reduce trust in the system. Something like a 0% interest loan from the government seems more fair here, but much harder to implement.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The other fair way is give everyone the same amount of bailouts, regardless if they need it or not. This specific way (and all the other bailouts the US does) wrecks people who are responsible and save. But it should be clear to everyone by now that holding USD and playing it safe are the losing positions, as all risk will be socialized and profit will be privatized. Not playing the game means losing.
- luffapi 5y ago
  > The middle class family that halted saving for a home to pay for rent is not harmed here? No, the middle class family benefits because there isn’t an army of homeless people in their city. If landlords find their speculation doesn’t pay off, I’m not harmed. If millions of people are evicted, we are all harmed.
  - fattire 5y ago
    Exactly.
- Spivak 5y ago
  You would be furious that someone who couldn't pay their rent is getting aid while someone who you, who could, isn't? I will never understand why people get so angry and others' lack of suffering. When you fall on hard times do you not wish that others not have to suffer like you did? "I had known I was going to get a bailout I would have purposely not met my contractual obligations" isn't really the best argument.
  - refurb 5y ago
    You’re rewarding people who don’t meet their obligations (but could) and punishing people who did meet their obligations (but were hurt doing so). No so hard to understand.
acchow 5y ago
> Nobody is being harmed by having unpaid rent paid off. There are plenty of ways for the state to use this money to benefit everyone instead of only landlords.
skilesare 5y ago
Yeah…f this. I feel harmed. I put my family through a lot to be responsible.
- jude- 5y ago
  The upside for people who did manage to pay rent is that they don't have to deal with the resulting mass homelessness (and associated mass violence and sharp decline of public safety) that would result from landlords evicting everyone who couldn't pay rent.
gattis 5y ago
well, the money to pay the rent off comes from somewhere... ultimately taxpayers, which includes these "responsible" people every time the government alters the fair-market price for things, a transfer of wealth is created. sometimes for the better. but yeah, in every case, someone is getting boned. at least this is only addressing the past and not creating upside-down incentives going forward. if the state said they were paying off any delinquent rent going forward, then only a fool would pay their rent. although, I'm sure a lot of people are making a mental note for themselves to stop paying rent the next time there is a state of emergency.
- jude- 5y ago
  > well, the money to pay the rent off comes from somewhere... ultimately taxpayers, which includes these "responsible" people Well, then this program should be welcome news. Instead of wrecking the lives of millions of people and turning them all out on the street, they instead get to keep their lives and careers and continue to pay taxes. Even if you ignored the incalculable misery a mass-eviction scenario would create, it wouldn't surprise me if paying off everyone's unpaid rent is actually cheaper than mass evictions, when the total cost of handling the resulting mass homelessness is taken into consideration.
- tdeck 5y ago
  It's worth remembering though that the "fair market" for certain things wouldn't even exist without the government. Land ownership and tenancy aren't natural laws - they're established by a framework of government policies and the ability of the government's employees to use force to restrict property use.
ummonk 5y ago
That’s not true. A lot of people chose not to pay rent because they didn’t have to thanks to the eviction freeze.
newfriend 5y ago
If I give a million dollars to everyone except you, am I harming you? I didn't do anything to you, but you are now in a much worse position than everyone else. That is how it harms people. Even worse, it harms only the most responsible people.
- luffapi 5y ago
  It helps the most responsible people (and everyone else) by not causing a massive wave of homelessness. When people are evicted, they don’t vaporize. They’re still your neighbors, they just live on the sidewalk in front of your house. Whether you view it as an ethical win or a practical one, reducing homelessness helps all of us.
  - rmk 5y ago
    Is this the only way to reduce homelessness? How come other states haven't taken this route? Are the governors of the other states morons? Newsom is being recalled, so he is flailing and throwing cash around to secure his position, plain and simple.
    - luffapi 5y ago
      It’s clearly an effective way to deal with homelessness, which California has a major problem with. The worst in the US.
- jude- 5y ago
  How, exactly, is this harmful? Why can't you be happy for everyone else? I would be. Like, if you're worried about the inflation shock that would create, then the same people who have the power to give a million dollars to everyone but me would certainly have the power to raise interest rates and take other measures to prevent the sudden mass availability of wealth from wrecking havoc on the economy. But that's a separate topic, and if I'm affected negatively by this, I'd be upset at the powers that be for failing to mitigate the negative consequences of their actions. I wouldn't be upset at all at the hundreds of millions of people who are suddenly wealthy.
- 5y ago
ergocoder 5y ago
"Nobody is harmed by pay gap" Yeah, somebody is harmed. First, it's unfair. Second, you are competing for the same resources (house and etc.). Now you are at disadvantage.

hn8788 5y ago

At a minimum they should at least force you to submit a financial report and show that you couldn't pay your rent. Back when the housing bubble burst, I knew people who stopped paying their mortgage because the only way to qualify for a short sale was if you weren't paying your mortgage. They could still afford to pay it, they just felt like moving and didn't want to lose money on the house.

content_sesh 5y ago
What proof is there that means-testing this to weed out "unworthy" renters will save more money than it costs?
- duskwuff 5y ago
  If anything, adding an intrusive means test (like a "financial report") is likely to exclude a lot of deserving renters, especially ones who are unbanked/underbanked.

gruez 5y ago

> Nobody is being harmed by having unpaid rent paid off. opportunity cost?

fattire 5y ago
You mean the cost of having thousands of renters go insta-homeless and thousands of landlords getting stiffed for a year's worth of rent?

godshatter 5y ago

> Nobody is being harmed by having unpaid rent paid off. I wasn't really objecting to the initiative necessarily, just lamenting the fact that the people who decided to sacrifice more to keep their rent paid up during a tough time instead of just letting it slide hoping they can figure something out later are the ones that aren't really gaining anything here. I don't know what the best solution would be here.

rajin444 5y ago

The middle class family that halted saving for a home to pay for rent is not harmed here? I would be furious. There’s certainly harm in policies that reduce trust in the system. Something like a 0% interest loan from the government seems more fair here, but much harder to implement.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The other fair way is give everyone the same amount of bailouts, regardless if they need it or not. This specific way (and all the other bailouts the US does) wrecks people who are responsible and save. But it should be clear to everyone by now that holding USD and playing it safe are the losing positions, as all risk will be socialized and profit will be privatized. Not playing the game means losing.
luffapi 5y ago
> The middle class family that halted saving for a home to pay for rent is not harmed here? No, the middle class family benefits because there isn’t an army of homeless people in their city. If landlords find their speculation doesn’t pay off, I’m not harmed. If millions of people are evicted, we are all harmed.
- fattire 5y ago
  Exactly.
Spivak 5y ago
You would be furious that someone who couldn't pay their rent is getting aid while someone who you, who could, isn't? I will never understand why people get so angry and others' lack of suffering. When you fall on hard times do you not wish that others not have to suffer like you did? "I had known I was going to get a bailout I would have purposely not met my contractual obligations" isn't really the best argument.
- refurb 5y ago
  You’re rewarding people who don’t meet their obligations (but could) and punishing people who did meet their obligations (but were hurt doing so). No so hard to understand.

acchow 5y ago

> Nobody is being harmed by having unpaid rent paid off. There are plenty of ways for the state to use this money to benefit everyone instead of only landlords.

skilesare 5y ago

Yeah…f this. I feel harmed. I put my family through a lot to be responsible.

jude- 5y ago
The upside for people who did manage to pay rent is that they don't have to deal with the resulting mass homelessness (and associated mass violence and sharp decline of public safety) that would result from landlords evicting everyone who couldn't pay rent.

gattis 5y ago

well, the money to pay the rent off comes from somewhere... ultimately taxpayers, which includes these "responsible" people every time the government alters the fair-market price for things, a transfer of wealth is created. sometimes for the better. but yeah, in every case, someone is getting boned. at least this is only addressing the past and not creating upside-down incentives going forward. if the state said they were paying off any delinquent rent going forward, then only a fool would pay their rent. although, I'm sure a lot of people are making a mental note for themselves to stop paying rent the next time there is a state of emergency.

jude- 5y ago
> well, the money to pay the rent off comes from somewhere... ultimately taxpayers, which includes these "responsible" people Well, then this program should be welcome news. Instead of wrecking the lives of millions of people and turning them all out on the street, they instead get to keep their lives and careers and continue to pay taxes. Even if you ignored the incalculable misery a mass-eviction scenario would create, it wouldn't surprise me if paying off everyone's unpaid rent is actually cheaper than mass evictions, when the total cost of handling the resulting mass homelessness is taken into consideration.
tdeck 5y ago
It's worth remembering though that the "fair market" for certain things wouldn't even exist without the government. Land ownership and tenancy aren't natural laws - they're established by a framework of government policies and the ability of the government's employees to use force to restrict property use.

ummonk 5y ago

That’s not true. A lot of people chose not to pay rent because they didn’t have to thanks to the eviction freeze.

newfriend 5y ago

If I give a million dollars to everyone except you, am I harming you? I didn't do anything to you, but you are now in a much worse position than everyone else. That is how it harms people. Even worse, it harms only the most responsible people.

luffapi 5y ago
It helps the most responsible people (and everyone else) by not causing a massive wave of homelessness. When people are evicted, they don’t vaporize. They’re still your neighbors, they just live on the sidewalk in front of your house. Whether you view it as an ethical win or a practical one, reducing homelessness helps all of us.
- rmk 5y ago
  Is this the only way to reduce homelessness? How come other states haven't taken this route? Are the governors of the other states morons? Newsom is being recalled, so he is flailing and throwing cash around to secure his position, plain and simple.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    It’s clearly an effective way to deal with homelessness, which California has a major problem with. The worst in the US.
jude- 5y ago
How, exactly, is this harmful? Why can't you be happy for everyone else? I would be. Like, if you're worried about the inflation shock that would create, then the same people who have the power to give a million dollars to everyone but me would certainly have the power to raise interest rates and take other measures to prevent the sudden mass availability of wealth from wrecking havoc on the economy. But that's a separate topic, and if I'm affected negatively by this, I'd be upset at the powers that be for failing to mitigate the negative consequences of their actions. I wouldn't be upset at all at the hundreds of millions of people who are suddenly wealthy.
5y ago

ergocoder 5y ago

"Nobody is harmed by pay gap" Yeah, somebody is harmed. First, it's unfair. Second, you are competing for the same resources (house and etc.). Now you are at disadvantage.