3 ms·

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

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.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        fair point, the parent used past context, so I assumed they were concerned about evictions during the pandemic. If the concern is about evictions happening at all, then yes, the concern carries forward.
- fattire 5y ago
  How do you know these payments are offset by income taxes?

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.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      fair point, the parent used past context, so I assumed they were concerned about evictions during the pandemic. If the concern is about evictions happening at all, then yes, the concern carries forward.
fattire 5y ago
How do you know these payments are offset by income taxes?