User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » 2020 Democrat Primaries Page 1 ... 92 93 94 95 [96], Prev  
rwoody
Save TWW
30032 Posts
user info
edit post

Posting this in lieu of telling earl to GFH (but also lol at the philosophy that people should vote for who they want, but then blaming someone else for people not voting for Bernie FOH)

Quote :
"“Renters who have lost their job or had their income reduced shouldn’t have to fear losing their homes in the middle of a pandemic." - @SenWarren introduces Protecting Renters from Evictions and Fees Act
https://t.co/kou1hrXlNl "

6/29/2020 10:40:37 AM

synapse
play so hard
59289 Posts
user info
edit post

really lol at anyone feeling the need to respond to Earl

6/29/2020 10:45:39 AM

horosho
All American
1632 Posts
user info
edit post

I still find the bill and the language in the quoted text problematic. Lets see if you can spot why.

6/29/2020 11:47:55 AM

Geppetto
All American
1961 Posts
user info
edit post

People need support, yes, but preventing eviction for a year needs serious evaluation. The article does suggest multiple sides could be pursued, e.g. supply side payments that keep people from being at risk of eviction, full stop and forgiveness on rents and the mortgages landlords have on those rents, etc..., but my initial response is one of extreme caution.

if the goal is to keep people from investing in existing properties, as to keep the property supply liquid, reducing the impossible reach of home ownership for some many americans, then I feel it. But, there are other ways to handle that goal and this bill seems like it adversely impacts much of the housing supply chain.

i.e. if renters don't pay, landlords are still on the hook for mortgages. if mortgages are stayed, then mortgages holders aren't making revenues, which impacts their ability to pay staff. if we're in a situation that landlords cannot evict renters- it's already pretty hard actually- then landlords will stop investing in homes. This will increase the supply of some housing, which will reduce the value of individuals' homes, an unfortunate occurrence since that is the primary source of wealth building for many Americans, and it will discourage investment in large scale rental complexes because no one will want to build investments for which the government could one day prevent rent collection, reducing supply and putting upward pressure on existing multiple family units.

These don't even address the 'how would we pay for it.' question or the moral hazard of preventing evictions for individuals in upscale housing (private homes, nice apartment complexes) but not funding adequate housing for those who are already homeless and or in really rundown projects.

I may be missing something, but these impacts seem both obvious and material. The likely scenario here is that Warren is just pandering to her base, much like some of the democrat bills that went toward $10K/month per household in UBI.

6/29/2020 12:28:48 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6376 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" e. if renters don't pay, landlords are still on the hook for mortgages. if mortgages are stayed, then mortgages holders aren't making revenues, which impacts their ability to pay staff."


The FED is buying bonds from mortgage holders on the order $10s of billions per month. Just shoveling interest free money into these entities, they won’t let mortgage holders fail. Their solvency should really be the last thing of concern for the average person.

Quote :
" if we're in a situation that landlords cannot evict renters- it's already pretty hard actually- then landlords will stop investing in homes. This will increase the supply of some housing, which will reduce the value of individuals' homes, an unfortunate occurrence since that is the primary source of wealth building for many Americans"


It’ll stop/slow giant institutional investors, who expect easy evictions to lower operating costs, but I doubt it’ll scare away people buying homes for their own occupancy (which we need to increase anyways) or mom and pop investors . Wall Street was encouraged to buy foreclosed homes in the 2010-2013 time frame with cheap FED money and streamlined regulations and boy did they. Increased supply and lower prices are just going to create access for Americans earning average wages. The type of “wealth building” that buying a home is associated with is usually building over a period of 15-30+ years. Do you seriously think a 1 year delay in paying mortgages is going to collapse the housing market such that everyone is upside down on their loan for the next 15 years?

6/29/2020 1:16:16 PM

Geppetto
All American
1961 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"they won’t let mortgage holders fail. "


I agree with that. My larger focus is around the model put in place to support them, if it'll be enough to quell the uncertainty within institutions, and the impact it'll have on those who have mortgages.

Quote :
" but I doubt it’ll scare away people buying homes for their own occupancy (which we need to increase anyways) or mom and pop investors"


mom and pop investors are the ones it'll scare away the most and would be at the most risk of impact. If you buy a starter home and later move into a new one but keep your original property (common individual landlord model), then it is unlikely you have the cash reserves to float a year's extra payments on that property. I'm sure some sort of stay on their payments would come at a hit on their credit, which in is extra costs to them. In what way do you view mom and pop investors getting out ahead of institutions?


Quote :
"Increased supply and lower prices are just going to create access for Americans earning average wages. The type of “wealth building” that buying a home is associated with is usually building over a period of 15-30+ years. Do you seriously think a 1 year delay in paying mortgages is going to collapse the housing market such that everyone is upside down on their loan for the next 15 years?"


That 15 to 30 year mark is very salient for those who have built their wealth the past 15 to 30 years and are actively looking to retire. While I'm not suggesting people will be upside down on their mortgages, any significant reduction in valuation (10%, 15%, 20%) is a significant loss for those retiring on fixed incomes. We've seen how quickly an influx in supply can put downward pressure on home prices, so a full year of offloading rentals and reduced investment into the existing supply could certainly create a meaningful reduction in wealth.

Overall, do you think this bill makes sense, is well thought out, and has adequate protections for all individuals in the housing supply chain?

6/29/2020 1:46:48 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6376 Posts
user info
edit post

My preference is for direct cash stimulus to individuals over all other forms of safety net, but this country has shown time and again it’s unwilling to go that route, unless you’re a corporation or bank. This bill is an imperfect stopgap for the recession that we are about to slog through, but at least it attempts to help average working people.

The bill doesn’t protect everyone in the housing supply chain, but investments are risky, by definition. I value keeping families in their homes above guaranteeing investors a profit. Keeping millions of families in their homes provides greater utility to society and will without a doubt pay dividends in the short to medium term future. Investor profits will just go toward buying more real estate or another yacht, increasing inequality, which is bound to explode in our faces in the short to medium term.

Quote :
" In what way do you view mom and pop investors getting out ahead of institutions? "

It has to do with length of ownership and where profit is expected to come from:

Somewhat anecdotal, but 100% of the mom and pop real estate investors I know aren’t really making THAT much money off rent. Most of rent goes into expenses. Rent covers the remaining mortgage, maintenance, taxes, etc and if you make a few hundred dollars per property per month on top of that you are doing really well. The reason they invest so much time holding onto the house is that the house is an appreciating asset (hopefully) that is paying for itself and they will finally make bank when they get around to selling the property.

If a mom and pop outfit can float several months of mortgage and expenses, and get to the other side of COVID, then they will be able to carry on as usual. If they can’t float expenses then they are over leveraged, but investments are risky, shrug.

Big investors buy houses, often by the dozens, outright with cash and then expect rent payments to come in every month so they can have a known income in their portfolio. They dump properties as convenient, and on much shorter time scales, based on market fundamentals, or their tax liabilities, or because some other hot investment catches their attention. This bill would fuck a lot of them, but again, who cares.

6/29/2020 5:03:47 PM

Geppetto
All American
1961 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Investor profits will just go toward buying more real estate or another yacht, "


I'd say very few investors are 'yacht' level investors or those looking to buy more real estate. Again, going to the mom and pop investors you mentioned earlier, these aren't trappings of wealth they'd experience just because someone pays their full rent for a year. As you mention, most of them make barely anything at all.

Quote :
"If a mom and pop outfit can float several months of mortgage and expenses, and get to the other side of COVID, then they will be able to carry on as usual. If they can’t float expenses then they are over leveraged, but investments are risky, shrug."


I believe you're suggesting that a small investor should be able to float a full year of no revenues, and if they can't achieve that, then the investor is over leveraged? That would be a more extreme definition of over leveraged than I've ever seen. I know of no business operation that is designed to meet a full year at zero revenue. Could you please explain more of your logic here?

Quote :
"moral hazard of preventing evictions for individuals in upscale housing (private homes, nice apartment complexes) but not funding adequate housing for those who are already homeless and or in really rundown projects."


^The above is a comment I posed earlier. What are your thoughts on the message above that the bill sends? Likewise, I see you readily to say in some areas that "investments are risky, shrug", so why would we not say 'Living in an expensive apartment is risky, shrug' or 'if you can't float a year of rent, then you're over leveraged because your apartment is too expensive, shrug'?

6/30/2020 7:59:25 AM

qntmfred
retired
39912 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"My preference is for direct cash stimulus to individuals over all other forms of safety net"


6/30/2020 11:26:39 AM

bbehe
2019 Egg Champ
17588 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
""My preference is for direct cash stimulus to individuals over all other forms of safety net"
"


Under this scenario, what happens to people who blow their cash stimulus and need a safety net?

6/30/2020 11:59:21 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
6376 Posts
user info
edit post

^^There are some really decent older threads on here regarding BI and its pretty interesting that both TWW liberals and TWW conservatives have been on board with moving that direction for many years now (some, not all obviously).

^Charity, I suppose. Same as the people that trade their SNAP benefits for booze today.


Quote :
"I believe you're suggesting that a small investor should be able to float a full year of no revenues, and if they can't achieve that, then the investor is over leveraged? That would be a more extreme definition of over leveraged than I've ever seen. I know of no business operation that is designed to meet a full year at zero revenue. Could you please explain more of your logic here?"


It only seems like an extreme definition of leverage because this country thinks real estate should be a guaranteed return and that it should pay out dividends that increase over time (increasing rent, ever increasing house prices, this is the expected trend). There is no (small) business operation that could function for a full year at zero revenue. However, I've made investments (not real estate) that had no or negative growth for years before they finally turned green. In fact, is there any other investment where we expect the investment to pay out income EVERY month in order that we can maintain ownership?

Perhaps a better solution than this bill is to freeze rent but also freeze mortgages and just let the banks/mortgage holders be supported by the FED.

Quote :
"
^The above is a comment I posed earlier. What are your thoughts on the message above that the bill sends? Likewise, I see you readily to say in some areas that "investments are risky, shrug", so why would we not say 'Living in an expensive apartment is risky, shrug' or 'if you can't float a year of rent, then you're over leveraged because your apartment is too expensive, shrug'?"


Doesn't really bother me. I'd estimate we are talking about less than 10% of the people that are about to be evicted in the next three months (probably closer to 5%). I don't mind letting a few thousand over-leveraged rich people stay in their homes if it means we can keep millions of working class families in their homes.

Which circles me back to the social utility aspect of keeping working class people in their homes. How much is evicting millions of families from their homes going to cost us in the long run? How do we temporarily house millions of families until they get back on their feet on the other side of COVID? Housing instability for children has been associated with a menu of terrible outcomes by the time they are adults (not graduating high school, teen pregnancy, lower lifetime earnings, etc). I personally believe that keeping people in their homes over the next critical 18 months will be of greater benefit to our society than guaranteeing real estate investors a ROI.

6/30/2020 12:57:41 PM

qntmfred
retired
39912 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"its pretty interesting that both TWW liberals and TWW conservatives have been on board with moving that direction for many years now"


indeed. that's how UBI advocate Scott Santens coined Yang's campaign slogan "Not Left. Not Right. Forward." https://medium.com/p/8a2680c73dd3#abce

6/30/2020 1:22:43 PM

utowncha
All American
635 Posts
user info
edit post

nobody blows their cash stimulus and nobody trades SNAP for booze

quit watching tucker carlson

6/30/2020 2:55:31 PM

Geppetto
All American
1961 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"
is there any other investment where we expect the investment to pay out income EVERY month in order that we can maintain ownership?"


No. But a rental is a business, not just an investment. An example of a pure investment property would be a built beach house that is either entirely unrented or has limited short term rentals, with the primary purpose to be wealth accumulation through appreciation. Speculating on a new condo and buying pre-construction would be another example. These are more in line with a true 'investment', such as a stock.

A rental (long term assumed) is a business that generates income, even if that income is so marginal that it barely covers the monthly costs. This is much like owning a restaurant is a business, even though you may get other appreciated value (brand goodwill or appreciation on the real estate) in addition to the money earned.

So I'd view our expectations of leverage and survival to be more in tune with that we'd expect for any small business owner, i.e.. a year of no income is detrimental and places an undue burden on the service provider. In fact, I know of no other business in which we'd expect the owner to continue to provide their goods and services for free if they brought in no revenue. Do you?

I'd also extend that this brings into question the government's ability to dismantle existing contracts between citizens, but I think that is a separate debate.

Quote :
"
Perhaps a better solution than this bill is to freeze rent but also freeze mortgages and just let the banks/mortgage holders be supported by the FED."


While I still hold concerns here, yes, I would say direct payments do a better job to address my concerns. It doesn't address my concerns around keeping existing people, who are either middle class or come from middle class backgrounds in many cases, in their rental but doing nothing for impoverished who are on the streets and never had a home. I think it goes further to exemplify that America cares about the rich and some times the middle but never the truly poor.

6/30/2020 4:06:50 PM

daaave
All American
1024 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"There are some really decent older threads on here regarding BI and its pretty interesting that both TWW liberals and TWW conservatives have been on board with moving that direction for many years now (some, not all obviously). "


Conservatives want to replace social services with UBI. It's a way to force people back into the "free market". Essentially the same thing as school vouchers. Left wingers want UBI on top of social services.

[Edited on June 30, 2020 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2020 4:13:31 PM

JesusHChrist
All American
4416 Posts
user info
edit post

^ The left should treat UBI with more suspicion for the reason you just mentioned, imo. The goal of the left should not merely be to raise worker wages, but rather to ultimately reduce the required work week while raising baseline social safety nets. You raise safety nets when you decommodify essential needs. If the end goal is to liberate workers from the drudgery of production so that they can live a dignified life complete with adequate leisure, then basic needs must be met outside of the market. The lack of a meaningful critique of UBI among the left is concerning, in my opinion.

6/30/2020 4:37:13 PM

horosho
All American
1632 Posts
user info
edit post

UBI is a compromise I can get behind because although it is not a long-term solution, it would have an immediate direct impact on the lives of all people in the short term.

6/30/2020 4:42:40 PM

daaave
All American
1024 Posts
user info
edit post

I think I've mentioned it on here before but the ideal UBI would consist of basic needs being met through social services, UBI for leisure. Not perfect by any means, but much better than what we have and probably the best we could hope for under a capitalist economy.

6/30/2020 5:58:09 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6376 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" No. But a rental is a business"


Yea, I’d agree. We say “real estate investment” but it’s really closer to a small business than an investment. The kicker is that mom and pop businesses of all shapes and sizes are failing by the 100s per day right now, in some cases directly due to government public health mandates. Maybe landlords should be able to apply for PPP loans (can they?).

How is a small real estate business failing due to this rent freeze bill any different than any of those other mom and pops going under?

Quote :
" Conservatives want to replace social services with UBI. It's a way to force people back into the "free market". Essentially the same thing as school vouchers. Left wingers want UBI on top of social services."


Oh believe me, I’m on guard that this could be an outcome, that packaging up multiple programs into a cash grant could end up being a less generous, shittier system, but also consider these two points:

-in order to figure out just how generous our current safety net is you have to dig into some boring ass government assessments, and these days it’s even worse because the reports are barely non-partisan (they’re usually props for building a political narrative, like most economics.). Consolidating some of our programs (I agree some things like healthcare should be a separate service) might reveal that our system isn’t really generous at all. It could give people a dollar figure to fight for politically. Like instead of a “fight for $15” it would be “fight for $1500.”

-In some cases, poor people would rather be operating in the free market. SNAP/EBT has gotten a lot better since people had to count stamps out at the grocery store, but ask anyone and I bet they’d rather pull cash out of their wallet than run an EBT card.

6/30/2020 6:36:56 PM

Geppetto
All American
1961 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Maybe landlords should be able to apply for PPP loans (can they?).

How is a small real estate business failing due to this rent freeze bill any different than any of those other mom and pops going under?"


I don't believe landlords can because most aren't listed as businesses and have no payroll, even though on their taxes the rents are still listed as income, much as they would if it were a sole proprietorship.

In my view, preventing small real estate businesses and mom and pops from going under as a result of this bill should be equivalent. Arguably, the upper tier of a true business would have diversified revenue streams and would be more likely to weather the storm, but on the whole they are equivalent.

7/1/2020 11:17:07 AM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » 2020 Democrat Primaries Page 1 ... 92 93 94 95 [96], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2020 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.