Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 433 posts

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#131

Post by anonporridge »

wyager wrote: post #114
anonporridge wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Everyone, even those with extreme wealth, can be helped to see the benefit of raising the floor for everyone. There is a non zero possibility that anyone can lose their wealth, or their children or grandchildren end up losing it. In a world increasing ravaged by automation, UBI is an insurance policy not only for those in need now, but possibly for you and your progeny. 2) Wealthy elites will end up just as poor a…

Free handouts don't "raise the floor" in a sustainable, long-term, or asymptotically effective way. Every dollar spent on UBI would yield better returns being invested in essentially any kind of R&D, unless your time preference is very high.

Don't think of it as a free handout.

Think of it as a dividend on your citizenship.

Every person a shareholder of the nation.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#132

Post by koolba »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #125
hammock wrote: post #107

Devil's advocate: is this altogether a bad thing? Hear me out (thought experiment). COVID relief wasn't supposed to be welfare. Its purpose could be viewed as being not a safety net, but rather compensation for allowing the economy to be shut down. In that sense, it makes sense that much of the recompense goes to the people who were asked to shutter their businesses, put up signage and buy new equipment and reduce ca…

By the same logic, when British Empire made slavery illegal, they owed reparations not to people they enslaved, but to business owner's who could no longer keep slaves and lost their 'assets'. Is that the logic we want?

Spending a 10s of millions of dollars to avoid 100s of thousand of deaths would be a deal many rationale people would be willing to make. It’s the ultimate ends justifying the means.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#133

Post by MisterBastahrd »

giaour wrote: post #115
nsxwolf wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a landlord I found it very difficult to even cover the mortgage, let alone cover association dues and maintenance. I would try to raise the rent a little in between tenants, and it would greatly reduce interest in the listing.

Normally, rent on a property is significantly less than the monthly payment on a 30-year mortgage on the same property. Where were you renting out spaces where people were willing to tolerate rent that high?

Where does this "normally" occur? A house in my neighborhood would rent for over $3000 a month and cost about $1600 a month in mortgage / insurance / taxes, and that's been my experience when looking at any property anywhere in my entire city.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#134

Post by space_fountain »

cryptonector wrote: post #127
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the same logic, when British Empire made slavery illegal, they owed reparations not to people they enslaved, but to business owner's who could no longer keep slaves and lost their 'assets'. Is that the logic we want?

Which is in fact what the British did when they ended slavery.

Though to be fair you can make a very compelling argument that that wasn't the most moral choice

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#135

Post by MisterBastahrd »

giaour wrote: post #119
ethangarofolo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it? We're talking about a mortgage on the rental property itself not on the landlord's personal residence.

Because that's how it normally works? Why would any renter pay that much? If they have that much disposable income each month, they could just buy instead of renting.

You aren't aware that plenty of people rent houses?

By renting instead of buying, you don't incur any of the costs or headaches associated with with home ownership or repair. There are also plenty of people who are only living in one place for a limited period of time, and additionally, plenty of corporations will rent out homes in decent locations if their employees need to be there for extended projects.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#136

Post by geoduck14 »

mlyle wrote: post #123
wyager wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free handouts don't "raise the floor" in a sustainable, long-term, or asymptotically effective way. Every dollar spent on UBI would yield better returns being invested in essentially any kind of R&D, unless your time preference is very high.

Right now, there's welfare cliffs and other problems with benefits that make it difficult to climb out of benefit dependency. In turn, current programs incentivize people to not do things that increase their income. https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/... A UBI, instead, eliminates these problems and ensures there's always a reason to increase your income. This in turn removes deadweight costs…

>current programs incentivize people to not do things that increase their income.

At what point do they have "enough" income? At what point can we stop chasing more money? The USA already has a really high average income. Why do we need more?

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#137

Post by geoduck14 »

Guest42 wrote: post #50
j_walter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the tenant isn't being required to pay rent. 2 years of government money in the name of COVID assistance and rent help...but nothing that actually meant it went to paying rent. Some tenants simply bought more stuff or saved it while the landlords are still going without rent payments.

Is there a data source for this claim?

Every newspaper for the past 2 years. The government was THROWING money at people.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#138

Post by tamaharbor »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #4
Day1 wrote: post #2

This is generally how socialist govt programs work. Give money to the rich and advertise it as helping the poor.

Conversely, it also seems to be how capitalist designs work. I ask: What designs actually help the working class?

Available jobs with no unemployment recourse.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#139

Post by davidw »

jimbob45 wrote: post #86
davidw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Land lords still exist in a competitive market and can't arbitrarily raise rents without collusion. Well...kind of. It's pretty bad in a lot of places. There aren't enough homes in the places people want to live.

What good is it to build rental properties that will only be used for AirBNB? You’ve ruined even more of the environment just to enrich a landlord. It has nothing to do with supply - there are more houses now than can be occupied in the US. It has everything to do with misusing the supply we have.

Vacant housing in Cyanide Springs, Oklahoma is useless to people who want to be near jobs in Palo Alto.

It has everything to do with the supply of housing and how it's been severely constrained over the years.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#140

Post by [deleted] »

nsxwolf wrote: post #54
asdff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you have no rent control and allow property owners to take as much as they are able to off the table short of starving their tenants.

When I was a landlord I found it very difficult to even cover the mortgage, let alone cover association dues and maintenance. I would try to raise the rent a little in between tenants, and it would greatly reduce interest in the listing.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN