You clearly just don’t like the policy, but all of your points have responses.
tax more. Literally everyone on the left agrees with that
More money in the economy is more opportunity to tax. People that need this benefit will be most likely to actually spend their money on good and services. These programs will also give homes and stability to people so that they can get out of cycles that impede their upward mobility and cause them to continue to depend on benefits.
it is not irrelevant because this would not be a check for billions being written overnight. There would be a roll out to ensure stability and work out issues with the market
never said no penalties for defaulting and plenty of people with bad credit need housing and are being provided with it by the government anyways. Might as well not give that money to 3rd party landlords that drive up rents. Also, this is nothing like PPP, other than that the government is involved.
the government would operate like any bank would. It would not allow a 500k loan for a house not worth 500k. You’re not guaranteed a number. That should have been clear based on my above comment that mentioned potentially upgrading to a different house when your income increases. Houses aren’t just more expensive because fha loans exist. And again, all of this would be in a market where investment properties aren’t really a thing.
If you don’t think the government should be involved in housing, you can just say that.
If your solution to such a complicated economic issue is “just tax more bro”, then I’ll just wait until you finish high school before trying to discuss grown-up things with you.
If you think the solution to budgetary issues isn’t to tax more when we’re at a lower tax rate on corps and the rich than we have been in a long time then it’s you that needs to do basic econ/government classes
It literally isn’t just “tax more”. I explained that in the long term this would be a boon to the economy and taxes and that the program would have a gradual introduction which would allow for the program to begin paying for itself by the time it’s fully implemented. I’m not sure if you’re incapable or just unwilling to read, but there are solutions to the housing problem, and “people can’t afford housing so let them be homeless” is not one of them.
You clearly just don’t like the policy, but all of your points have responses.
If you don’t think the government should be involved in housing, you can just say that.
If your solution to such a complicated economic issue is “just tax more bro”, then I’ll just wait until you finish high school before trying to discuss grown-up things with you.
If you think the solution to budgetary issues isn’t to tax more when we’re at a lower tax rate on corps and the rich than we have been in a long time then it’s you that needs to do basic econ/government classes
I’m saying that it’s way, WAY more complicated than “just tax more”.
It literally isn’t just “tax more”. I explained that in the long term this would be a boon to the economy and taxes and that the program would have a gradual introduction which would allow for the program to begin paying for itself by the time it’s fully implemented. I’m not sure if you’re incapable or just unwilling to read, but there are solutions to the housing problem, and “people can’t afford housing so let them be homeless” is not one of them.
I never fucking said that so please stop implying I did.