Economics question: Would suspending ALL loans and rent help keep the wheels on?

[Revoltingest]

Just like others might have to give up their employment.
I'm not suggesting this is the answer, but I seriously doubt any of us are getting through this without substantial impact on income.

Well, I don't plan to stop receiving rent & loan payments.
Charity towards those in need shouldn't be limited to business.
Perhaps those who keep their jobs & pay should subsidize
those who lose theirs, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've heard nothing but ideas with serious problems and side-effects. I don't think @icehorse 's is any worse than some others. But I don't have anything better to offer right now.

Of course you don't....your retirement income
isn't from rent & interest.
Hey....
Instead of my giving up my income....how about
you give all your income to those in need?

 

[icehorse]

Well, I don't plan to stop receiving rent & loan payments.
Charity towards those in need shouldn't be limited to business.
Perhaps those who keep their jobs & pay should subsidize
those who lose theirs, eh.

Well we can all rest easy now that we know @Revoltingest will be okay

 

[Revoltingest]

Is eating the rich in the table yet? No? I'll come back then. *wheels out the guillotine.*

In seriousness though any landowner who kicks their tenants off during a disaster for reasons of default should be thrown in jail, and the property possessed by the government to act as public housing.

Ditto to banks who try and repossess.

Or.....
You could step up & help those in need, instead of
demanding that creditors bear the full burden. Let
your sense of charity start with your own wealth.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well we can all rest easy now that we know @Revoltingest will be okay

We shall see.
Interesting times lie ahead.

You're very generous to offer my income to others.
But your plan imposes no burden upon you.
It seems a little self serving & class warfare-ish.

For @ADigitalArtist too.....
Suppose I have a tenant who can't pay rent.
Instead of my extending largess by waiving it,
how about you paying it for them? It would be an
equivalent burden, just borne by different parties.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Or.....
You could step up & help those in need, instead of
demanding that creditors bear the full burden. Let
your sense of charity start with your own wealth.

I'm helping those in need by pushing local and state representatives to enact eviction suspensions (which we have succeeded at) and campaigning for rights to essential services like food, water and housing, especially in times of disaster. Way more efficient than dithering on about charity when it suits. But yeah you're welcome to come help load the food trucks at our giving garden on Friday. Or do you only ask people to do charity when you're clutching your purse?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm helping those in need by pushing local and state representatives to enact eviction suspensions (which we have succeeded at) and campaigning for rights to essential services like food, water and housing, especially in times of disaster. Way more efficient than dithering on about charity when it suits. But yeah you're welcome to come help load the food trucks at our giving garden on Friday. Or do you only ask people to do charity when you're clutching your purse?

But you're being generous with someone else's money,
while proposing no burden be placed upon you.
It is far more efficient & fairer if government acts as an
insurer to provide what all need....not just a few at the
expense of a different few.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But you're being generous with someone else's money,
while proposing no burden be placed upon you.
It is far more efficient & fairer if government acts as an
insurer to provide what all need....not just a few at the
expense of a different few.

The burden to me is the tax burden I'm more than willing to pay for strong social services. Just like every other industrialized nation that doesn't worship greed as much as the US does. If you can't be bothered doing anything but sit on your laurels and collect from people in dire straits, please kindly go live in the mountains and not in a society you just want to exploit.

Incidentally I want economic relief from all rents and mortgages during a disaster, including yours, just like @icehorse. And I'm also quite happy for monetary government bailouts, so long as it's not another ****ing pointless dump into the stock market or equally pointless bank or corporate bailout.
You want a government bail out to the American people so they can pay you? Go for it. I endorse it.

But until then absolutely nobody should be forced to homelessness because of this.

 

[Revoltingest]

The burden to me is the tax burden I'm more than willing to pay for strong social services.

Now you're on board with me.

Just like every other industrialized nation that doesn't worship greed....

You were the one being greedy by having someone else
bear the burden of waiving rent & loan payments.
I'm the virtuous one because I favor broader & better
assistance from government. And I still cooperate with
my tenants if in need.
What tenants do you help with rent?

as much as the US does. If you can't be bothered doing anything but sit on your laurels and collect from people in dire straits, please kindly go live in the mountains and not in a society you just want to exploit.

Again, you are the one doing the sitting on laurels,
demanding that someone else help those in need.
The belief that I'm obligated, but you're not is flagrant
greed.

Incidentally I want economic relief from all rents and mortgages during a disaster, including yours, just like @icehorse. And I'm also quite happy for monetary government bailouts, so long as it's not another ****ing pointless dump into the stock market or equally pointless bank or corporate bailout.
You want a government bail out to the American people so they can pay you? Go for it. I endorse it.

But until then absolutely nobody should be forced to homelessness because of this.

Of course you want what will cost others, but not you.
Tis the Ameristanian way....make someone else pay.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Now you're on board with me.

You were the one being greedy by having someone else
bear the burden of waiving rent & loan payments.
I'm the virtuous one because I favor broader & better
assistance from government. And I still cooperate with
my tenants if in need.
What tenants do you help with rent?

Again, you are the one doing the sitting on laurels,
demanding that someone else help those in need.
The belief that I'm obligated, but you're not is flagrant
greed.

Of course you want what will cost others, but not you.
Tis the Ameristanian way....make someone else pay.

You're doing nothing but projecting here. Lol.
'I shouldn't have to pay anything to people in trouble!'
'Everyone should. Everyone should have to make sacrifices so that people don't get left behind.'
'You're being greedy!'
'No, I'm doing my share (both publicly and privately) and asking others to do theirs.'
'No it's just about me! Memememe.'

That is the American way.
May Illinois also have rent freezes jut so you dont **** over some poor family to make a buck. And may the banks also have rent freezes so they can't **** YOU over for a buck. The wealthy can cope.

At least until we tackle wealth hoarding in earnest.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're doing nothing but projecting here. Lol.

Just addressing what you post.

'I shouldn't have to pay anything to people in trouble!'
'Everyone should. Everyone should have to make sacrifices so that people don't get left behind.'
'You're being greedy!'
'No, I'm doing my share (both publicly and privately) and asking others to do theirs.'
'No it's just about me! Memememe.'

That is the American way.
May Illinois also have rent freezes jut so you dont **** over some poor family to make a buck. And may the banks also have rent freezes so they can't **** YOU over for a buck. The wealthy can cope.

At least until we tackle wealth hoarding in earnest.

You proposed that others, not you, bear the burden of assisting
renters. Sure sounds like the greed you accuse others of.

Why your objection to having government assist them, serving
more in need, with the burden borne more broadly, & based
upon ability to pay via income tax?

And please....
Avoid the veiled profanity.
Stick to the issues.
You of all people should know better than to behave that way.

 

[Thief]

I've been wondering how a logical. thoughtful government would handle the upcoming economic problems that are sure to come in the next few weeks and months.

What I was wondering is if a simple suspension of all loans and rent payments might minimize the pain all around?

saw a recent documentary about how the rich get rich

so ….no
the interest will pile up
and when the economy is declared....'well enough'
the bill will be waiting for you

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Just addressing what you post.

You proposed that others, not you, bear the burden of assisting
renters. Sure sounds like the greed you accuse others of.

Why your objection to having government assist them, serving
more in need, with the burden borne more broadly, & based
upon ability to pay via income tax?

Let me itemize because you're repeating yourself, either I'm assuming deliberate obtuseness, or genuine ignorance. In either case, I can't make it any simpler:
-I believe in everyone doing their part, whether they want to or not, to live in a society they benefit from.
-That includes strong social programs paid for by taxes according to wealth brackets, with the wealthier having a heavier burden due to their greater benefit.
-Disaster profiteering, like charging people for essential services they have no way of pay of paying due to a disaster, is unethical and should be restricted.
-Disaster relief laws should be in place to prevent disaster profiteering.
-Monetary government aid is great, but it should be centered on ground up, not trickle down. As evidence of how ineffective stimulus to bank and stock market have been.
-Therefore, I expect banks and the wealthy to take a greater hit than the middle and low class. That is the way it should be. And if that's greedy to someone then they're probably someone who likes to take advantage of those people, or are willing to shoot themselves in the foot for those who do.
-Rent and mortgage freezes would benefit you as much as your tenants, so quit *****ing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me itemize because you're repeating yourself, either in assuming deliberate obtuseness, or genuine ignorance. In either case, I can't make it any simpler:

I'd never accuse you of such things. (We have rules here.)
I just respond to each post, some of which have been repetitive.

-I believe in everyone doing their part, whether they want to or not, to live in a society they benefit from.
-That includes strong social programs paid for by taxes according to wealth brackets, with the wealthier having a heavier burden due to their greater benefit.
-Disaster profiteering, like charging people for essential services they have no way of pay of paying due to a disaster, is unethical and should be restricted.
-Disaster relief laws should be in place to prevent disaster profiteering.
-Monetary government aid is great, but it should be centered on ground up, not trickle down. As evidence of how ineffective stimulus to bank and stock market have been.
-Therefore, I expect banks and the wealthy to take a greater hit than the middle and low class. That is the way it should be. And if that's greedy to someone then they're probably someone who likes to take advantage of those people, or are willing to shoot themselves in the foot for those who do.
-Rent and mortgage freezes would benefit you as much as your tenants, so quit *****ing.

Finally acknowledging the proper role of government in
handling crises is all fine & dandy. But you continue to
place the larger burden upon others, with no regard for
their individual ability to survive it. What you so blithely
call "profiteering" is the income I survive upon. Such
passing of the buck (responsibility) could be called
"greed". As long as you keep yours, & someone else
pays, all is good.

Government should play a larger role than you want, ie,
assisting all those with trouble paying the bills. Then
there's no need to put landlords & lenders in the position
of bearing the full burden of your generosity. Taxation
is the fairest way to spread the cost of coping.

so quit *****ing.

Are you cursing at me, but hiding behind asterisks?
Mind the rules.

 

[Milton Platt]

But you're being generous with someone else's money,
while proposing no burden be placed upon you.
It is far more efficient & fairer if government acts as an
insurer to provide what all need....not just a few at the
expense of a different few.

You not only hit the nail on the head with this post, you drove it through the floor.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've been wondering how a logical. thoughtful government would handle the upcoming economic problems that are sure to come in the next few weeks and months.

What I was wondering is if a simple suspension of all loans and rent payments might minimize the pain all around?

One effect to consider is that during such a freeze and for some time after it would be difficult or impossible to get a loan, and this might also cause rents to rise. It would need to be a very short freeze, because it would stop many new projects and investments. Suppose that a store needs to get a loan in order to get more supplies, but it cannot get the loan. Suppose a farmer needs a loan for seed. You can see there could be a downside to freezing all loan payments and rent payments.

 

[Milton Platt]

I've been wondering how a logical. thoughtful government would handle the upcoming economic problems that are sure to come in the next few weeks and months.

What I was wondering is if a simple suspension of all loans and rent payments might minimize the pain all around?

How would redirecting the money in a different direction help? It would be the same amount of money. On the other hand, If loans are not being repaid and rent not being paid because the payee has no money, the economy isn't helped. the economy requires a flow of money and/or assets.

 

[sun rise]

Of course you don't....your retirement income
isn't from rent & interest.
Hey....
Instead of my giving up my income....how about
you give all your income to those in need?

If the Federal largess does happen, my wife and I already agreed to give it to charity.

As far as our income goes, it's going down as bank interest, bond return and stock dividends could go to zero or negative. It's also possible that the pension payments we get every month could also go away if the funds fail as could happen.

And it's possible that a side-effect of government doubling or tripling the deficit could be a financial crisis with Social Security checks on the chopping block.

So don't count me as one of the privileged until the game is over.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, I don't plan to stop receiving rent & loan payments.
Charity towards those in need shouldn't be limited to business.
Perhaps those who keep their jobs & pay should subsidize
those who lose theirs, eh.

We'll, my wife will probably keep her part time role, but be moved from mental health oversite to active ward nursing. I'll probably lose my job. So does her subsidizing me count?

In any case, I was talking about what's happening here (mortgage repayment pauses being offered by at least a few banking institutions). Not sure what that has to do with 'businesses', but you could send all the rent notices out you like...you'll have trouble collecting in a nationwide unemployment spike.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the Federal largess does happen, my wife and I already agreed to give it to charity.

I figured you're one of those who donates to charity.

As far as our income goes, it's going down as bank interest, bond return and stock dividends could go to zero or negative. It's also possible that the pension payments we get every month could also go away if the funds fail as could happen.

It could get rough.

And it's possible that a side-effect of government doubling or tripling the deficit could be a financial crisis with Social Security checks on the chopping block.

So don't count me as one of the privileged until the game is over.

I'm not so worried about over-spending with an even worse national debt.
Bad as that would be, it's really the time for deficit spending because the
alternative is worse.
Did you ever think you'd hear me advocate that?
Keynes & I have something in common.