People who paid their rent aren't hurt by this at all, they just aren't directly helped by it.
Note: I'm not saying I agree with the mindset above, but this is a how a good chunk of people think.
I think "government bailout", while technically true, is a bit loaded, however. Landlord's hands were forced by the eviction moratorium - so it's a bailout for a problem the government caused.
Now, that "problem" is probably better then the alternative (a bunch of people suddenly becoming homeless in the middle of the pandemic), but the state did force landlords to not evict even if rent wasn't getting paid (not allowing them to find new renters who could try to).
It's money that's either contractually owed by the renter, or constitutionally owed by the government, as a private taking.
The landlords are being made whole, not getting "free" government bailout money.
Well, no, its not; its saying that if the government declares an eviction moratorium (which is extremely rare) without a rent moratorium, it might also, later, if finances ard convenient and it otherwise feels it expedient, retroactively decide to pay off unpaid rents before the end of that moratorium gets you evicted for unpaid rent.
(OTOH, the Fifth Amendment litigation already happening around the eviction moratorium itself might make that non-optional, anyway, and mooting that by providing full compensation now potentially saves the additional costs associated with litigation.)
I totally agree that the government screwed over landlords with the moratorium. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature at the time agreed a better solution was better unemployment insurance for those who lost their jobs.
It is created de novo within a computer system.
It is conceptualized, according to intellectual paradigms, as originating as a 'debt' and being "paid back" by taxes. But this accounting is fallacious. There is a movement in economics called MMT which is going to challenge these paradigms.
I suspect these sorts of political actions are a large part of the reason. It is just one more kick to a person who worked hard to cover their responsibilities. One more thing to make them wonder why they even try.
One can argue how much or in what way. One persons result doesn't translate to another's result.
Take your example, If you stopped going to work, I expect your success would probably go down. If you tried harder, your success would probably go up.
If there is no correlation between work and outcomes, why ever get a job, why ever get an education, or do anything remotely challenging?
I think it is crazy that people are propagating the idea that there is no advantage to self improvement, education, and trying anything.
You work on challenging things because it’s interesting to you, not because you’ll necessarily get paid more for it. If you work for JJ as a researcher you’re probably paid well, if your a postdoc you’re paid like shit. Same work. Being an ICU nurse is extremely challenging, but the paper pusher administrator above them will make more.
Education and self-improvement on average will increase your success. Toiling away at your job 80 hours a week, working two jobs, gigging on the weekends on average won’t.
One could argue (I would disagree) that taxpayers are hurt by this, but taxpayers and people who paid rent are not the same group.
How would you argue that they are not hurt by it?
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.
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.
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.