they should stop spending it on bullshit bandaid solutions and just give people permanent housing. there are a lot of countervailing forces that make that difficult, but conceptually the solution is pretty simple.
Next will be the inevitable fallout of destroying ~45 trillion in wealth. The consequences of which, bluntly, I can't even really fathom at the moment.
I'm assuming you'll be planning to tax more to give the effected some sort of UBI? Please confirm and I'll explain how that will also blow up in your face.
> conceptually the solution is pretty simple
It is if you don't actually think about it. At all.
your arrogance is surpassed only by your foolishness.
See, this is what I mean. This sort of 'solution' is advocated by people that have never bothered to contemplate the second order effects.
Try to imagine what would happen if we implemented this. Anyone that is homeless gets permanent, free housing. You pat yourself on the back.
Except, now I sell my house. And I come to you and tell you that I'm homeless. Are you going to give me permanent, free housing too?
Because if you do, you have now created the economic catastrophe that I described.
And if you don't, because I don't deserve it on the basis of XYZ, you've just recreated section 8.
yes. it probably won't be as nice as something you, a wealthy person, could afford to buy, and it probably won't be exactly where you want to live, but everyone could be guaranteed safe and stable housing without complicated means testing.
> you've just recreated Section 8.
Section 8 disqualifies people for all kinds of "character" issues associated with drug use, mental illness, etc. That's a big reason there are so many homeless on the street. I am against means testing, but even that system could be a lot better than it is now.
Perhaps you can explain why taxation is so anathema to you. Are you one of the nutcases who consider it theft?
No, because despite the mixed-bag that a single payer system would bring, it is not actually destroying healthcare. Unless you intend to force them to provide their services for no pay.
> Perhaps the costs of allowing a deleterious institution to continue existing dwarf the costs of reforming them, on occasion.
Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions.
> Family formation is down, bankruptcy is up, and somehow I imagine that you have not figured in the trillions in lost value from these and the like realities that are extant because the 3rd most basic human need is unaffordable in this country.
It is substantially less than destroying the entire real market, unquestionably. That doesn't mean that it's not a problem that should be addressed. But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution.
> Perhaps you can explain why taxation is so anathema to you. Are you one of the nutcases who consider it theft?
I'm not. I've got no problem at all paying my taxes. I have no interest in those taxes being wasted.
Welfare spending is the least of your concerns, then.
>it is not actually destroying healthcare.
I didn't say it would. "Healthcare" is not the same as "the healthcare industry as it currently exists".
>Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions.
Ironically: despite the mixed bag that crashing the value of real estate by implementing a housing guarantee (or even simply increasing construction velocity) would bring, it would not actually destroy the concept of "private property", legally or otherwise.
>But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution.
Again, that's not what I said. You seem to have a problem with this. It would be interesting to see you actually argue against something other than a strawman. Are you capable of that?
EDIT: Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.
Yep. In fact, I specifically asked you for your proposal, and you chose to rant about identity politics instead of policy. Which is on brand, I guess.
> Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.
Nope. The current system for performing real estate transactions is wildly inefficient, rent-seeking, insecure, and I'd love to see it destroyed.