[AnthonyMouse]

> Boy, that's going to suck for people whose credit situation has shut them out of most traditional housing situations.

There are lots of apartments available with no credit check. They're more often of lower quality, but if your situation is such that you want to spend less on rent and have more left for something else (like paying off your debts), why is it a problem for people to be able to choose that?

It's the status quo that screws them, because the government often pays out $1000/month or more in housing assistance but it's required to go directly to the landlord, and then if you have money problems but could live with family or are willing to take in a crappy low-rent studio apartment for a while, you can't take that money and use it to fix your situation instead because if you tried to do that the government takes it away.

> Or people who rely on what other people don't consider food for sustenance, for whatever reason (protein powder? multivitamins? supplies to grow/produce your own foodstuffs?).

Isn't this the opposite? If you give them a UBI then they can buy whatever they want. If you give them paternalistic micromanaged benefits like SNAP then they can buy carbonated high fructose corn syrup in a can but not vitamins or farming supplies.

[frmersdog]

You don't know what you're talking about. The corporate takeover of most rentals (apartments and homes alike) near the roadways and transit these people need to get to their jobs (let alone in areas where they wouldn't have to commute) has made those rentals inaccessible. They use little-known credit reporting companies specific to the rental industry that have basically no regulatory oversight, and which allow landlords to deny applications in an opaque way without liability. Housing voucher wait lists are years long; they're basically impossible to get on. The only housing assistance that was available to most people were pandemic-era emergency eviction grants, and those are gone.

Van life, couch surfing, living in hotels: these are the options available to them. And it's obviously not so simple as "roughing it" for a few months, as they're essentially forced to sell or abandon most of their personal property.

What you're talking about it taking people in those dire straits and forcing them to pay MORE money just to keep a roof over their heads, while millions of wealthier Americans own multiple properties where they and their family are the only residents. It's ridiculous.

>Isn't this the opposite? If you give them a UBI then they can buy whatever they want. If you give them paternalistic micromanaged benefits like SNAP then they can buy carbonated high fructose corn syrup in a can but not vitamins or farming supplies.

I am, once again, going to state that you don't seem to understand the topic at hand.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The corporate takeover of most rentals (apartments and homes alike) near the roadways and transit these people need to get to their jobs (let alone in areas where they wouldn't have to commute) has made those rentals inaccessible.

No they haven't:

https://econofact.org/factbrief/do-private-equity-firms-own-...

> They use little-known credit reporting companies specific to the rental industry that have basically no regulatory oversight, and which allow landlords to deny applications in an opaque way without liability.

And then you rent from someone else because in reality large corporations own only a small percentage of rental units.

> Housing voucher wait lists are years long; they're basically impossible to get on.

You're again only making the argument for getting rid of those grants people can't get anyway in favor of a UBI that everyone gets automatically.

> What you're talking about it taking people in those dire straits and forcing them to pay MORE money just to keep a roof over their heads

How are they paying more money for anything to receive $1000 in cash instead of a $1000 payment that can only go to a landlord?

> I am, once again, going to state that you don't seem to understand the topic at hand.

[frmersdog]

>No they haven't:

I said corporate, not PE.

>And then you rent from someone else because in reality large corporations own only a small percentage of rental units.

Most of the rest are owned by medium-sized corporations that use the same services.

>You're again only making the argument for getting rid of those grants people can't get anyway in favor of a UBI that everyone gets automatically.

UBI within the tax regime described above doesn't abolish the paternalism you're attacking, it just shifts it.

>How are they paying more money for anything to receive $1000 in cash instead of a $1000 payment that can only go to a landlord?

I am, once again, going to state that you don't seem to understand the topic at hand.

Or maybe you do, and pivoted to UBI because you realized that the tax issue was indefensible.