| > 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. |
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.