urbanMSP

We're way off topic, but there's a number of good instances where just giving money to poor people results in much better outcomes at a much lower public cost. You don't need burdensome bureaucracy to determine what is and isn't eligible benefits (Is OJ fine? How about Sunny D? Orange pop? Someone has to figure that out). It also lets people make their own economic choices. Maybe you want to spend a little more money on housing so you have space for a garden, which could lower your food bill. If we just have a minimum income you can do that, if we have a housing stipend and a food stipend you can't do that.

Giving out the necessities of life removes those people from the market that the rest of us participate in, which ends up with all sorts of weird outcomes. Even in a more socialist economy, there are still those markets that people are participating in, and I'd like everybody to participate in them.

We're way off topic, but there's a number of good instances where just giving money to poor people results in much better outcomes at a much lower public cost. You don't need burdensome bureaucracy to determine what is and isn't eligible benefits (Is OJ fine? How about Sunny D? Orange pop? Someone has to figure that out). It also lets people make their own economic choices. Maybe you want to spend a little more money on housing so you have space for a garden, which could lower your food bill. If we just have a minimum income you can do that, if we have a housing stipend and a food stipend you can't do that.

Giving out the necessities of life removes those people from the market that the rest of us participate in, which ends up with all sorts of weird outcomes. Even in a more socialist economy, there are still those markets that people are participating in, and I'd like everybody to participate in them.

I would have *everyone* get their necessities provided in a socialized way, not just poor people. Thus, there would be no market for the basic versions of those things. People could still buy fancy houses, supplemental health insurance, etc. if they wanted to, there would still be markets for that.

As for determining, for example, what food items are allowed to be purchased with a voucher, I would say, let people purchase what they want. At some point you can't control everything someone does. That's a little closer to the guaranteed income thing, right?

My concern with guaranteed income is that it might just drive up prices for everyone, leaving the poor pretty much where they are right now. What do the studies say about the minimum wage? I realize it's somewhat of a contradiction to support a high minimum wage but be concerned about guaranteed income. They are different, though, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to sort of the ramifications of each.

And why is it that people think Bernie Sanders can't win?

My concern with guaranteed income is that it might just drive up prices for everyone, leaving the poor pretty much where they are right now. What do the studies say about the minimum wage? I realize it's somewhat of a contradiction to support a high minimum wage but be concerned about guaranteed income. They are different, though, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to sort of the ramifications of each.

[we should move this (very worthy) discussion elsewhere]
Arin Dube is one of the leading economists on minimum wage. Here's a round-up of some of his papers and blog posts on the matter: http://arindube.com/minimum-wage-research/

According to Dube, minimum wage is a blunt tool for reducing poverty, but still fairly effective. It's blunt because not all poor people make below $10.10/hr (the amount he typically cites raising it to), and not all people making the minimum wage are in families or households below the poverty line. Still, the poverty elasticity with respect to minimum wage increases is pegged at an average of -.24 (short-term), rising to -.36 in the long term with lagged effects (which I believe he includes spillover wage increases up to the 20th income percentile). In any case, not a silver bullet, but definitely not "a wash" for poor people vs where they are today.

And why is it that people think Bernie Sanders can't win?

Candidates as far left as he is rarely win at the state level. Of course, there are a variety of factors behind that, but it would be a lot easier to imagine Bernie winning eg. Colorado if more liberal candidates consistently won there.

Yeah, sorry. That was sort of a snarky throw-away comment about the echo chamber that was going on in this thread.

God I wish we'd just get rid of all this crap and simply have everyone pay their taxes. Keep something for the very poor but that's it.

To my understanding that's pretty much exactly how it's set up: it refunds tax payments to only those who can least afford to pay it.

I agree that's generally good. But the result is also that, unless your income is very low, a middle income renter is punished by the existing tax code relative to a middle income homeowner. That's why I put the initial link in the Renting vs. Owning thread, as it seems like that's the distinction that's unfair under the current scenario.

I agree but the govt decided long ago that it was going to reward residents who bought their homes and invested in the community. I've always rented, and only a handful of times was I eligible for any refund on rent taxes, so I definitely can empathize with those who still feel the pinch. It may not be fair but this is one way the govt. tries to incentivize home ownership.

Incentivizing homeownership is yet another middle finger to the younger generations who are unlikely to be able to afford to purchase until much later in life than older generations. Just like how they could get their student loans forgiven in bankruptcy (and the actual amounts of those loans were far less compared to their earning potential), but we will never get out from under that burden. There's not only a rich vs poor aspect to subsidizing homeownership, there's a generational one.

"More millenials are stuck renting for years before buying home"
http://www.startribune.com/why-american ... 322020661/

I. Don't. Even...

Incentivizing homeownership is yet another middle finger to the younger generations who are unlikely to be able to afford to purchase until much later in life than older generations. ...There's not only a rich vs poor aspect to subsidizing homeownership, there's a generational one.

Hm. I always thought that the deduction dated to the New Deal programs that included the FHA and the housing GSEs, which were meant to make the mortgage market more attractive to capital, and safer for banks, in reaction to Depression-era housing turmoil. In that story, I'm not sure I'd see it as inherently generational rather than generational in the current environment.

But a bit of searching suggests that my understanding of the origins of the deduction is wrong, and that the mortgage interest deduction is just a vestige of a much older notion that interest is deductible (see http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/a- ... deduction/). Huh.

I said nothing about its intention or origin, just its impact today. Spoils go to the banking industry and the older generations, big surprise.

Judging by the numbers of condos up for rent I wouldn't really say condo owners are that much more likely to stay in place. They just have to become landlords when they move to avoid taking a loss, while renters just pay another security deposit.

'A Bleak Future for Renters
America’s housing crisis will likely worsen during the next decade with millions more struggling to make monthly payments.'
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... rs/406453/

That article just makes me even angrier at people who argue for restrictive zoning and oppose development.

This seems like an amazing deal, even if it is a studio: http://www.edinarealty.com/homes-for-sa ... -164995391

I'm guessing it sells in a heartbeat at that price.

File under general:

If anyone would like to live like it's the early 80s again, here's your chance! You can get a condo at the Crossings for $153k and it looks totally untouched.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/121-W ... 2070_zpid/

That is some extensive shelving.

That is some extensive shelving.

For all of your VHS tapes, books and tapes.

File under general:

If anyone would like to live like it's the early 80s again, here's your chance! You can get a condo at the Crossings for $153k and it looks totally untouched.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/121-W ... 2070_zpid/

Maaaan, that is a depressing place.

File under general:

If anyone would like to live like it's the early 80s again, here's your chance! You can get a condo at the Crossings for $153k and it looks totally untouched.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/121-W ... 2070_zpid/

That is repulsive. I hope someone just buys the whole building.or maybe these condos will act as blank canvases for people with $ who want to renovate. The whole building could be turned around. 1x1