> out of good faith

This is weird to me - the renter wouldn't get an extension on remaining in their domicile if they payed for ten years straight and then hit financial hardships - if the renter is going to be bankrupted by Covid then they're better off hording as much as possible until that point.

Also, you need to remember that, during this pandemic, people are feeling real financial pain. There is a possibility this renter is trying to stretch their budget to afford food and power as-is, the landlord is, at worst, going to lose some value out of their held properties which may hurt their long term financial health but won't threaten them with immediate homelessness unless they're extremely overleveraged.

This isn't to dismiss the pain and stress of being a landlord - but there is a lot of pain going around right now and if your representative in congress or senators aren't fighting to distribute some relief for it then it'd be better to take that up with them. The economy is under heavy stress.

How are people feeling such financial pain? In the US we gave every adult over $3,000 in direct cash, and radically expanded unemployment benefits. In many states the unemployment checks were over $1,000/week for six months, then reduced to mere $500 to $700 per week. We also expanded health care access, froze evictions, expanded food programs, and more.

I fail to see how people could be struggling so when the US treasury has gifted people with tens of thousands of dollars.

> How are people feeling such financial pain?

Loss of work, loss of child supervision (in-person schooling and childcare closures), at times sharply restricted number allowed in stores (meaning parents have neither time without children to shop nor practically the ability to take children to shop) => increases reliance on delivery services for essential shopping with extra charges and higher losses; extra unemployment at its highest level (which wasn't maintained) was calculated to be approximately full-income replacement, so with the lower boosts, it still wasn’t full income reimbursement and large areas of the economy either haven't fully reopened or haven't fully rebounded., and for those who have been out of work the $3000 (+some for children) only compensates for a few weeks of the gap that hasn't been filled by the partially-boosted unemployment.

> froze evictions

Freezing evictions doesn't reduce the financial hardship of renters (who still owe the debt, they just aren't evicted for owing it), but does increase the hardship of landlords. It's not the same thing as covering rent.

> I fail to see how people could be struggling so when the US treasury has gifted people with tens of thousands of dollars. Because people have faced more tens of thousands of lost income or added expenses.

Ten thousand dollars isn't a huge grant when stacked up against the cost of living in America - there is a decent portion of the population that has been unable to work during the past year and forced to rely on a lot of programs they never had to in the past including SNAP(food stamps), medicaid and the extended unemployment benefit. The direct cash payments are extremely good because they're so unqualified, but in a lot of states intent to work requirements remain in place to collect unemployment benefits and while the payment amount has been increased the duration of payment hasn't gone up across the board. People can try and hoard the money they're getting out of unemployment but they'd be dealing with a lot of uncertainty. Maybe this will be over in four months - I sure hope so - but there is a chance a new vaccine resistant strain will emerge from spring break or states opening up prematurely and throw us back into full quarantine.

The US government acts slowly to provide relief and the last bill passed purely on a party line (even with one person celebrating the bill while voting against it for political reasons) - if people are facing financial uncertainty I'd definitely understand if they're counting every dollar that comes in and hording it due to the uncertainty of when this will actually end.

Winning a suit is one thing - collecting damages is something else.

Exactly. The renters are in a really bad situation as well. There's no way most of the people who couldn't or didn't pay rent for a year are going to have $20,000 to pay back rent, even if there's a judgement against them.

Right and I’d be for society helping them with that sort of debt. But having a judgement against someone does open avenues for future, slow recovery.

There's longstanding societal relief for debt - it's called bankruptcy. Economically, the right answer to unsustainable debt levels is repudiation. Put the next apartment in your significant other's name, sublet from a friend, etc.

Probably a lot easier to let poor people go and help home owners directly.

Nothing is stopping you, a member of society, giving somebody $20,000 to help them with back rent.

Relying on charity to make up for a lack of proper tax collection is a terrible thing for society in the long term. It's unsustainable and will just further wealth inequality.

Also, most people, even most people on here, don't have 20k to throw around willy-nilly even if they have assets exceeding that amount.

I don't get your point?

I believe the point is that the OP is asking for everyone else to pay money for a cause they think is worthy, the comment you are responding to is that if they are that commit to the idea they can always pony up their own money.

I think that's a slight misreading, if we as a society, through our government, offer blanket loan forgiveness then the benefit and cost of that action can be appropriately distributed. The comment is asking for people to take the burden onto themselves and pay out to solve the crisis unilaterally which is an unproductive action at best.

Maybe Bill Gates and Bezos could execute a one time rent forgiveness program from their personal values - that might even work out pretty well in the short term, but it'd be placing too high of a burden on those two in particular.

no one on earth has that much cash. 20K * 1M people is $20B.

All the billionaires in America do not just have that much money just laying around. This would be a budgetary concern of the federal government. No citizens could individually pay everyone's rents.

Bezos has 10 billion in cash and could easily get another 10 in loans without having to sell his shares.

We can be charitable to their point. The most recent stimulus was 1.9T. No one outside of governments has that sort of cash.

ah, thanks.

Well, to that I'd say, if my money had anywhere near the impact of everyone's money pooled together I'd do it. Until then I'll keep advocating for public funds to be spent this way, and I assume OP would as well.

If you lend each completely broke person $100 they are still about to be completely broke and your investment will be wiped out after a brief respite. But if you hand each bankrupt person $X,000 then many might be able to dig themselves out of the hole and remain productive members of society.

In this context, the argument that my position is invalid unless I’m willing to pay out of pocket to enact it in whole (20k$) acts like the barrier to file a lawsuit under a minimal amount of damage. Like flipping that argument around to be used against one another. Not what I’d call a worthwhile contribution to discussion.

yeah, there is- I don't have $20K

The eviction moratorium is for people that make up to 99k or 198k married.

This depends on your outlook.

You can stress about this and spend a lot of your time chasing down someone for repayment. This is the wrong approach IMHO.

Instead just sure in small claims court (limited to $5,000). This is done without lawyers. You simply present your lease agreement, bank statement and any relevant communications.

Once you get that judgment give it to a collections agency and forget about it. The agency will take a percentage of anything they collect.

Then just look at anything you get back as a bonus.

I tried suing a landlord in small claims court. Their lawyer just had the court move the case to civil court so they could bring representation. It's a broken system imo.

> Instead just sure in small claims court (limited to $5,000)

Depends on your state. Here, small claims is limited to $25,000 with no limit for eviction suits.

Unless you need that money to pay the mortgage on the property. If so, then "oh well, I get what I get get and I don't get upset" isn't really where most people are going to land.

It's really not that simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof

That’s why you assume the sun is a total loss and you spend no time chasing it. Let the debtor dodge collections agents and field those phone calls.

Wouldnt that be like only 2-3 months of rent for most people?

In coastal cities, sure. But in a lot of parts of the country it’s not.

Also, as others have noted, different jurisdictions may have higher limits.

But to go to civil court to recover $20,000 just isn’t worth it. Your legal expenses will be significant and you face the prospect of losing or being unable to collect.

So by limiting your potential damages you don’t incur litigation expenses, spend less time and stress on it and your net return may be similar.

What’s better? $5,000 it costs you nothing to get a judgement for (other than a nominal filing fee) minus 10-20% for the collection agency or $20,000 you may need to spend $10-20K to litigate?

The civil courts are pretty useless if your adversary has no funds and nothing to lose.

Everyone has a credit score that can go down. (Is there a floor?) A record of a rent lawsuit is no good for anyone. I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable.

There is an entire segment of the population that will never have good credit and probably never will. Punishing them via credit score isn't going to do anything. It won't get you your money back, and it'll just ensure we have a perpetual underclass to keep this cycle going.

> I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable.

If they're on the verge of eviction they're probably more worried about keeping heat, water, or food going. Landlords are an abstraction if your kid hasn't eaten in 2 days.

>Everyone has a credit score that can go down

Sure, but the issue is that the suing party isn't getting anything out of it. You sue for damages, the defendant has nothing, so their credit score goes down.

That's fine, they get punished+the credit score decrease helps future landlords avoid the same situation with that tenant. But as a suing party, you get literally nothing out of it. The defendant's credit score going down doesn't help you personally one bit, you get no restitution or compensation.

They will just pass a law that allows it to be removed or excluded from credit reports. Or the banks+credit agencies will collude to do it when it starts dipping too hard into credit card applications. #medicalbills

I've lived most of my life without a credit card, never leased a car, never gave owning property much thought. Got some student loans when I was young, but that's about it for my credit history. This is all a result of me living responsibly within my means. Rental referrals are just about the only leverage that an ex-landlord would really have over me. You can duck collections pretty much forever if you don't need credit

Weird flex.

People who aren’t paying rent after the pandemic started likely aren’t doing it for fun. Most likely they are underemployed, hence collections will stack up. “Living within your means” assumes it is even possible to find employment and a handful of life/medical/mental/family stability that not everyone has.

You seem to underestimate how much of modern life in the USA depends on credit. Electric, water, telephone, internet service require credit or suffer the costs and inconveniences of prepayment. Rental housing almost always requires credit checks in any desirable market.

You also seem to assume that collections can never be converted into a lean on your assets or garnishment of your wages. And that doesn’t even begin to crack the strange and painful tactics debt collectors use on your family, employment, friends, and other social pressures.

> I've lived most of my life without a credit card

> This is all a result of me living responsibly within my means.

Implying that not using credit cards is how one lives responsibly within their means is kinda weird and wrong. Yes, you can live irresponsibly with a credit card. You can also live responsibly with it too. And it will give you extra consumer purchase protection (in case of a fraud or a bad fair vendor), as well as 1-5% return on purchases.

Some would argue that missing out on that 1-5% return and extra consumer protections is the irresponsible move. But either way, the whole "using credit cards means living irresponsibly and outside of their means" is absolutely nothing but a complete lack of understanding of how credit works.

Yep, children of poverty are less fiscally literate and exhibit different cost-benefit analysis than folks raised in relative privilege. In my brief experience with credit cards, whatever 1-5% opportunity cost you think I'm paying is overwhelmed by the 20% interest rate if I forget to pay the bill.

The preceeding is a statement about most of my life. I've gotten better at such stuff and my lifestyle has changed after grad school -- and since I didn't have credit cards while living below the poverty line and generally being a schlub, I didn't fuck up my credit, so a few months of having a credit card as a de facto adult earned me a near-perfect credit score when I needed it.

I get that financial literacy is an issue in underprivileged and low-income groups. But it doesn't take much brainpower or financial knowledge to treat your credit card like your debit card and not spend more than you have in your checking account.

Functionally, a credit card would work exactly like your debit card or cash, except you would also be reaping all the benefits of credit cards and improved credit scores.

But overall, I agree with your point about cost-benefit analysis and impulse control being difficult to overcome.

Anyway, my original comment responded to

> I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable

My answer is that people in those situations think about these things very differently than people who have never encountered them. Or, flip it -- if dings on your credit score are the worst speedbump that society has thrown in your path, you probably don't have the skills necessary to live broke.

I didn't come for financial advice, but thanks

You're effectively paying a 1-5% tax on everything by not using a credit card.

There's going to be predatory companies popping up who buy up rights to collect on these lawsuits for pennies on the dollar and proceed to <vulgar transitive verb> the tenants.

This situation is going to play out over the next decade at least and it will be terrible for (almost) everyone involved.

If you're renting and can afford to: pay your damn rent! In five years, you don't want to be staring down a judgement for a year of rent, plus interest, plus "collection" fees.