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