2008 showed us where this road goes. The wealthy are the tiniest sliver of the group of people whose lives will be ruined. If anything, when the dust settles the truly wealthy (those whose wealth isn't riding on leverage) will end up even wealthier because they'll be sitting on capital that they can use to buy up even more assets at fire sale rates.

> truly wealthy (those whose wealth isn't riding on leverage)

incredibly convenient to just dismiss those people who lost wealth this way, and claim that the "truly wealthy" is to be blamed.

I...did neither of those things?

Here are a few obvious problems:

- retirement plans often rely on equity from real estate, and so do some nursing home admissions

- as per 2008, when people have more money remaining on a mortgage than the underlying asset (home) is worth, some of them will declare bankruptcy

- when rich people suddenly have a lot less nominal cash, they can't fund their businesses by liquidating assets, so they cut costs, and then those costs have to find new jobs, which can take years and is hugely disruptive for everyone[0]

Overall there's an argument to be made for doing it anyway, but there are pretty clear downsides to causing an economic crisis, even if the economy eventually reaches a better equilibrium state.

[0] note that I'm not supporting trickle-down economics, just warning about the disruption that suddenly changing the distribution of wealth will cause

A fair few pension funds and charitable endowments have wealth locked up in property. Not saying that alone justifies protecting asset values, but it does have societal significance worth bearing in mind.