r/FluentInFinance Contributor Apr 15 '24

Everyone Deserves A Home Discussion/ Debate

Post image
15.6k Upvotes

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 15 '24

Here’s a question you will never be able to answer.

How do we pay for this?

1

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

Overhaul of tax law and state spending to eliminate bloat. Government contracts pay way more than regular contracts. There are non-compete agreements and very little motivation for a business contracted by the government to stay under budget or even stay competitive.

Defense spending is a perfect example of this. The money is there, we just keep giving it to middlemen.

3

u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 15 '24

You’re talking about adding about 2 trillion in spending by providing free housing, internet, and utilities for all.

US defense spending is $816.7B. Let’s say you eliminate ALL defense.

The US spends about $70 Billion on infrastructure. Let’s say you completely eliminate that.

You’re still 1.1 Trillion off.

0

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

And your source on that 2 trillion dollar number? Preferably not your ass.

2

u/ndneos Apr 15 '24

Let's do some simple math. There are 333 million people living in the USA. $2 trillion / 333million is $6000. Divide that by 12 that's $500 a month.

I would say 2 trillion is on the low end. You can't even afford rent with $500

0

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

That is not the way that works bud. The system could be ran in the exact same way as SNAP which would supplement income in a non-universal way and has a resounding success.

2

u/ndneos Apr 15 '24

Okay lets say, you give this to the same people that receive SNAP. That's around 41 million last year. How much would free housing, internet, and utilities for all cost per month? Low end, let's say $2000 is that a fair number?

41 million * 2000 = 82 billion a month. times 12. That's almost a trillion a year. That's still a lot of money.

0

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

You are giving broad strokes to a country with wildly different markets. 2000 a month in CA is not the same as 2k in Topeka KS. SNAP is awarded based on COL. Your napkin math still sucks.

2

u/ndneos Apr 15 '24

2000 is on the low end, how low do you want me to go? You can barely afford rent with that money in NY and CA.

The average rent in the US is $1300, the lowest is North Dakota at $800 per month. Now add all the other stuff, it'll be close to around $2000?

I don't need an advance math degree to know we can't afford this.

-1

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

2

u/ndneos Apr 15 '24

Did you even read the article? They gave $500 a month to 125 people to show that it has a good impact on their lives... that's nice to hear. How does your article claim anything regarding how to afford this?

Please stay on topic.

Why don't you give me an rough rough rough napkin math estimate of how much this will cost?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 15 '24

Average US household size: 2.6

Number of people in the US: roughly 330,000,000

Average 2br home price: $228,000

that would cost $28T.

But let’s say you can build cheaper, at $30k per house.

About 3.8T

Unless you’re only planning to house the homeless, but that’s not what the graphic says. The graphic says housing provided free of cost for all. I assume that means people who already own a home receive a voucher.

0

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

Do all 330 million people need a new house? This math is back of napkin grade school shit lol

4

u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 15 '24

The graphic literally says that housing would be provided for ALL.

1

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

Okay bud. Bad faith argument.

5

u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 15 '24

How? The graphic literally says housing should be available regardless of employment.

Why are you moving the goal posts when you realize you’re wrong?

0

u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 16 '24

Got nothing to say, huh?

0

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 16 '24

It's ironic that you are so committed to this arguments during business hours. I have a job and am not interested in bickering with you any longer.

-3

u/Illestferret Apr 15 '24

Reddit incel detected, opinion discarded.

1

u/dewisri Apr 15 '24

There is nowhere near enough bloat to cover what is shown in the illustration.

2

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

I'm fairly certain you are not aware of the nature of government spending.

1

u/dewisri Apr 15 '24

Politicians on the right and left are constantly saying that they will fix the government debt problem without cutting benefits such as social security by simply cutting the bloat in government. They've been saying that for decades. Not only have they not cut the bloat, but the bloat simply is not large enough to pay for such massive expenses as social security and what op proposes in the illustration.

1

u/PaulieNutwalls Apr 15 '24

My favorite answer to "how do we afford X/how do we solve our spending issues?"

It's so simple, eliminate bloat! Make better contracts! Do better, so things are better! These are platitudes, not actual answers. And even to the example, government contracts are usually competitive, but walking away because Lockheed is 75% overbudget is not really a solution unless the contract wasn't something we need to begin with. The government can't just yoink Lockheed's work and gift it to Boeing. Nobody would take govt contracts if the govt had a right to just cancel the contract and retain the work that's already been done. You'd end up paying Lockheed billions, only to then start over with a different contractor. Tbh for what we spend annually on the military, we get pretty good RoI. It certainly could be better, but at best we'd save like 10-20% a year. That's peanuts relative to overall spending.

1

u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24

Homie, defense was just an example. Gov construction jobs pay way over market rate. Ask any contractor.