Nope you still have the same amount of money you had.
Government guaranteed mortgage through Freddie or Fannie?
Get any use out of that?
The Federal Reserve is a private bank that is used by the Federal government for the issuing of currency.
If you look at the dollar bill in your pocket it says, “Federal Reserve Note.” That means the it is a debt that is owed to you when you present that dollar. The “reserve” was originally gold or silver, and you could trade in your gold/silver at the bank for dollars equal to $35 per ounce of gold ($20 pre-1935); however, the US was taken off of the gold standard in 1971. Now the reserve is fiat which means that there is no reserve other than what you can buy with it.
1 Like
Not by choice
I prefer itemized because it prevents richer people from taking advantage of the poor receiving benefits.
I recall when the 15 dollar minimum wage was a hot topic, a coworker of mine was trying to calculate how much more money his tenants would be making from their part-time jobs if 15/hr became reality, so he could see how much he could raise their rent.
An itemized assistance that doesn’t directly pass through the pocket of the poor, like food stamps, or childcare subsidies, makes it much more difficult for people like my coworker to get their scrooge on and start squeezing the poor.
Under UBI, that guy would’ve gotten his check, and then taken the checks from his tenants. I find that much more outrageous that even the most wasteful assistance programs we have now.
1 Like
Hilarious.
Without it you would have paid much much more for what is most likely the largest asset that you have.
While paying off that mortgage did you get to deduct the interest off of the taxes that you owed?
The problem with all welfare in whatever form does devalue the aspect of hard work (weather intellectual, physical, etc.) to get oneself in a better economic condition. Wouldn’t a universal basic income essentially value all labor the same? Or at least certain types of labor. Where exactly would the cutoff be? Who would decide what labor would then be valued above the Universal Basic Income? How much more above it? The point being is that it also presents its own share of problems.
If the program is universal, there is no cut-off. The millionaire and the pauper each get the same amount.
Does receiving a government guaranteed mortgage devalue the value of owning a house?
Why wouldn’t the free market decide this? Labor markets would still be free. Just like they are now with current welfare payouts. But yes, universal income does present unique problems
Because it’s FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when we print money?
1 Like
It depends on what you are printing money for.
Nixon proposed that in the late 60s.
How is that related? You have to pay off the mortgage to own the house.
“Printing money” (electronically, of course) is a redistribution of resources so lets drop the nonsense that we aren’t taking assets from some to give to others. Of course that is what we are talking about.
Medicaid, food stamps etc are for specific things people need to keep alive, whether they are responsible for their own condition or not.
Just giving them money to use on big screen tvs instead of food for their children? No thanks. The moral imperative isn’t there.
No it isnt, because it doesnt target an individual’s resources in isolation. It targets all americans and foreigners who use the currency.
A government guaranteed mortgage creates an artificially lower price to home ownership.
It is a form of welfare to the middle class.
Not buying the distinction.
“Printing money” doesn’t necessarily take “assets” away from others.
It can indeed cause inflation… but in certain circumstances it doesn’t.
That is why it is very important what the money is being printed for.
Inflation is inflation for everyone
