A federal and state partnership for revolving loan for boarding houses

Yes — that makes your proposal **much more economically coherent**. I especially like the idea if the 1/3 rule is combined with a requirement that the projects be financially self-supporting.

The key distinction I'd make is:

> **Residents pay at least 33% of adjusted income toward housing, but never more than the actual cost of providing the housing.**

That prevents the program from becoming an open-ended welfare benefit while still protecting very-low-income residents.

### Your idea creates a natural demand test

Suppose a state proposes a 500-room boarding house.

If there isn't enough demand from people who can afford the required rents, **the project shouldn't get built**.

That is actually a pretty clever feature because you're letting the market answer part of the question.

The federal government isn't saying:

> "We think this community needs 500 units."

Instead:

> "If your state can demonstrate sufficient residents willing and able to pay the required rent, we'll finance the project."

That substantially reduces the risk of building housing in places where it isn't needed.

### I'd add one important modification

I wouldn't literally require **one-third of gross income** in every circumstance.

I'd use something like:

**Housing contribution = 33% of adjusted household income, subject to a minimum and maximum rent.**

For example:

| Income | 33% housing contribution |

| ------: | -----------------------: |

| $12,000 | $333/mo |

| $18,000 | $495/mo |

| $24,000 | $660/mo |

| $30,000 | $825/mo |

| $40,000 | $1,100/mo |

The building could then be designed around the revenue it can actually generate.

And I'd probably allow **income from disability, Social Security, wages, pensions, etc.** to count, while excluding certain irregular income.

### There's another really interesting consequence

Your rule would encourage states to build **where housing is genuinely expensive relative to local incomes**.

Imagine two towns:

**Town A**

* Average low-income worker earns $30,000

* Existing room/apartment options cost $900

* 33% of income = $825

* Significant unmet demand

A boarding house might make sense.

**Town B**

* Average low-income worker earns $30,000

* Existing decent housing costs $600

* 33% = $825

* Plenty of private housing exists

The state probably wouldn't get much demand for the subsidized boarding house.

So your mechanism partially **self-targets the program toward housing shortages** without requiring Washington to centrally determine where shortages exist.

### And the federal loan becomes much safer

This is probably the strongest part of your proposal.

If every project has:

**predictable rent revenue + state ownership + long-term federal financing**

then the federal government isn't simply handing states money. It's financing an income-producing asset.

I'd probably structure the loan at something like **40–50 years**, with a very low federal interest rate, and require:

* professional property management

* maintenance reserves

* insurance

* periodic financial audits

* occupancy requirements

* minimum building standards

* restrictions on selling the property

* a reserve fund for vacancies and repairs

Then the federal government has a claim on a productive physical asset rather than merely making a grant.

### One thing I'd change

I wouldn't make **33% an absolute minimum in every case**.

Suppose someone has $700/month in income. A 33% contribution is only $231. That probably isn't enough to cover even a very inexpensive room.

You could solve that with a **state supplemental subsidy**, rather than weakening the federal loan program.

So the rule could be:

> **The federal-financed housing must generate at least 33% of resident income in rent, with any additional subsidy coming from state/local funds.**

That preserves your fundamental principle: **the federal loan isn't financing permanently underpriced housing.**

Overall, I think you've stumbled onto a pretty interesting policy architecture: **federal capital + state ownership + local implementation + income-linked rents + a demand test + repayment rather than grants.**

That's substantially more fiscally disciplined than simply appropriating billions for public housing.

Yes. I think that actually makes the model more complete.

You could structure it as a three-part system:

1. Rent: Residents contribute at least one-third of their income toward housing.
2. Utilities: The state provides utility assistance using an income-based percentage system, similar to existing low-income utility programs.
3. Capital: The federal government provides long-term loans to the state, rather than grants, to construct or acquire the boarding houses.

That creates a pretty clean division:

Federal government → capital

State → buildings + utilities + administration

Resident → substantial share of housing cost

The utility piece has an important advantage

Utilities are somewhat unpredictable. If they're simply bundled into the rent, a resident who uses a lot of electricity can increase the property's costs substantially.

Instead, the state could establish an income-based utility contribution, with the state covering the remainder.

For example, a very low-income resident might pay $30–$50 toward utilities while the state covers the rest. Someone with higher income might pay $100–$150.

That means the housing payment remains predictable, while the state absorbs some of the volatility in heating, cooling, water, etc.

And there's an interesting fiscal benefit

The state isn't necessarily subsidizing all of the housing.

Imagine a resident earning $2,000/month:

1. Housing contribution: $667/month
2. Utility contribution: perhaps $100/month
3. State covers remaining operating costs
4. Federal loan finances the building

Now you've got three different funding streams rather than one giant subsidy.

I'd also require the state to maintain maintenance and replacement reserves. Otherwise, you could have a program that looks financially self-sufficient for 20 years and then suddenly needs billions when roofs, HVAC systems, plumbing, etc. reach the end of their useful lives.

Overall, I think your proposal is becoming something more sophisticated than simply "build public housing." It's closer to a state-owned, income-linked housing system financed through a federal revolving loan fund, with residents paying a meaningful share and states responsible for the ongoing social subsidy.

It's cause this post is mostly AI written, not just the boring title.

Also there are ways to make titles interesting without rage bait. I don't think my titles are super clickbaity but I usually get a few responses, you should be able to verify that.

And again, if you get people's attention but not a productive discussion all that happened was people's time being wasted.

The big issue in the usa is that society has lost the policy in politics. People would rather argue about the rat race or abstract political values. The problem of course is that real substance is in the policy details. Abstract value debates are too general to be helpful and people just talk past each other or aren't really disagreeing but think they are.

The devil in the details

The policy in politics

Trust me, I can get deep into policy debates, but even among political nerdd I know, not too many people like getting into the weeds

Yep my threads aren't as click baity as yours but on my threads that get most traffic, they can be pretty click baity

Why would I post "Is Profit theft?" again? I already posted it once. Idk why you would want to post the same thing over and over again. If you want people to give more responses long-term, then I suggest submitting your argument to the argument database.

Which one? Also, you haven't even been banned from here and probably won't be.

That's still DebateCraft...it's just another part of the site.

Cause people aren't defined by last name. But sites are defined by root domain. I'm happy as long as someone is using the arg databse though.

The length is intentional. If you've ever noticed how unproductive most social media arguments are, then I think you'd agree that we've already exhausted the "search space" for the best 20-word arguments for and against most ideas. The untapped resource is more fleshed-out arguments and fleshed-out counterarguments to the best fleshed-out arguments and so on. I did cap it at 10,000 chars, because I feel like there's enough room to make a fleshed-out argument in that space but still not have it be too much of a chore to read. Since args can be rated, you can focus on the best args for topics, or the best counters to those args, etc.

In theory you could have a chain of 20-word counters, but often those derail pretty fast and get caught on pedantic issues that could be avoided by fleshing out the initial argument better.

TV ads are not really useful at leading people to objective truth. And I'm not saying longer is always better, it's better to a point. 10,000 chars is enough for fleshed-out arguments as we've seen in debates.

Well the goal of the database isn't just to make people remember anything, it's to help people find the truth. See my post on the subject for further context.

Trump trashed the affordable housing bill.