Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Of course it's not apples-to-apples. Subsidizing SFH is not a viable strategy for affordable housing, because SFH is one of the least cost-efficient ways to house people.
The principle and the indirect effects matter more than the amount.
Edit: also, the amount of money was bigger in the past, so the potential losses from restoring the subsidy are larger than the potential gains from eliminating it.
|
This is just silly though. You're trying to argue that this amount is so egregious on one hand must be stopped immediately. At the same time, when someone asks where the money will be redirected, its not much money at all. Its obviously not both.
If the savings is so small so as to be ineffective when the funds are allocated elsewhere it makes me wonder what's driving this fight in the first place. Ideology? Ego?