We have to pay for the speculation otherwise from the homeowner’s perspective, they have again just lost all that value, regardless of how it was acquired. That’s literally the whole issue.

I don’t believe this is true and I speculate there are good reasons enough homeowners (like me) will sign up for such a scheme. For example that this shields them from the risk of devaluation which can happen in number of unrelated ways. Another example is that many are worried and understand their children will not be able to afford a home unless prices fall. Ultimately the only way to know for sure is to see how people vote on a proposal like that. Homeownership is around 60% so you don’t even need most homeowners to go along with this for it to have broad support. I’m just speculating enough will. Could be wrong.

You can’t just hand wave and say there’s infinite money if we just raise wages or tax corporations more. We probably could tax corps more but there’s all sorts of secondary consequences to that.

I didn’t do that. I did a back-of-the-napkin feasibility calculaton like you did and I think it shows what I suggested is feasible. No more, no less. If other first world countries have such schemes and are doing alright, likely we could too.