Personal Finance

3828 readers

1 users here now

Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!

Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

WandererLagomorph799@lemmy.ml

nieceandtows@programming.dev

nieceandtows@lemmy.ml

735

Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not. (gothamist.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de to c/personalfinance@lemmy.ml

375 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/12162

Why? Because apparently they need some more incentive to keep units occupied. Also, even though a property might be vacant, there's still imputed rental income there. Its owner is just receiving it in the form of enjoying the unit for himself instead of receiving an actual rent check from a tenant. That imputed rent ought to be taxed like any other income.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Though I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, why not require rent payments be rewarded with a proportion of equity shares equal to rent (less a small prercatage for upkeep)? That's entirely within the capitalist model but drives value into the hands of the people/occupants where it belongs. Aggregating land holding to a small class of the population is clearly untenable. Give people their equity back. Seems more direct.

[–] ATQ@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You’re just describing a mortgage.