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

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My main concern is Friedrich Hayek's concern that valuations wouldn't be fair. Where there's an opportunity to game the system, those with means will. But maybe it's better than our current system.

I would like to see working examples first, if possible.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where there’s an opportunity to game the system, those with means will.

Absolutely. It's one of my few gripes with georgism. And at the end of the day a shitty implementation of georgism is better than our current shit show of billionaires and mega corps paying $0 or next to $0 in taxes. Sometimes they even get paid instead.

But anyways, I haven't seen much detail about how to fairly valuate land, but I've had some thoughts on it. The number one thing should be that all land is taxed at the same percentage, but each plot is valued differently. I think one of the ways to do this would be to simply calculate how far a given plot is from the nearest city center, and factor in how big the population of that city is.

It's something that can be objectively measured, should be roughly correlated with what we could subjectively agree on is valuable, and isn't something that could be gamed easily.

I would like to see working examples first, if possible.

The Netherlands has a land value tax, though it is not the sole income source for their government.

https://www.iamexpat.nl/housing/real-estate-news/how-does-it-work-taxation-real-estate-netherlands

https://www.government.nl/topics/valuation-of-immovable-property/how-can-i-check-the-woz-value-is-correct

My understanding is that the government employs people to assign a value to each plot, and from there the use case of the land is considered. Land owners can then appeal the judgement if they like. I know there are some other countries besides the Netherlands that have a LVT system, but the Netherlands is the first that comes to mind. I'd honestly be ok with either of these systems of determining land value, either the one I made up or the Netherland's. At the end of the day it's pretty much the only way to tax the rich without them just moving their money elsewhere. You can't move land after all, and much of their wealth is tied up in land.

Here is a research paper into the effects that might interest you.

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2022/263/article-A001-en.xml

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I generally think the Netherlands makes sensible decisions (e.g. routing traffic around Amsterdam instead of through it, investing in rail and cycling infrastructure, not having a tipping culture for restaurants, etc), so it's expected that they would have a decent solution here too.

I wish the US would take a page from their book and focus on moving people instead of cars, because pretty much everything else follows from that.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm right there with you. I feel like I'm talking with aliens when I say stuff like this to other americans.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, it just makes perfect sense in an urban environment. If they want the "traditional" American car-centric lifestyle, then they can live further from city centers and commute in.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm lucky enough to live in a place that is a little bit walkable (7 eleven, pizza shop, beer store 2 min walking with a grocer 15 walk), there is so much more that could be done. I wish I didn't have to get a car, and I am so close to basically ditching mine for an e-bike. The only thing stopping me is that my city's bike safety is not the best.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Mine is pretty close as well, but I need a better way to get to work to ditch one of my cars (will always keep the other for family trips). My preferred option is extending the light rail system along tracks that already go near my house and are largely unused (only used periodically so stash unused cars/engines). Without that, my commute is ~2 hours by transit, and it would be about half if the line existed. Driving is a little over 30 min by car, for reference.

I could switch jobs and then cycle to work, and there are a lot of opportunities along a really nice bike path, I would just need to actually switch jobs.

And I live in the middle of suburbia, I'm sure other people need much less. Yet my area doesn't prioritize transit, and instead we keep widening highways, which isn't a long-term solution.