this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
735 points (88.4% liked)

Personal Finance

3777 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’re going to fund all the social programs of a modern government via, essentially, no taxes?

No, it would be funded through land value and carbon taxes. Those two tax types should be the only valid form of taxation. We should still have enough tax to pay for it (after we ditch the bloat our government has. Example).

If you want the government to provide a robust social safety net, including housing, you’ll be looking at Nordics level taxation.

People always complain about such a system but they actually have healthcare, so seems like a moot point to me.

You can be wrong if you want to be.

First off, there's no need to be a dick about it. Second, that definition says person, whereas you said entity.

  • "In either event the entity that owns your house, that isn’t you, is your landlord."

  • "a person who rents land, a building, or an apartment to a tenant."