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

[–] msage@programming.dev -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do we put retirement funds into stocks?

Because we convinced everyone that's the only place where your money can grow?

So that every time Wall Street can and will again hold everyone hostage?

We should rethink this whole approach.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Perhaps, but unless it's a bond fund or something, most of the options are funds that hold stocks. It's the way it is.

Also, ironically, buying a property to rent is trying to "rethink the whole thing." So naturally, it should be taxed even if it's not making money.

If also like to point out that the article linked did not mention taxing the landlord. I guess that was the poster.