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

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
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ProxyTheAwesome@hexbear.net 27 points 1 year ago

There just should not be landlords

[–] PZK@hexbear.net 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How are you supposed to keep them from passing on the cost of taxes to their tenants?

You have to realize that they still "own" a limited resource that lends them power to leverage over others. The only way you make this abuse go away is to have the people collectively own the land. Any accommodating regulations you place on landlords will only be temporary until they are worn down and removed.

[–] moujikman@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

I hear this argument a lot and it's a trick to get the libs to not support taxes against landlords. In this situation, rental rates are dictated by how much the market can bare because there just aren't enough houses. Prices are set to the maximum so landlords would bare the cost of the tax rather than renters. If the taxation threat was real and long term enough, it would incentivize landlords to do something with empty units, rather than it not costing them anything to sit on it.

[–] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The amount of vacant units in cities where people actually want to live tends to be highly exaggerated (Manhattan is generally sitting somewhere around a 5% vacancy rate), but twisting income tax into some weird kind of tax on unrealized value is administratively messy and completely unnecessary when we already have much simpler solutions in the forms of land value taxes or even basic property taxes. Not to mention, increasing taxes on rental units just increases everyone's rent, which is a rather odd strategy if the aim is to make housing more affordable.

People really will propose literally anything except the wild concept of building more housing.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't know about this, but the non occupant owners should have to pay obscene property taxes and then reduce the rates for owner-occupants to a reasonable level.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 19 points 1 year ago

The state should stop enforcing the legal rights of landlords to own property and exclude people from its use through physical force, and should organize the people enough that they can defend themselves from retaliation to this change.

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

So a less efficient and more complicated land tax? Is there any benefit to this compared to just taxing based on the value?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's what property tax is for.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bluGill@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (9 children)

What are the unintended consequences of this proposal? It is amazing how many people replying to this topic have proposed something without considering what effect it will have. Sure there is a problem, but most solutions have serious negative downsides.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 14 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Many landlords don’t even pay taxes on the money they DO make.

They can depreciate a property to offset their income, even though the property is going up in value. The catch is that they have to pay taxes on more of the money they get from selling the property. But if they don’t sell, potentially no taxes for decades. And if they leave it to their kids in their will, no taxes there either and the kid’s cost basis in the property is the market value at the time they received it. So they can start the depreciation all over again.

This is how my non-expert self understands it anyway. It’s part of what draws some people into real estate.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] what_is_a_name@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In Denmark most apartments have “residence requirement” - if you own a unit and keep it empty the city will fill it with someone waiting for public housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›