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 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Spacebar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A penalty for units that have been vacant longer than 6 months makes sense.

Units need to be rehabbed, but keeping a property uninhabited for long periods of time should have a disincentive tax applied to them.

[–] 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.

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