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

Personal Finance

3660 readers
12 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
WandererLagomorph799@lemmy.ml
nieceandtows@programming.dev
nieceandtows@lemmy.ml
739
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
440 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
[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Landlords should not

Not a response to the post. Just making a statement about landlords.

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure would be cool if the logic of eminent domain would be applied to housing that sits vacant for ages. If they're not using it just take it.

[–] alcoholicorn@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago

Well eminent domain says we have to pay you a fair rate for the house. The property was taxed $2000 and earned no income last year so here's a bill for $40,000.