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
 

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
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 71 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Landlords should pay 100% tax on their empty rentals.

You'll see how fast they will accept any and all new tenants, at a much lower price.

Which would also flood the market with housing, lowering the prices even more until renting becomes an actual beneficial option compared to buying and paying off a loan.

Real estate would also not be seen as an investment anymore.

[–] UnicodeHamSic@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

They should pay 100% tax on all rentals.

[–] Gxost@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

In this case landlords could just pay some money to fake tenants to make their rentals appear occupied (at a ridiculously low price). Rental prices could even rise because of free rentals number reduction and necessity to cover additional expenses.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Real estate should be considered an investment. It's one of the few things people invest in that is actually valuable. It's the speculative and labrynthine financial markets that are the problem in that regard.

The only reason mega-renters like Blackrock and Vanguard are able to monolithically buy property in the first place is because of dubious speculative earnings and government bailouts.

It's not surprising that home ownership was actually a lot higher 60 years ago.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 18 points 1 year ago (20 children)

People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] SamboT@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

But why should it be anything but a personal investment? I'm not seeing your point there. Isn't it better for everyone to decommodify housing?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Why should it be an investment at all?

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Real estate should be considered an investment.

Housing can be affordable, or it can be an investment. Not both.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago (30 children)

100% on their rental value, which for many landlords is directly tied to massive loans they're underwater on. That's why they'd rather have unoccupied rentals with nominally high values than reduce the rental price to match the market and have their loans called in.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] Aux@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It didn't work this way in the real world.

load more comments (1 replies)