Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not.
Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not.
A city Independent Budget Office report examines vacancy data from the state’s housing agency amid concerns of "warehousing."
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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.
People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.
What should people invest in then? How is land ownership handled? Etc etc etc
What should people invest in then?
Literally any other type of business.
How is land ownership handled?
People should still be able to own land for their own personal use. Land used to extract wealth on the other hand should be more tightly controlled. We should ideally implement georgism to free up the land that the rich own and to increase land use efficiency. After that ownership should look pretty much identical.
Literally any other type of business
You've just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.
Owning land for personal use
Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?
You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.
If the "safest most attainable way" to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn't not worth it.
And it arguably isn't the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system's failures.
Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?
To use it for a business or enjoyment. I'm not sure where you are going with this.
The average person is not a landlord
To use it for a business
This is wealth extraction
Or enjoyment
So you're okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it's for their own enjoyment but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?
This is wealth extraction
Yup. I'm ok with some kinds, just not the kind that fucks over the creation/distribution of basic necessities.
So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment
Yeah that's bullshit too and shouldn't be allowed. Even for personal use/enjoyment there should be a hard limit.
but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?
That's bullshit too.
I'm okay with some kinds (of making money with land)
Like what? There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.
Yeah that's bullshit too (in regard to rich people owning acreage for enjoyment)
I'm glad you changed your mind.
Yeah that's bullshit too (in regard to a normal dude owning an investment property)
Why?! What's so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need as opposed to an ice cream shop or whatever? Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses? Usually at great financial risk to themselves? The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally. They can only charge what the market will bear after all.
They can only charge what the market will bear after all.
When what you're selling is a limited resource necessary for survival, "what the market will bear" easily becomes "all the money you make". Otherwise you end up homeless and won't be making any money.
Like what?
Anything not needed for human survival.
There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.
This is just a whataboutism fallacy.
What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need
Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.
Landlords don't work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.
Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses?
I sure am aware. And I'm always aware that the people who do those things aren't landlords. They're construction workers and maintenance workers.
The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally.
The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.
They can only charge what the market will bear after all.
Funny how "what the market can bare" equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.
You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.
And? Should we be trying to help people earn income for doing dick all?
For doing dick all
Yeah because they just plucked the property off of a tree... people often work years and years to get enough for a property investment and it can take 30 years to pay it off. Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.
it can take 30 years to pay it off.
It can take 30 years for the tenants to pay it off. Landlords aren't paying for that out of the goodness of their hearts. It's instead ultimately the tenants.
Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.
They hire people to do that, they don't do it themselves.
They hire people to do that
This is why you don't get it. I spent my childhood cutting grass and repairing shit at a property owned by an elderly family member on a fixed income. We didn't have money to hire someone to do it and tons of people are in the same boat. We did it for free because it was the best thing for everyone involved including tenants who often stayed for years because it was a nice place to live. No one got rich off of that property believe me.
What do you think "passive" means in the term "passive income"? I don't care if it becomes harder to earn "passive income", especially if it's coming from people just doing what is necessary to survive.
Real estate should be considered an investment.
Housing can be affordable, or it can be an investment. Not both.
Why would I build a house if I can't make money on it?
...to live in...
Obviously not talking about a property I intend to live in and not sell...
Because you want a nice house to live in?
Building should be profitable, owning should be of limited profitability.
All you've done is move the point I'm arguing to the building process instead of renting.
Building is separate from owning.
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?
Why should it be anything but a personal investment?
What do mean? I don't see how what I said negates that.
Isn't it better for everyone to decommodify housing?
Not really no. Commodfication is why things used to be cheap. High [insert item here] prices are directly related to money printing, corporate welfare and regulations that are designed to raise the barrier of entry for normal people.
It didn't work this way in the real world.
I'd be so angry if I found out a nusince neighbor was paying less rent than I was.