this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
741 points (88.5% liked)

Personal Finance

3819 readers
2 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
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If buying a house isn't right for you - and for many renting should be the better option - then you will be forced to pay a lot more so the landlord can recover not only the cost of the building, but also that much higher taxes. In effect you are pushing people who really shouldn't buy a house to buy one anyway.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

If they keep the price reasonable to begin with, then the unit doesn't go vacant, and they don't have to pay the vacancy tax.