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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

There just should not be landlords

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How are you supposed to keep them from passing on the cost of taxes to their tenants?

You have to realize that they still "own" a limited resource that lends them power to leverage over others. The only way you make this abuse go away is to have the people collectively own the land. Any accommodating regulations you place on landlords will only be temporary until they are worn down and removed.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

I hear this argument a lot and it's a trick to get the libs to not support taxes against landlords. In this situation, rental rates are dictated by how much the market can bare because there just aren't enough houses. Prices are set to the maximum so landlords would bare the cost of the tax rather than renters. If the taxation threat was real and long term enough, it would incentivize landlords to do something with empty units, rather than it not costing them anything to sit on it.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The amount of vacant units in cities where people actually want to live tends to be highly exaggerated (Manhattan is generally sitting somewhere around a 5% vacancy rate), but twisting income tax into some weird kind of tax on unrealized value is administratively messy and completely unnecessary when we already have much simpler solutions in the forms of land value taxes or even basic property taxes. Not to mention, increasing taxes on rental units just increases everyone's rent, which is a rather odd strategy if the aim is to make housing more affordable.

People really will propose literally anything except the wild concept of building more housing.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

The state should stop enforcing the legal rights of landlords to own property and exclude people from its use through physical force, and should organize the people enough that they can defend themselves from retaliation to this change.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›