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

WandererLagomorph799@lemmy.ml

nieceandtows@programming.dev

nieceandtows@lemmy.ml

735

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

376 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

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 69 points 1 year ago (89 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.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (53 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.

[–] SamboT@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (1 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?

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Commodifying things makes them cheap? As opposed to decommodifying? That makes no sense

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What is an example of decommodifying?

[–] Abraxiel@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

Nationalized healthcare

[–] SamboT@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Making something unsuitable for investment so we preserve its primary function (houses being a home to a family and not an airbnb or an empty rental).

load more comments (51 replies)

load more comments (86 replies)