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.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What should people invest in then? How is land ownership handled? Etc etc etc

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?

                  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

      • SamboT@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

                • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So, so many reasons…

                  At the individual level drugs are a HUGE reaaon, mental illness, poor care for veterans etc Although there is SOME government housing and charitable housing for people that need it.

                  At a macro level there is money printing, endless war, corporate welfare, cronyism etc

                  Let’s face it though we could probably house everyone in Europe within South Dakota alone. Not to mention most homeless people are in extremely expensive areas like LA, Austin, Seattle and New York.

                  Passing an ill-conceived law that will have unintended consequences should be way, way low on the list of ways to lower housing prices. Especially since it’s highly likely it won’t be enforced properly.

                  • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Its interesting that you say drugs and mental illness are the problems. Isn’t the fact that housing is commodified and costs money the HUGE problem? They can’t afford it, is the reason they’re homeless. The way you’re making it look is that the problem is just them, which is an extremely dehumanizing starement, especially when you are ignoring the obvious answer that’s its because some people are allowed to profit off of others need for shelter.

                    Are you a libertarian? The way you bring up printing money, cronyism, ill-conceived laws etc. sounds like you might be

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Real estate should be considered an investment.

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

    • Gxost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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.

      • Mike@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d be so angry if I found out a nusince neighbor was paying less rent than I was.

      • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, the rental value is the nominal price of the rental. This is extremely simple, a child could understand this. The landlords have gotten loans based on the assumed rental income, which is not $0.

              • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                24
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Seriously? OK, you must not really have thought about this before. They are listing their properties for rent but nobody is renting them. They’re listing those properties at the nominal rental value. So the tax would be on that nominal rental cost. This is like, babytown frolics level simple to connect the dots on even if you don’t agree with it - understanding this should have clicked like two replies back.