743
Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not. (gothamist.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/personalfinance@lemmy.ml
412 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
[–] 20 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    They aren't making any income on rent. So what % would an income tax have to be to be >0$ exactly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    They make 0$, so how is it an "income" tax

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    nominal income

    nominal income

    nominal income

    you're welcome to disagree but wasting this much time pretending to not understand is just childish, have a very nice day weirdo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    It's taxed upon selling, for the value of the house, which would tax exactly what you're talking about.

    Trying to act like I'm not understanding makes you sound "childish" my dude. Grow tf up and READ. INCOME TAX ON ZERO DOLLARS IS ZERO DOLLARS

    Edit: This dude's banner is a 9/11 photo. Nice.. I'm arguing with a literal troglodyte over the semantics of a dumb article title.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Edit: This dude's banner is a 9/11 photo. Nice.. I'm arguing with a literal troglodyte over the semantics of a dumb article title.

    michael-laugh

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    amazing, now you understand and it's almost like I didn't have to waste any time explaining this stupid concept to you

    thanks, good job, very useful

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    You are 100% part of the problem for hexbear's negative view from outsiders.

    Tax the rich's 0$ monthly rents! That'll show um.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    One more reply, since I expect you haven't got the testicular fortitude to keep up - I, and probably all hexbears, think landlords shouldn't exist at all. Your idea that some liberal plan to tax them differently is indicative of hexbear is a fundamental ignorance of our actual politics.

    Landlords should not exist in any fashion. mao-aggro-shining

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I think you're barking up the wrong tree, comrade. I think u/Zuberi really is anti-landlord and hasn't said anything to suggest otherwise. And their comment about hexbear's reputation on other instances wasn't anything having to do with the OP, it was about how you were insulting them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    if that's the case it's weird that they decided to be a pedant and pretend not to understand the extremely plain and simple original statement. It's plain they disagreed with it but didn't want to just say that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    For real, nat—take a chill pill. I say this with all the good faith love I share with all my comrades. Somebody being a pedant doesn't automatically make them a chud. @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com reads like a fellow traveler still working out their brainworms. Cut them a little slack.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Hear me out, FUCK landlords. But I shouldn't have to say that to get respect out of the leftist crowd.

    In the event we're keeping capitalism here, an empty-home tax would make more sense than an income tax on empty homes. But that would still NOT be an "income" tax. Just let me be pedantic and shit on an article title without throwing me in w/ the lemmy.world crowd :(

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Weird, maybe, but the argument wasn't an ideological one from what I can tell, it was one about the wording not making sense that I honestly didn't understand either. I admit to being stupid about economic things, but I didn't know that "nominal income" meant something different than just income. shrug-outta-hecks

    Like, you're going off with "You're typical of the "HEXBEAR IS RUINING THE LEMMYVERSE" chud" when glancing at their history, it doesn't look like they're a chud at all and were actually defending Hexbear when lemmy.world did the preemptive defederation shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    The best part of this is the person whose idea I was trying to explain to you - and never once endorsed - isn't a Hexbear user. You're just full-on making up shit when all I was trying to do was explain the concept a user from a completely different instance suggested. Congrats on being too dumb to both a) get the idea and b) attribute the idea to the correct instance.

    This is all entirely too perfect, I hope you don't delete your replies because they are a perfect encapsulation of the liberal anti-hexbear derangement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    pigpoop pigpoop pigpoop pigpoop pigpoop

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    I literally just tried to explain the idea that you were feigning misunderstanding, I have not endorsed anything. You're typical of the "HEXBEAR IS RUINING THE LEMMYVERSE" chud - making up ideas in your head and getting mad about them. Reading comprehension and your big feelings really get in the way of your engagement with the lemmyverse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    Any outsider observing this interaction and taking your side is an idiot. You behaved like a petulant child, repeating your one point no matter how many times the actual situation was explained to you. And then getting up on your soapbox acting haughty when someone with more patience for you than you deserved gives up. Reddit tier troll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent