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
[–] 18 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

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

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

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

    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.

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

    I'm okay with some kinds (of making money with land)

    Like what? There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

    Yeah that's bullshit too (in regard to rich people owning acreage for enjoyment)

    I'm glad you changed your mind.

    Yeah that's bullshit too (in regard to a normal dude owning an investment property)

    Why?! What's so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need as opposed to an ice cream shop or whatever? Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses? Usually at great financial risk to themselves? The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally. They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

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

    Like what?

    Anything not needed for human survival.

    There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

    This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

    What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need

    Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

    Landlords don't work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

    Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses?

    I sure am aware. And I'm always aware that the people who do those things aren't landlords. They're construction workers and maintenance workers.

    The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally.

    The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

    They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

    Funny how "what the market can bare" equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

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

    Anything not needed for human survival.

    A thriving business selling stuff people don't need for them to buy with excess capital they no longer have.

    This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

    No you're just ignoring a hole in your argument. I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.

    Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

    This analogy doesn't track. They aren't selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.

    Landlords don't work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

    Massive overgeneralization. I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income. This means they worked to make the money to buy the land and the materials and invested their own time in building it which saved them a ton on labor costs. Somebody moved into it and lived there (e.g. value). Somebody should report them to the secret police!

    I sure am aware. And I'm always aware that the people who do those things aren't landlords. They're construction workers and maintenance workers.

    Again. Sometimes that's the case. Sometimes it's a dude taking care of everything himself on the weekend.

    The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

    You've never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There's plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.

    Funny how "what the market can bare" equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

    I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it's Jim from work that rents a condo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    to buy with excess capital they no longer have.

    That's not true because housing is not the only form of wealth.

    I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.

    And did I say I approve of that? No. That's why it is a whataboutism fallacy. The topic is housing. Pointing out other horrible ways to use land doesn't change the fact that the current housing situation is bullshit.

    They aren’t selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.

    More people could afford to own their house if not for landlords hoarding the supply.

    I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income.

    Those cases are rare.

    https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/landlord-statistics

    You’ve never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There’s plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.

    This is again a rare case.

    I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it’s Jim from work that rents a condo.

    It's all of the above. Landlords are a part of the problem, and I never once said they are the sole problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

    When what you're selling is a limited resource necessary for survival, "what the market will bear" easily becomes "all the money you make". Otherwise you end up homeless and won't be making any money.

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

    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?

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    They hire people to do that

    This is why you don't get it. I spent my childhood cutting grass and repairing shit at a property owned by an elderly family member on a fixed income. We didn't have money to hire someone to do it and tons of people are in the same boat. We did it for free because it was the best thing for everyone involved including tenants who often stayed for years because it was a nice place to live. No one got rich off of that property believe me.

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

    You getting exploited for free labor by your landlord grandparents only further proves my point that landlords don't actually do any work.

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent