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
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

So that people can decouple their time from their earning power.

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

    Why should a human necesssity be an investment?

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

    Because there is more than enough for everyone.

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

    There's more than enough housing that everyone can afford to own? Why are there homeless people then?

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

    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.

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

    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

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

    I'm not a libertarian. Printing money, endless wars, corporate welfare, cronyism, ill-conceived laws and poor enforcement are very real MACRO (not individual) causes and you've not refuted them at all. These affect the price of EVERYTHING.

    At the individual level homelessness can be fueled by all the things I mentioned. Some of those things are self inflicted and some are out of the control of the person. Either way there's nothing dehumanizing about stating facts.

    I get the feeling in this thread that everyone thinks housing should be free which is... ridiculous... Nothing is free because everything has a cost. I agree, however, with the overall issue of corruption and exploitative wealth -- wealth that is often derived by anticompetitive, preferential treatment etc The average dude renting a house doesn't want to screw poor people they just want an alternative to a 401k so they can retire.

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

    You're getting that feeling because people in this thread do think that housing should be decommodified. We don't think anyone should be able to profit off of human needs. Housing should be a right. Our needs shouldn't be exploited so some "average dude" can use us to fund the retirement we aren't going to get.

    The reason you think this is ridiculous is because you're a bootlicker

    You think if you invest smart then you'll get to wear the boot, but there's a crisis in profitablity. They're going to be all out of boots, no matter what you do.

    And when you say "there's more than enough housing for everyone" and then say there's homeless people because they're addicts and mentally ill, that's not just facts, its a pretty fucked up dehumanizing perspective

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

    You've resorted to name-calling in a way that is not only innaccurate but indicative of how hard you've thought about your argument.

    I have no illusions about "wearing the boot" in fact I've already talked about the actual injustice that's causing pricing issues across the board. (e.g. avoidable macroeconomic factors) You're not proposing some revolutionary idea. 'Everyone should have a house man..' Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. You can disagree with me but don't bother unless you're going to explain yourself.

    "Housing is a human right!"

    Now what? Do you plant a house seed and grow a house? You can demand whatever you want but that doesn't mean you're going to get it. Even in a world of minimal scarcity the one thing that will always be at a premium is people's time and they usually they don't hustle unless there is something in it for them especially if they are tacking on a roof in the middle of July.

    The reality is this non-renter economy idea is just going to move the cost elsewhere and those with the means are going to abuse it in even worse ways that you haven't thought of yet.

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

    We know that housing can be decommodified and that everyone can have a home because socialist nations have already done that.

    The concept has been thought through. Theres a nearly 200 year long intellectual tradition of thinking this through. You're just really into the idea of exploiting other people because you and people like you feel entitled to passive income.

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

    Really butchering the language here to not say "passive income" or "making other people work for me"

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

    I don't have a problem with either one of those things so pick your favorite.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    You forget that for one to acquire said property one must first "exploit" one's self. What I do with the earnings from my exploitation is my business.

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

    pigpoop

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •