Personal Finance

3809 readers

1 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

[email protected]

741

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 [email protected] to c/[email protected]

413 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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.