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.
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.
They should pay 100% tax on all rentals.
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.
Removed by mod
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?
Removed by mod
Commodifying things makes them cheap? As opposed to decommodifying? That makes no sense
Removed by mod
Nationalized healthcare
Making something unsuitable for investment so we preserve its primary function (houses being a home to a family and not an airbnb or an empty rental).
People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.
Removed by mod
Literally any other type of business.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
To use it for a business or enjoyment. I’m not sure where you are going with this.
Removed by mod
Yup. I’m ok with some kinds, just not the kind that fucks over the creation/distribution of basic necessities.
Yeah that’s bullshit too and shouldn’t be allowed. Even for personal use/enjoyment there should be a hard limit.
That’s bullshit too.
And? Should we be trying to help people earn income for doing dick all?
Removed by mod
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.
They hire people to do that, they don’t do it themselves.
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.
Why should it be an investment at all?
Removed by mod
Why should a human necesssity be an investment?
Removed by mod
There’s more than enough housing that everyone can afford to own? Why are there homeless people then?
Removed by mod
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
Really butchering the language here to not say “passive income” or “making other people work for me”
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Housing can be affordable, or it can be an investment. Not both.
Removed by mod
…to live in…
Removed by mod
Because you want a nice house to live in?
Building should be profitable, owning should be of limited profitability.
Removed by mod
Building is separate from owning.
100% on $0
Genius
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.
The rental value would be $0.
Contrary to lemmy.world logic, 0% of 0 is 0
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 $0.
They aren’t making any income on rent. So what % would an income tax have to be to be >0$ exactly?
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.
They make 0$, so how is it an “income” tax
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
It didn’t work this way in the real world.
I’d be so angry if I found out a nusince neighbor was paying less rent than I was.