Economics

1698 readers

16 users here now

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

379

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 CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work to c/economics@lemmy.ml

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The effect of this would be a massive disincentive for landlords to engage in major remodels or reconstructions to rental units, impeding growth in housing and remodeling of units beyond the kind of basic paint and sweep that is typical between tenants.

Just increase the land value tax.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Easiest solution would be to have 2 property tax brackets and manage it at a city council level.

Occupied/under maintenance or vacant. If you rent a house you show the city council the lease and they give you a form that says you're entitled to the lower rate for the term of the tenancy,or you go to them and inform them that the property is underrgoing maintenance and is expected to be that way for X months and again you're entitled to the lower rate. If you cant provide evidence or tenancy or maintenance/repairs for say... 75% of the year, you pay a higher rate. Not extortion levels of higher but a definite incentive.

Oh and absolutely ball breaking fines for anyone found to be doing dodgy shit.

[–] J12@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is for apartments only. For the most part I don’t believe corporations should own single family housing, with the exception of vacation homes and those numbers need to be booked up at least 50% of the year and there should be a cap on how many a corporation can own

I would do a tiered tax rate depending on vacancy for apartments.

Example 1% property tax if property is 95-100%

5% 80-94%

10% 60-79%

Etc etc

Absolutely punish the complexes that charge ridiculous rates while sitting at a 20% vacancy. I know plenty in my town that are doing exactly that. Charging $1500 for a small one bedroom apartment while all the units are sitting empty.

Reward the full ones with a low tax rate and punish the ones sitting on empty housing with a high rate.

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like a nightmare to oversee and upkeep. Much easier to just make it easier for companies to build more housing so that there's enough competition to drive prices down

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago

They're arguing against imputed income... possibly not understanding how it works... not that rent isn't income.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Landlords should be legally compelled to keep their properties up to snuff and if that's too much to ask then they need to get out of the business. As for renovations, if they have to do any that would make a unit uninhabitable for a period of time then that would probably warrant a temporary reduction of the taxable rent, which could be addressed in the permitting process. If renovations take longer than what was permitted, authorities could investigate to make sure the owner isn't actually warehousing the unit, which would be a violation. In any case, tax on the imputed rent of the land would still be owed, so there's always an incentive to complete renovations quickly.

Edit: as I replied here, I'm not a fan of land value or other property taxes.