379

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
[-] zurohki@aussie.zone 140 points 1 year ago

Income tax when you aren't receiving an income is a weird idea.

It sounds like the author wants a land tax, but hasn't ever heard the term.

[-] stizzah@feddit.it 23 points 1 year ago

Owning a house that you don't inhabit is weirder.

[-] pedro@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

So renting a house for your vacation is also weird?

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 points 1 year ago

It's certainly wasteful. If people are going without any proper shelter, then having extra, mostly vacant housing to yourself should be discouraged.

[-] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

This right here. The US averages some thirty unoccupied houses for every homeless person. A lot of those are just owned by investment firms who will sit on them because housing is treated as an investment first and a human need second. It's not a supply problem, it's a fucking greed problem.

load more comments (32 replies)
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
379 points (85.6% liked)

Economics

1678 readers
29 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS