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.

  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2411 months ago

    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.

    • Zuberi 👀
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      The rental value would be $0.

      Contrary to lemmy.world logic, 0% of 0 is 0

      • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Zuberi 👀
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

          They aren’t making any income on rent. So what % would an income tax have to be to be >0$ exactly?

          • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            20
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

              • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1911 months ago

                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

                • Zuberi 👀
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  8
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  It’s taxed upon selling, for the value of the house, which would tax exactly what you’re talking about.

                  Trying to act like I’m not understanding makes you sound “childish” my dude. Grow tf up and READ. INCOME TAX ON ZERO DOLLARS IS ZERO DOLLARS

                  Edit: This dude’s banner is a 9/11 photo. Nice… I’m arguing with a literal troglodyte over the semantics of a dumb article title.

                  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1811 months ago

                    Edit: This dude’s banner is a 9/11 photo. Nice… I’m arguing with a literal troglodyte over the semantics of a dumb article title.

                    michael-laugh

                  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    911 months ago

                    amazing, now you understand and it’s almost like I didn’t have to waste any time explaining this stupid concept to you

                    thanks, good job, very useful