this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
432 points (100.0% liked)

Personal Finance

67 readers
2 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
 

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
[–] Job4130@kbin.run 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. Landlords should be able to do with their property what they want.

[–] recently_coco@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No seconds until everyone has a plate. We all learned it as kids. Now let's do that with housing.

Fuck their capital. They don't deserve it. Take the empty houses and give them outright to those that need them. There are more empty homes in the US than unhoused people.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Those empty houses are largely in places where people do not want to live. If you look at markets where people actually live, it's a pretty different picture. A shack in the middle of the field in Nebraska does not help a homeless man in Manhattan (and he almost certainly wouldn't take it if you offered it for free).