How are you supposed to keep them from passing on the cost of taxes to their tenants?
You have to realize that they still “own” a limited resource that lends them power to leverage over others. The only way you make this abuse go away is to have the people collectively own the land. Any accommodating regulations you place on landlords will only be temporary until they are worn down and removed.
I hear this argument a lot and it’s a trick to get the libs to not support taxes against landlords. In this situation, rental rates are dictated by how much the market can bare because there just aren’t enough houses. Prices are set to the maximum so landlords would bare the cost of the tax rather than renters. If the taxation threat was real and long term enough, it would incentivize landlords to do something with empty units, rather than it not costing them anything to sit on it.
Income tax on no income sounds fucking stupid. Just up property tax on the 3th or 4th house or apartment by a fuckton, watch everyone panic sell their shit crashing the housing market into oblivion and call it a day. Ez affordable housing.
Most landlords are like massive corporations, if all the property your corporation owned suddenly exploded it may rise a few eyebrows. Someone’s rich aunt renting their second summer home isn’t having that much of a detrimental effect on the housing market as corpos buying up all available housing.
My point is they would find some way to legally dispose of their stock to artificially decrease supply and raise prices again. Its particularly the big corporations who would do this.
Maybe but then like stop whatever loophole they are using. Doing nothing is quite a lot worse.
Thankfully the housing market is still fine in my country so I don’t have a dog in the race but people in the US should take some pointers from the French and fucking riot at this point. All of yall have like 5 guns per person yet you are like the most demure country when it comes to politicians and corpos just exploiting the fuck out of you.
people in the US should take some pointers from the French and fucking riot at this point. All of yall have like 5 guns per person yet you are like the most demure country when it comes to politicians and corpos just exploiting the fuck out of you.
Careful, that kind of talk gets you labeled a tankie
Yeah, there was just recently a big scandal in my city where one guy bought 20 houses with 9 shell companies. Attempted to do shitty flipping jobs. Selling the houses from one company to the next so they didn’t immediately jump up in price in the real estate history.
The sad part is: if he hadn’t overpriced the market and sold more of them he would’ve gotten away with it, but he waited too long and got stuck. But until that point nobody knew one guy had 20 houses, it was 2 per company on paper.
Every single one of all the government measures I’ve seen to “help people” in the current “tight housing market” is designed to prop-up housing prices and rents, never ever anything which would lower rents or house prices.
In my country they even given money to renters rather than, say, impose rent controls or start large projects building public housing.
From my own experience working in Finance every single government measure I see sure looks a lot like using the power of the State for manipulating the housing market to push prices up.
Denmark applies a property tax to foreign properties at ones disposal. If it’s rented, it’s waived and tax is levied on the rental income. If it’s unoccupied, it’s considered a luxury available for your use and thus is taxable property, even though it’s in a foreign jurisdiction.
183 days. You self-declare unless the government has a reason to audit. This is a solved problem already and we’ve been going by these standards for decades.
It’s called establishing a domicile in tax terminology.
It’s not on my ID, though. And even if it were, they’d need a way to monitor actual occupancy over time and there’s no way that wouldn’t be invasive.
It’s common and reasonable to be away from home for months at a time, and you have a right to travel. I can only imagine the burden this would place on someone who’s away for medical treatment or supporting a distant family member. Or just out of the house for renovations or an issue they can’t afford to fix currently.
The administrative burden alone would be huge before you get to unintended consequences.
I can still buy a car and have it just sit there. The driving part is due to affliction of other people’s well being. Me raising the money to buy a house and deciding I want it as a summer stay location, so I leave it sitting there while I’m somewhere else would have no harm on another’s life.
I believe that you should be able to keep a property empty if you choose, it should just be taxed in a way that’s proportionate to the damage it causes to the community.
Empty properties inflate housing costs -> Increased housing costs reduce the amount of people willing to live in the area -> Which reduces the amount of people able to work for local businesses.
They could now if they wanted. Most lakes are government or private property. You think they’d want to lose profit margin?
Not to mention the massive difference again, the wellbeing of other people. Houses are crafted by skilled workers, it’s not a right to their labor, nor a right to the owner’s property who purchased it after it was built. You do however have a naturalized right to survival.
The point is, property taxes are fine but saying “um you should be forced by the government to use something you own in a specific manner” is nonsensical and authoritarian overreach at minimum.
Well eminent domain says we have to pay you a fair rate for the house. The property was taxed $2000 and earned no income last year so here’s a bill for $40,000.
Whoa now, let’s not be unreasonable. They can be taxed at a geometric rate, starting at 100% the value of the house and doubling for every one thereafter.
Property taxes do generally work this way. Maybe they should increase property taxes 2-3x, but also raise the homestead exemption so that owning and living in the home is no more expensive.
yeah I wasn’t being serious any actual solution is going to need to be more nuanced than that. Probably involving state provided housing and likely involving high density accomodation. Although it’s a real shame that high density accomodation is archtecturally associated with shoddily built housing intended for people the government doesn’t give a fuck about because palaces and castles are also examples of high density accomodation.
I think the ideal solution would look like high density state provided housing that is designed to be beautiful and pleasant to live in.
For as long as I’ve been alive, one of the lines I’ve heard is that real estate is always a sound investment. There have also been land taxes for that entire time, most of them being land value taxes. The evidence suggests that the most common form of land value tax, which does not consider how many residential properties an entity owns, is not doing much, if anything, to disincentivize purchasing residential properties as an investment.
A property tax and a land value tax are a bit different: a land value tax taxes the unimproved value of a plot, while a property tax taxes the total value, including the assessed value of the buildings on the land.
One effect of property taxes is that a parking lot downtown pays a fraction of what an apartment building next door pays. With a land value tax, they pay the same, which discourages land speculation by encouraging efficient uses of land.
And we’ve certainly never gone as far as Georgism, which suggests a land value tax as the main or only source of government funding, set to be around what an unimproved lot on the same location would lease for.
Yep, a 100% income tax rate on zero income is zero. It seems a lot of reddit’s financial incompetence is spilling over to lemmy. Also, property taxes exist and are being paid already…
“Income tax on no income” is exactly what imputed income is, as mentioned by OP. Free perks from an employer are, for example, (in the US), taxed as income.
The state should stop enforcing the legal rights of landlords to own property and exclude people from its use through physical force, and should organize the people enough that they can defend themselves from retaliation to this change.
Many landlords don’t even pay taxes on the money they DO make.
They can depreciate a property to offset their income, even though the property is going up in value. The catch is that they have to pay taxes on more of the money they get from selling the property. But if they don’t sell, potentially no taxes for decades. And if they leave it to their kids in their will, no taxes there either and the kid’s cost basis in the property is the market value at the time they received it. So they can start the depreciation all over again.
This is how my non-expert self understands it anyway. It’s part of what draws some people into real estate.
More than that. You can depreciate the building (but not the land) to offset tax on the income but the bill eventually comes due because by depreciating it you’re lowering your cost basis. For example you buy a property for $150k. If you depreciate it long enough it’s worth $0. If you then sell it for $350k you have to pay tax on all $350k, not just the $200k gain in value.
However If you intend to use the proceeds from that sale to buy another investment property or properties you can do a 1031 exchange to roll your adjusted basis into the new property. Thus even when you sell it you don’t have to pay the tax.
As you might, expect tax laws are written to benefit constituencies that politicians value highly. Wealthy donors are among those constituencies.
Some places do have an estate tax (inheritance tax?), but there are often many ways around it and as such class still exists in the UK (say) with its 40% estate tax.
I’ve also heard that the tax can result in an enormous bill to a family that suddenly has a single expensive illiquid asset. Far be it from me to shed a tear for people inheriting over a million dollars or whatever, but it does mean you give up your modest family home in an area whose land value has gone up.
There’s an argument going on elsewhere in the thread whether you’d prefer the government be your landlord, which: a) Yes, in my country. Flat yes. The rate of public housing to demand is quite poor though, but it does exist. And I’ve lived in worse, more expensive, private rentals. b) Cuba has a “rent to buy” system which funds new housing while also meaning that you still build equity on a home over your lifetime. So the government is your landlord but not permanently. And Cuba has less homelessness than much much richer countries. (and c) I’m fine with living in a grey commie-box, but whatever)
At least here in Australia, I’d at least want to see landlords politically disempowered. It’s actually quite hard to find any politician that doesn’t get passive income from owning homes, let alone their portfolio growing in value due to asset appreciation.
Let’s be clear, in the UK, parents can almost always leave behind over a million pounds worth before any tax starts kicking in. Not to mention the thousands of easy ways around it.
Ummm, a lot of people that are NOT rich, own stocks. Like nearly every 401k. If those stocks go up, then there is a tax, it’s called capital gains and goes up for higher income earners.
Also, where I live there is a tax paid on vacant rental property. It’s called property tax. I do not believe people, rich or poor, should be taxed on money they are NOT making. This would hurt owners with a legitimate reason to have a property vacant, like renovations, repairs, or a soft market. So in addition to rent loss the owner would have to pay taxes because the assumption is that the owner is enjoying it?
I don’t think there should be a wealth tax. I think the wealthy should just actually pay some taxes.
You need to go back to school professor. All wealth tax proposals are progressive, only affecting those with substantial investments. I used to dislike them, but a tax starting at 1% on $50 million with the highest rate (say 3%) on net worth above $1 billion wouldn’t hurt anyone.
Also, that tax can’t be avoided either. Even if a billionaire moves to a tropical island with no taxes, their money is still invested in developed countries. It’s too much to invest in tax havens. You just need good KYC to know who the ultimate owner is.
I don’t understand why people have to insult to make a point.
I think eliminating tax loopholes, causing rich people to pay their fair share of taxes, is waaay better than an extra tax on incomes over a certain level. It’s more fair and also doesn’t hurt anyone. Tax avoidance is the reason a wealth tax is even an idea.
Those words mean nothing without specifying which loopholes you mean. I’m not insulting you, I’m just saying that you are trying to sound smart while not contributing anything.
Not to be a downer, but how does this fit into personalfinance? Like at all?.. I mean, I agree with the point but this belongs in politics or something.
This is an opinion piece on something that might slightly effect rent. If this is personal finance related than so is literally every economic or business article ever written. Because everything can maybe effect someone’s rent or other expenses.
I’m going to be honest, I see where you come from, and how this is not textbook personal finance.
However, Lemmy is still in its very infancy, and I try to keep this community active. It’s not always easy to find content to post (most of the PF subreddit is usually questions from users), so here it is.
By the way, if you have any interesting content or question, feel free to post as well!
One of the worst parts about house searching is when you look up how much you can get for relatively little if you’re willing to live in impovershed areas in the middle of nowhere. The kind of places defined by the main industry that left the area at least a decade ago.
Then compare it to where you actually have to live die to life and career situations.
What are the unintended consequences of this proposal? It is amazing how many people replying to this topic have proposed something without considering what effect it will have. Sure there is a problem, but most solutions have serious negative downsides.
I don’t think people care about the downsides for landlords anymore. Real or imagined, perceived greed is what people blame for high rent costs. They’re ready to make greedy landlords suffer as they have and I can’t say I blame them one bit.
The fundamental misunderstanding in this view, IMO, is that greed is not something that landowners are uniquely equipped with. Rice is cheap as hell; are rice producers simply not greedy, and that's why rice is cheap? No, it's because an absolutely massive amount of rice is produced every day, and there's more than enough around to ensure anyone who wants rice can get it. Slightly more abstractly, there is more than enough supply to meet the demand. And like housing, cheap food is an absolute need. But unlike food, housing has been woefully underproduced for decades now in cities, and government policy has done a lot to cause that. It's illegal to build denser than single-family homes in most urban land, and the aim of policy has been more to protect people's investments rather than have housing be affordable - two goals that are fundamentally at odds with each other.
This isn't a coincidence, of course. A lot of federal housing policy goes back to the 50s and 60s, when you had suburbs that literally banned people of color from living in them. Housing policy was explicitly designed to advantage landowners and penalize renters, which is to say, wealthier white families pursuing The American Dream™ and urban Black families whose neighborhoods were systematically redlined and demolished to build highways for white suburbanites.
Sure, all that’s true, but it doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying. I think people are angry and ready to get out the pitchforks. There’s been decades of policy debate with no actual improvements to the situation. People think politicians and the wealthy are using discussions like the one you’re trying to have to delay meaningful change rather than find an agreeable solution for all parties. That’s not to say you’re wrong but you’re assuming people want to avoid punitive action and I don’t think that’s true.
Totally agree with you; this frustration is a direct and obvious result of decades of policy failures. I just worry that a lot of the ensuing anger is a bit misplaced.
I do think that there's been a sharp acceleration in recent years towards actual concrete steps, even though they're not super flashy and will take more time to see results. There's been real progress towards zoning reform, abolishing parking minimums, and other bits of red tape that have played a huge role in housing costs exploding.
It probably will end with some poor decisions being made but sometimes a bad decision is all you can get. Hopefully it will get more meaningful discussion going at least.
Speaking of which, I appreciate your point of view and your demeanor. Civil discourse seems pretty rare these days.
The amount of vacant units in cities where people actually want to live tends to be highly exaggerated (Manhattan is generally sitting somewhere around a 5% vacancy rate), but twisting income tax into some weird kind of tax on unrealized value is administratively messy and completely unnecessary when we already have much simpler solutions in the forms of land value taxes or even basic property taxes. Not to mention, increasing taxes on rental units just increases everyone's rent, which is a rather odd strategy if the aim is to make housing more affordable.
People really will propose literally anything except the wild concept of building more housing.
Housing is constantly being built, then immediately purchased by corporations at ridiculous prices. This artificially raises values in the housing market, which is paid by people who rent these homes, because they don’t have an affordable home to buy. Sadly, it’s not as easy as just building more.
…increasing taxes on rental units just increases everyone’s rent…
Can you explain this to me? Surely a landlord charges the highest rent that the market can provide. Why would taxing the landlord increase the Tennant’s ability or willingness to pay a higher rent?
A policy like this would apply to the entire market. All landlords have vacancies at least occasionally, due to renovations or bad luck.
It won't affect a tenant's ability to pay more, but a policy that increases ownership costs across the board means that there won't be cheaper alternatives in the competition, so the tenant will need to either find a way to pay the increase or they'll have to leave to a cheaper market. The highest rent the market can bear will go up if it's not possible to compete any further on lower prices.
A policy like this would apply to the entire market. All landlords have vacancies at least occasionally, due to renovations or bad luck.
Wouldn’t it only apply to the local market? A lot of people, particularly higher earning white collar workers have the ability to demand a work from home policy. Could they not move further away to cooler markets if their commute is eliminated or reduced to only a few days per week? Surely that would put downwards pressure on the inflated local market, moreso if a progressive tax system is implemented (eg tax rates increase % after value increases by a certain threshold).
It won’t affect a tenant’s ability to pay more, but a policy that increases ownership costs across the board means that there won’t be cheaper alternatives in the competition, so the tenant will need to either find a way to pay the increase or they’ll have to leave to a cheaper market. The highest rent the market can bear will go up if it’s not possible to compete any further on lower prices.
Unless I’m grossly misunderstanding how land tax works, it won’t evenly apply across the board (even a flat % tax would be a higher burden for more expensive properties). This would drive people towards constructing cheaper housing as the bottom falls out of the top end of the market, which in turn would make housing cheaper for owner occupiers in those cheaper markets. Isn’t that the desired outcome?
Credit card companies spend a considerable amount of time and money trying to work out how high they can optimize these merchant fee rates. A credit card charge is painstakingly optimized to maximize profits. Often credit card companies pay a portion of these fees because the competitive market will not shoulder the burden - customers will move to a cheaper credit card, which is why cards with high fees often try to entice customers with rewards programs).
Without the ability to influence demand, the seller can either eat the cost or remove themselves from the market, my question is how does increasing the tax move the needle on demand knowing that any rational acting landlord is already acting to maximize their return on investment? Are you suggesting that they’ll copy credit cards and increase rates but offer some bonus program to increase demand? I’m not convinced that would work.
gothamist.com
Hot