Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not. ( gothamist.com )

cross-posted from: 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.

glasschewer , (edited )

Wow they don’t??? Cool!!! i love incentivizing the use of housing as an asset to store money!!! Fuck!!!

xantoxis ,

Ahem.

Landlords should have their rental properties seized and placed under the ownership of the local government. Berlin did it. You want to bring housing prices back into reach of the middle class? Stop letting people hoard houses.

lemming007 ,

Yes!! Abolish private property, let the government control it. Seize the means of production while you’re at it.

Wait, it seems like I’ve read that in history somewhere…

what_is_a_name ,

In Denmark most apartments have “residence requirement” - if you own a unit and keep it empty the city will fill it with someone waiting for public housing.

Blaze OP ,
@Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

That’s great? Would you have a link? That could be a post on its own

Copernican ,

Although I love the gothamiat. I think they should pay taxes. But what does this have to do with personal finance?

Ambiorickx ,

The unemployed should have to pay income tax on the income they would earn if they were employed

polskilumalo ,
@polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml avatar

The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry.

Copernican ,

Bring on the tanks.

exohuman ,
@exohuman@programming.dev avatar

They don’t? They do where I live. Property tax is real in Michigan.

Abraxiel ,

It’s a little more squishy if you’re a large retailer. mlive.com/…/the-dark-store-theory-has-cost-michig…

phthalocyanin ,
@phthalocyanin@lemmy.world avatar

landlords ought not exist

ProxyTheAwesome ,

There just should not be landlords

Honytawk ,

Landlords should pay 100% tax on their empty rentals.

You’ll see how fast they will accept any and all new tenants, at a much lower price.

Which would also flood the market with housing, lowering the prices even more until renting becomes an actual beneficial option compared to buying and paying off a loan.

Real estate would also not be seen as an investment anymore.

Aux ,

It didn’t work this way in the real world.

MDKAOD ,

I’d be so angry if I found out a nusince neighbor was paying less rent than I was.

Gxost ,

In this case landlords could just pay some money to fake tenants to make their rentals appear occupied (at a ridiculously low price). Rental prices could even rise because of free rentals number reduction and necessity to cover additional expenses.

Manmoth ,

Real estate should be considered an investment. It’s one of the few things people invest in that is actually valuable. It’s the speculative and labrynthine financial markets that are the problem in that regard.

The only reason mega-renters like Blackrock and Vanguard are able to monolithically buy property in the first place is because of dubious speculative earnings and government bailouts.

It’s not surprising that home ownership was actually a lot higher 60 years ago.

SamboT ,

But why should it be anything but a personal investment? I’m not seeing your point there. Isn’t it better for everyone to decommodify housing?

Manmoth ,

Why should it be anything but a personal investment?

What do mean? I don’t see how what I said negates that.

Isn’t it better for everyone to decommodify housing?

Not really no. Commodfication is why things used to be cheap. High [insert item here] prices are directly related to money printing, corporate welfare and regulations that are designed to raise the barrier of entry for normal people.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

Commodifying things makes them cheap? As opposed to decommodifying? That makes no sense

Manmoth ,

What is an example of decommodifying?

Abraxiel ,

Nationalized healthcare

SamboT ,

Making something unsuitable for investment so we preserve its primary function (houses being a home to a family and not an airbnb or an empty rental).

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.

Manmoth ,

What should people investment then? How is land ownership handled? Etc etc etc

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

What should people invest in then?

Literally any other type of business.

How is land ownership handled?

People should still be able to own land for their own personal use. Land used to extract wealth on the other hand should be more tightly controlled. We should ideally implement georgism to free up the land that the rich own and to increase land use efficiency. After that ownership should look pretty much identical.

Manmoth ,

Literally any other type of business

You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

Owning land for personal use

Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

Olgratin_Magmatoe , (edited )

You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

If the “safest most attainable way” to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn’t not worth it.

And it arguably isn’t the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system’s failures.

Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

To use it for a business or enjoyment. I’m not sure where you are going with this.

Manmoth ,

To use it for a business

This is wealth extraction

Or enjoyment

So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

This is wealth extraction

Yup. I’m ok with some kinds, just not the kind that fucks over the creation/distribution of basic necessities.

So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment

Yeah that’s bullshit too and shouldn’t be allowed. Even for personal use/enjoyment there should be a hard limit.

but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

That’s bullshit too.

Manmoth ,

I’m okay with some kinds (of making money with land)

Like what? There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

Yeah that’s bullshit too (in regard to rich people owning acreage for enjoyment)

I’m glad you changed your mind.

Yeah that’s bullshit too (in regard to a normal dude owning an investment property)

Why?! What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need as opposed to an ice cream shop or whatever? Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses? Usually at great financial risk to themselves? The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally. They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

CileTheSane , (edited )
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

When what you’re selling is a limited resource necessary for survival, “what the market will bear” easily becomes “all the money you make”. Otherwise you end up homeless and won’t be making any money.

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

Like what?

Anything not needed for human survival.

There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need

Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

Landlords don’t work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses?

I sure am aware. And I’m always aware that the people who do those things aren’t landlords. They’re construction workers and maintenance workers.

The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally.

The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

Funny how “what the market can bare” equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

Manmoth ,

Anything not needed for human survival.

A thriving business selling stuff people don’t need for them to buy with excess capital they no longer have.

This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

No you’re just ignoring a hole in your argument. I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.

Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

This analogy doesn’t track. They aren’t selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.

Landlords don’t work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

Massive overgeneralization. I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income. This means they worked to make the money to buy the land and the materials and invested their own time in building it which saved them a ton on labor costs. Somebody moved into it and lived there (e.g. value). Somebody should report them to the secret police!

I sure am aware. And I’m always aware that the people who do those things aren’t landlords. They’re construction workers and maintenance workers.

Again. Sometimes that’s the case. Sometimes it’s a dude taking care of everything himself on the weekend.

The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

You’ve never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There’s plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.

Funny how “what the market can bare” equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it’s Jim from work that rents a condo.

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

to buy with excess capital they no longer have.

That’s not true because housing is not the only form of wealth.

I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.

And did I say I approve of that? No. That’s why it is a whataboutism fallacy. The topic is housing. Pointing out other horrible ways to use land doesn’t change the fact that the current housing situation is bullshit.

They aren’t selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.

More people could afford to own their house if not for landlords hoarding the supply.

I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income.

Those cases are rare.

ipropertymanagement.com/…/landlord-statistics

You’ve never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There’s plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.

This is again a rare case.

I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it’s Jim from work that rents a condo.

It’s all of the above. Landlords are a part of the problem, and I never once said they are the sole problem.

ksynwa ,
@ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml avatar

The average person is not a landlord

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

And? Should we be trying to help people earn income for doing dick all?

Manmoth ,

For doing dick all

Yeah because they just plucked the property off of a tree… people often work years and years to get enough for a property investment and it can take 30 years to pay it off. Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

it can take 30 years to pay it off.

It can take 30 years for the tenants to pay it off. Landlords aren’t paying for that out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s instead ultimately the tenants.

Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.

They hire people to do that, they don’t do it themselves.

Manmoth ,

They hire people to do that

This is why you don’t get it. I spent my childhood cutting grass and repairing shit at a property owned by an elderly family member on a fixed income. We didn’t have money to hire someone to do it and tons of people are in the same boat. We did it for free because it was the best thing for everyone involved including tenants who often stayed for years because it was a nice place to live. No one got rich off of that property believe me.

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

You getting exploited for free labor by your landlord grandparents only further proves my point that landlords don’t actually do any work.

Manmoth ,

They managed it as long as they could. Have you ever had a family before? You’re supposed to help each other. It’s what people have done for all of time.

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

You’ve missed my point.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

What do you think “passive” means in the term “passive income”? I don’t care if it becomes harder to earn “passive income”, especially if it’s coming from people just doing what is necessary to survive.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

Why should it be an investment at all?

Manmoth ,

So that people can decouple their time from their earning power.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

Why should a human necesssity be an investment?

Manmoth ,

Because there is more than enough for everyone.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

There’s more than enough housing that everyone can afford to own? Why are there homeless people then?

Manmoth ,

So, so many reasons…

At the individual level drugs are a HUGE reaaon, mental illness, poor care for veterans etc Although there is SOME government housing and charitable housing for people that need it.

At a macro level there is money printing, endless war, corporate welfare, cronyism etc

Let’s face it though we could probably house everyone in Europe within South Dakota alone. Not to mention most homeless people are in extremely expensive areas like LA, Austin, Seattle and New York.

Passing an ill-conceived law that will have unintended consequences should be way, way low on the list of ways to lower housing prices. Especially since it’s highly likely it won’t be enforced properly.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

Its interesting that you say drugs and mental illness are the problems. Isn’t the fact that housing is commodified and costs money the HUGE problem? They can’t afford it, is the reason they’re homeless. The way you’re making it look is that the problem is just them, which is an extremely dehumanizing starement, especially when you are ignoring the obvious answer that’s its because some people are allowed to profit off of others need for shelter.

Are you a libertarian? The way you bring up printing money, cronyism, ill-conceived laws etc. sounds like you might be

Manmoth ,

I’m not a libertarian. Printing money, endless wars, corporate welfare, cronyism, ill-conceived laws and poor enforcement are very real MACRO (not individual) causes and you’ve not refuted them at all. These affect the price of EVERYTHING.

At the individual level homelessness can be fueled by all the things I mentioned. Some of those things are self inflicted and some are out of the control of the person. Either way there’s nothing dehumanizing about stating facts.

I get the feeling in this thread that everyone thinks housing should be free which is… ridiculous… Nothing is free because everything has a cost. I agree, however, with the overall issue of corruption and exploitative wealth – wealth that is often derived by anticompetitive, preferential treatment etc The average dude renting a house doesn’t want to screw poor people they just want an alternative to a 401k so they can retire.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

You’re getting that feeling because people in this thread do think that housing should be decommodified. We don’t think anyone should be able to profit off of human needs. Housing should be a right. Our needs shouldn’t be exploited so some “average dude” can use us to fund the retirement we aren’t going to get.

The reason you think this is ridiculous is because you’re a bootlicker

You think if you invest smart then you’ll get to wear the boot, but there’s a crisis in profitablity. They’re going to be all out of boots, no matter what you do.

And when you say “there’s more than enough housing for everyone” and then say there’s homeless people because they’re addicts and mentally ill, that’s not just facts, its a pretty fucked up dehumanizing perspective

Manmoth ,

You’ve resorted to name-calling in a way that is not only innaccurate but indicative of how hard you’ve thought about your argument.

I have no illusions about “wearing the boot” in fact I’ve already talked about the actual injustice that’s causing pricing issues across the board. (e.g. avoidable macroeconomic factors) You’re not proposing some revolutionary idea. ‘Everyone should have a house man…’ Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. You can disagree with me but don’t bother unless you’re going to explain yourself.

“Housing is a human right!”

Now what? Do you plant a house seed and grow a house? You can demand whatever you want but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. Even in a world of minimal scarcity the one thing that will always be at a premium is people’s time and they usually they don’t hustle unless there is something in it for them especially if they are tacking on a roof in the middle of July.

The reality is this non-renter economy idea is just going to move the cost elsewhere and those with the means are going to abuse it in even worse ways that you haven’t thought of yet.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

We know that housing can be decommodified and that everyone can have a home because socialist nations have already done that.

The concept has been thought through. Theres a nearly 200 year long intellectual tradition of thinking this through. You’re just really into the idea of exploiting other people because you and people like you feel entitled to passive income.

AntiOutsideAktion , (edited )
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

Really butchering the language here to not say “passive income” or “making other people work for me”

Manmoth ,

I don’t have a problem with either one of those things so pick your favorite.

bagend ,

Why are you ok with exploiting people?

Manmoth ,

You forget that for one to acquire said property one must first “exploit” one’s self. What I do with the earnings from my exploitation is my business.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

pigpoop

Manmoth ,

Quality post. Really compelling stuff.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

frothingfash i deserve passive income pigpoop

Manmoth ,

1692070301696753

bagend ,

be better than your exploiters

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

Real estate should be considered an investment.

Housing can be affordable, or it can be an investment. Not both.

Manmoth ,

Why would I build a house if I can’t make money on it?

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

Building is separate from owning.

isVeryLoud ,
@isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca avatar

Because you want a nice house to live in?

Building should be profitable, owning should be of limited profitability.

Manmoth ,

All you’ve done is move the point I’m arguing to the building process instead of renting.

PurplePropagule ,

…to live in…

Manmoth ,

Obviously not talking about a property I intend to live in and not sell…

Zuberi ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

100% on $0

Genius

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

The rental value would be $0.

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

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

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.

Zuberi ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

They make 0$, so how is it an “income” tax

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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 ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

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

Zuberi ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

You are 100% part of the problem for hexbear’s negative view from outsiders.

Tax the rich’s 0$ monthly rents! That’ll show um.

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

I literally just tried to explain the idea that you were feigning misunderstanding, I have not endorsed anything. You’re typical of the “HEXBEAR IS RUINING THE LEMMYVERSE” chud - making up ideas in your head and getting mad about them. Reading comprehension and your big feelings really get in the way of your engagement with the lemmyverse.

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

The best part of this is the person whose idea I was trying to explain to you - and never once endorsed - isn’t a Hexbear user. You’re just full-on making up shit when all I was trying to do was explain the concept a user from a completely different instance suggested. Congrats on being too dumb to both a) get the idea and b) attribute the idea to the correct instance.

This is all entirely too perfect, I hope you don’t delete your replies because they are a perfect encapsulation of the liberal anti-hexbear derangement.

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

One more reply, since I expect you haven’t got the testicular fortitude to keep up - I, and probably all hexbears, think landlords shouldn’t exist at all. Your idea that some liberal plan to tax them differently is indicative of hexbear is a fundamental ignorance of our actual politics.

Landlords should not exist in any fashion. mao-aggro-shining

QuietCupcake ,
@QuietCupcake@hexbear.net avatar

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, comrade. I think u/Zuberi really is anti-landlord and hasn’t said anything to suggest otherwise. And their comment about hexbear’s reputation on other instances wasn’t anything having to do with the OP, it was about how you were insulting them.

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

if that’s the case it’s weird that they decided to be a pedant and pretend not to understand the extremely plain and simple original statement. It’s plain they disagreed with it but didn’t want to just say that.

QuietCupcake ,
@QuietCupcake@hexbear.net avatar

Weird, maybe, but the argument wasn’t an ideological one from what I can tell, it was one about the wording not making sense that I honestly didn’t understand either. I admit to being stupid about economic things, but I didn’t know that “nominal income” meant something different than just income. shrug-outta-hecks

Like, you’re going off with “You’re typical of the “HEXBEAR IS RUINING THE LEMMYVERSE” chud” when glancing at their history, it doesn’t look like they’re a chud at all and were actually defending Hexbear when lemmy.world did the preemptive defederation shit.

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

They got mad about my 9/11 user banner image, beyond just intentionally pretending to misunderstand instead of stating their objection. I think my chud detector is in good working order tbh

Thordros ,
@Thordros@hexbear.net avatar

For real, nat—take a chill pill. I say this with all the good faith love I share with all my comrades. Somebody being a pedant doesn’t automatically make them a chud. @Zuberi reads like a fellow traveler still working out their brainworms. Cut them a little slack.

Zuberi ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Hear me out, FUCK landlords. But I shouldn’t have to say that to get respect out of the leftist crowd.

In the event we’re keeping capitalism here, an empty-home tax would make more sense than an income tax on empty homes. But that would still NOT be an “income” tax. Just let me be pedantic and shit on an article title without throwing me in w/ the lemmy.world crowd :(

Thordros , (edited )
@Thordros@hexbear.net avatar

Thumbs up emoji goes here.

Sorry that we come across as hostile weirdos sometimes. We’re actually very nice hostile weirdos once you get to know us!

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

next time just explicitly state your objection instead of pretending to misunderstand kombucha-disgust

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

They got mad about my 9/11 user banner image, beyond just intentionally pretending to misunderstand instead of stating their objection. I think my chud detector is in good working order tbh

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

pigpoop pigpoop pigpoop pigpoop pigpoop

Zuberi ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

The sad part is that I’m on your team and you’re trolling me for no reason.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

Didn’t sound like it so pigpoop

Zuberi ,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Disengage comrade

AntiOutsideAktion ,
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

Any outsider observing this interaction and taking your side is an idiot. You behaved like a petulant child, repeating your one point no matter how many times the actual situation was explained to you. And then getting up on your soapbox acting haughty when someone with more patience for you than you deserved gives up. Reddit tier troll.

Flaps ,

Idk my guy the other poster explains it pretty well, at this point it just looks like you’re refusing to learn

nat_turner_overdrive ,
@nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net avatar

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

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    Zuberi ,
    @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    It was after I posted this mate

    UnicodeHamSic ,

    They should pay 100% tax on all rentals.

    keepcarrot ,

    ITT: “If not for ticket scalpers, concerts wouldn’t happen! They’re providing a valuable service by hoovering up supply with their high capital and low morals, and then drip feeding it back to us at increased prices! Ticket scalpers, by buying all tickets at once, increase demand for bigger concerts, a net win for everyone!”

    Anyway, yes, it won’t fix the whole systemic issue and calling it an “income tax” is silly (it can just be a tax), but if the way to get you over the line is getting landlords to pay extra for empty apartments/houses so be it.

    flan ,
    @flan@hexbear.net avatar

    they provide tiquidity

    JamesConeZone , (edited )
    @JamesConeZone@hexbear.net avatar

    Fuck cars

    Fuck landlords

    bigboopballs ,

    blessed comment 👼

    Flinch ,
    @Flinch@hexbear.net avatar

    mao-wave I have an idea

    PZK ,

    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.

    moujikman ,

    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.

    FluffyPotato ,

    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.

    captcha ,

    But then the almighty homeowners home value might collapse too!

    But for real landlords wohld start destroying their own housing stock to take some tax write off or insurance fraud.

    FluffyPotato ,

    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.

    captcha ,

    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.

    FluffyPotato ,

    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.

    ImmortanStalin ,

    Really shows the propaganda power.

    Venus ,
    @Venus@hexbear.net avatar

    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

    context ,
    @context@hexbear.net avatar

    Just up property tax on the 3th or 4th house or apartment by a fuckton

    Maybe but then like stop whatever loophole they are using.

    just do a few things that are against the interests of the ruling class! it’s easy! they never react with overwhelming violence!

    el_bhm ,

    Multiple holder companies incoming. Now that will need to be plugged up.

    Not saying this is a bad idea. But they will find loopholes.

    RegularGoose ,

    Don’t allow companies to own homes. Homes should not be investments.

    Aux ,

    Then renters will be homeless.

    battleoften ,
    1. Require rental properties to be registered and report when vacant.
    2. Block any new single dwelling rental property purchases.
    3. Only allow more rental property purchases when vacancy rate is below a certain threshold in a metropolitan area.
    Rekliner ,

    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.

    Aceticon ,

    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.

    wolfpack86 ,

    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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •