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.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Its owner is just receiving it in the form of enjoying the unit for himself

    What’s actually wrong with that?

    • 2CatsOneBowl@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know about anywhere else but in Australia if you are using the unit you can’t claim the expenses as a rental, so there’s no advantage to keeping it empty.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It makes sense for landlords to hold out for higher rents sometimes. In NYC and probably other places, landlords can get tax breaks if they agree to rent stabilization rules, which set the limit for rent increases each year. One way for landlords to take advantage of this arrangement in to keep units off the market until they think rents are relatively high so that they can get the most out of the allowed increases, while still getting the tax break.

        Also, with property values increasing, it can be very tolerable just on to hold onto a vacant unit. What do you need an annoying tenant for if the property keeps appreciating and you can even maybe get a line of credit out of it?

        In the context of imputed rent, it doesn’t really matter what the owner personally gets out of keeping a property to himself. If the market rent for the unit is $2,000/month, that means the owner is getting $2,000/month worth of some kind enjoyment out of having it. That’s because if he didn’t own it he would have to pay whomever did $2,000/month for the privilege. It’s not immediately obvious, but the income is the rent you don’t have to pay when you are both the owner and possessor of a piece of property.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just think that this is a type of income that should be progressively taxed like other income and that there will be benefits to doing so.