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.

  • fresh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the landlord can increase rent by $100 and the market will bear that, why is the lack of a vacancy tax stopping them? Landlords charge the maximum that the market can bear.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      All landlords have occasional vacancies, so a vacancy tax would increase the costs that all landlords bear, at least slightly. Landlords will name the highest price that won’t cause renters to simply choose an alternative. If there is no cheaper alternative because the entire market is being affected, they simply have to find a way to deal with it.

      • fresh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many vacancy taxes already exist all around the world. There is not a single one that taxes normal short vacancies. It is just false that this increases costs for all landlords. The vast VAST majority of landlords will never pay it.

        On the other hand, the increase in supply due to the tax can be noticeable, which has a much bigger effect lowering prices.