Personal Finance

4708 readers

1 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

738

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

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

354 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

https://eyeonhousing.org/2023/02/age-of-housing-stock-by-state-4/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20latest%20data,an%20important%20remodeling%20market%20indicator.

The vast majority of the US's housing stock has been paid off. Every time a residential property changes hands, the bank gets to re-collect all of their fees for...what, exactly? Making money available? They only do that because they're underwritten by the federal government, subsidized by taxes.

So why don't we just give direct loans to people, and subsidize those who need it directly instead of funneling the money through dozens of greedy hands taking percentages off the top?