379
Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not. (gothamist.com)
submitted 1 year ago by CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work to c/economics@lemmy.ml
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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
[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly if a potential rental unit won't cover the costs associated with renting it, I can't think about how salable it's going to be. Seems like a market failure and my guess is that it probably has to do with the extensive regulations on rentals in NYC and how hard it is to get rid of a bad tenant.

[-] JayDee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

It may not be salable to a renter but it's probably going to still be salable to people who actually need a place to live.

Also, yes, plenty of landlords would be screwed into a situation where they'll lose money either way and will just lose more money from holding onto the property than from selling.

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I doubt that. If a properly is salable and isn't rentable, a landlord will generally just sell it.

[-] socsa@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

What you are describing is the same problem though. If you sell it and someone comes in and renovates it for use as a primary residence, then it is no longer affordable housing.

this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
379 points (85.6% liked)

Economics

1720 readers
2 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml