379

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Landlords generally aren't going to decline making money. If they're not renting these units out, that implies that doing so would cost them money despite the rent they would receive. You can force them to rent the units out anyway, but ultimately they're not going to agree to keep losing money forever. Either they find some loophole that does let them make money, or eventually you end up with abandoned property inhabited by people who can't or won't pay enough to actually maintain that property.

I've never owned rent-controlled property, but I did own a house which I kept empty for about a year instead of renting out. (Eventually I sold it.) Market rent wasn't enough to motivate me to do the work and take on the risks associated with having tenants. I know another guy who lives alone in a big two-family house for the same reasons. Some people who don't own property seem to think that renting it out is just free money, but things aren't that simple...

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] beteljuice@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

What's really fucked up is that selling a rental property doesn't incur the same tax penalties as selling a lived-in home. Should be the opposite. How ass-backwards can you get?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
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