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.

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t know about this, but the non occupant owners should have to pay obscene property taxes and then reduce the rates for owner-occupants to a reasonable level.

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If buying a house isn’t right for you - and for many renting should be the better option - then you will be forced to pay a lot more so the landlord can recover not only the cost of the building, but also that much higher taxes. In effect you are pushing people who really shouldn’t buy a house to buy one anyway.

      • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If they keep the price reasonable to begin with, then the unit doesn’t go vacant, and they don’t have to pay the vacancy tax.