Personal Finance

3829 readers

10 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

710

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 [email protected] to c/[email protected]

372 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] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Losses during the vacancy period would just be accounted for by bumping up the rent on tenants a bit. If you expect an average vacancy to cost you $1200, you'll just increase rent by $100 a month.

Sure, you could accept the loss, but if you're okay with that lower profit margin, you'd have already decreased the rent by that same $100.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It assumes the owner is planning to fill up the house sooner rather than later. It would punish those who are just sitting on empty houses for an extended period of time because no renter would want to pay the extended vacancy for that extended period, and progressively gets worse with each added time period.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not hugely against vacancy taxes really, but they need to be well-targeted to not affect the occasional bit of bad luck or renovation. Otherwise, the only way it actually helps the market is if it causes enough previously withheld supply to enter the market, and most expensive cities don't actually have all that many vacancies. NYC is at something like 5%, which included units between tenants and those under renovation. Sure, there's the occasional billionaire with an empty penthouse, but compared to the millions of renters looking for normal housing, there really aren't that many rich oligarchs hoarding housing for fun and games.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Its why i think of they did, there should be a minimum amount of months, and then applies after the amount of time.

[–] fresh 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 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.