this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
710 points (88.1% liked)

Personal Finance

3833 readers
29 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
 

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.

(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's how it is here in Belgium. I pay tax on the income I would get if I would rent out my apartment, even when I'm actually living in it.

Luckily the amounts are based on rent prices as they were in 1975. It's indexed, which means it gets adjusted for (general) inflation, but not for the increased prices in the housing market which is much higher than inflation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

A penalty for units that have been vacant longer than 6 months makes sense.

Units need to be rehabbed, but keeping a property uninhabited for long periods of time should have a disincentive tax applied to them.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›