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.
There just should not be landlords
The unemployed should have to pay income tax on the income they would earn if they were employed
Wow they don’t??? Cool!!! i love incentivizing the use of housing as an asset to store money!!! Fuck!!!
The amount of vacant units in cities where people actually want to live tends to be highly exaggerated (Manhattan is generally sitting somewhere around a 5% vacancy rate), but twisting income tax into some weird kind of tax on unrealized value is administratively messy and completely unnecessary when we already have much simpler solutions in the forms of land value taxes or even basic property taxes. Not to mention, increasing taxes on rental units just increases everyone’s rent, which is a rather odd strategy if the aim is to make housing more affordable.
People really will propose literally anything except the wild concept of building more housing.
…increasing taxes on rental units just increases everyone’s rent…
Can you explain this to me? Surely a landlord charges the highest rent that the market can provide. Why would taxing the landlord increase the Tennant’s ability or willingness to pay a higher rent?
It’s similar to credit card companies sharing merchants extra fees. They pass those fees down to the customers.
Credit card companies spend a considerable amount of time and money trying to work out how high they can optimize these merchant fee rates. A credit card charge is painstakingly optimized to maximize profits. Often credit card companies pay a portion of these fees because the competitive market will not shoulder the burden - customers will move to a cheaper credit card, which is why cards with high fees often try to entice customers with rewards programs).
Without the ability to influence demand, the seller can either eat the cost or remove themselves from the market, my question is how does increasing the tax move the needle on demand knowing that any rational acting landlord is already acting to maximize their return on investment? Are you suggesting that they’ll copy credit cards and increase rates but offer some bonus program to increase demand? I’m not convinced that would work.
A policy like this would apply to the entire market. All landlords have vacancies at least occasionally, due to renovations or bad luck.
It won’t affect a tenant’s ability to pay more, but a policy that increases ownership costs across the board means that there won’t be cheaper alternatives in the competition, so the tenant will need to either find a way to pay the increase or they’ll have to leave to a cheaper market. The highest rent the market can bear will go up if it’s not possible to compete any further on lower prices.
A policy like this would apply to the entire market. All landlords have vacancies at least occasionally, due to renovations or bad luck.
Wouldn’t it only apply to the local market? A lot of people, particularly higher earning white collar workers have the ability to demand a work from home policy. Could they not move further away to cooler markets if their commute is eliminated or reduced to only a few days per week? Surely that would put downwards pressure on the inflated local market, moreso if a progressive tax system is implemented (eg tax rates increase % after value increases by a certain threshold).
It won’t affect a tenant’s ability to pay more, but a policy that increases ownership costs across the board means that there won’t be cheaper alternatives in the competition, so the tenant will need to either find a way to pay the increase or they’ll have to leave to a cheaper market. The highest rent the market can bear will go up if it’s not possible to compete any further on lower prices.
Unless I’m grossly misunderstanding how land tax works, it won’t evenly apply across the board (even a flat % tax would be a higher burden for more expensive properties). This would drive people towards constructing cheaper housing as the bottom falls out of the top end of the market, which in turn would make housing cheaper for owner occupiers in those cheaper markets. Isn’t that the desired outcome?
Housing is constantly being built, then immediately purchased by corporations at ridiculous prices. This artificially raises values in the housing market, which is paid by people who rent these homes, because they don’t have an affordable home to buy. Sadly, it’s not as easy as just building more.
Things like that is exactly why there needs to be a limit on how many buildings/houses an owner can own.
I think it should just be illegal to not rent out real estate. People shouldn’t be allowed to just park money in housing.
“You shouldn’t be allowed to own something and use it for any purpose that you want, just because you bought and own it”
The fuck.
Can’t drive a car without a license, rules around usage of things you own are pretty standard.
I can still buy a car and have it just sit there. The driving part is due to affliction of other people’s well being. Me raising the money to buy a house and deciding I want it as a summer stay location, so I leave it sitting there while I’m somewhere else would have no harm on another’s life.
So lets turn it into the extreme.
Say you are so rich, you buy every house on the planet. Which you will use as your summer/autumn/winter/spring stay locations.
Would that still not harm on another’s life?
There are also rules for where, when, and how long you can have your car sit somewhere, including your own yard in some places.
I believe that you should be able to keep a property empty if you choose, it should just be taxed in a way that’s proportionate to the damage it causes to the community.
Empty properties inflate housing costs -> Increased housing costs reduce the amount of people willing to live in the area -> Which reduces the amount of people able to work for local businesses.
removed by mod
Should someone be allowed to buy all the freshwater lakes around a major city and then not sell the water for people to drink?
They could now if they wanted. Most lakes are government or private property. You think they’d want to lose profit margin?
Not to mention the massive difference again, the wellbeing of other people. Houses are crafted by skilled workers, it’s not a right to their labor, nor a right to the owner’s property who purchased it after it was built. You do however have a naturalized right to survival.
The point is, property taxes are fine but saying “um you should be forced by the government to use something you own in a specific manner” is nonsensical and authoritarian overreach at minimum.
Nestle vibes
Why not? I own a house and I want to keep it to myself. I don’t want to deal with problematic tenants.
How many days is a homeowner allowed to be away from home? How does a government keep track of this without violating people’s right to privacy?
The government knows where you live. It is on your ID.
You can only have one address on your ID. So they know where you don’t live.
It’s not on my ID, though. And even if it were, they’d need a way to monitor actual occupancy over time and there’s no way that wouldn’t be invasive.
It’s common and reasonable to be away from home for months at a time, and you have a right to travel. I can only imagine the burden this would place on someone who’s away for medical treatment or supporting a distant family member. Or just out of the house for renovations or an issue they can’t afford to fix currently.
The administrative burden alone would be huge before you get to unintended consequences.
Sounds like a typical Nazi…
Did you know that Hitler also drank water???
No. Landlords should be able to do with their property what they want.
No seconds until everyone has a plate. We all learned it as kids. Now let’s do that with housing.
Fuck their capital. They don’t deserve it. Take the empty houses and give them outright to those that need them. There are more empty homes in the US than unhoused people.
Those empty houses are largely in places where people do not want to live. If you look at markets where people actually live, it’s a pretty different picture. A shack in the middle of the field in Nebraska does not help a homeless man in Manhattan (and he almost certainly wouldn’t take it if you offered it for free).
What are the unintended consequences of this proposal? It is amazing how many people replying to this topic have proposed something without considering what effect it will have. Sure there is a problem, but most solutions have serious negative downsides.
What downsides? You come out talking about unintended consequences but give no examples.
Look at all the different responses to this post. I’ve given many different answers to different proposals.
I don’t think people care about the downsides for landlords anymore. Real or imagined, perceived greed is what people blame for high rent costs. They’re ready to make greedy landlords suffer as they have and I can’t say I blame them one bit.
The fundamental misunderstanding in this view, IMO, is that greed is not something that landowners are uniquely equipped with. Rice is cheap as hell; are rice producers simply not greedy, and that’s why rice is cheap? No, it’s because an absolutely massive amount of rice is produced every day, and there’s more than enough around to ensure anyone who wants rice can get it. Slightly more abstractly, there is more than enough supply to meet the demand. And like housing, cheap food is an absolute need. But unlike food, housing has been woefully underproduced for decades now in cities, and government policy has done a lot to cause that. It’s illegal to build denser than single-family homes in most urban land, and the aim of policy has been more to protect people’s investments rather than have housing be affordable - two goals that are fundamentally at odds with each other.
This isn’t a coincidence, of course. A lot of federal housing policy goes back to the 50s and 60s, when you had suburbs that literally banned people of color from living in them. Housing policy was explicitly designed to advantage landowners and penalize renters, which is to say, wealthier white families pursuing The American Dream™ and urban Black families whose neighborhoods were systematically redlined and demolished to build highways for white suburbanites.
Sure, all that’s true, but it doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying. I think people are angry and ready to get out the pitchforks. There’s been decades of policy debate with no actual improvements to the situation. People think politicians and the wealthy are using discussions like the one you’re trying to have to delay meaningful change rather than find an agreeable solution for all parties. That’s not to say you’re wrong but you’re assuming people want to avoid punitive action and I don’t think that’s true.
The landlords have much bigger pitchforks. Called the police, and the city government.
and they will fight any and every expansion of the housing market in order to protect their power and further increase housing values.
Totally agree with you; this frustration is a direct and obvious result of decades of policy failures. I just worry that a lot of the ensuing anger is a bit misplaced.
I do think that there’s been a sharp acceleration in recent years towards actual concrete steps, even though they’re not super flashy and will take more time to see results. There’s been real progress towards zoning reform, abolishing parking minimums, and other bits of red tape that have played a huge role in housing costs exploding.
It probably will end with some poor decisions being made but sometimes a bad decision is all you can get. Hopefully it will get more meaningful discussion going at least.
Speaking of which, I appreciate your point of view and your demeanor. Civil discourse seems pretty rare these days.
Same here! It’s not often you get a online discussion about economics or housing policy that’s civil and productive.
landlords should be forced to pay a house tax on every house they don’t live in to the value of one house
Property taxes do generally work this way. Maybe they should increase property taxes 2-3x, but also raise the homestead exemption so that owning and living in the home is no more expensive.
yeah I wasn’t being serious any actual solution is going to need to be more nuanced than that. Probably involving state provided housing and likely involving high density accomodation. Although it’s a real shame that high density accomodation is archtecturally associated with shoddily built housing intended for people the government doesn’t give a fuck about because palaces and castles are also examples of high density accomodation.
I think the ideal solution would look like high density state provided housing that is designed to be beautiful and pleasant to live in.
Whoa now, let’s not be unreasonable. They can be taxed at a geometric rate, starting at 100% the value of the house and doubling for every one thereafter.
Although I love the gothamiat. I think they should pay taxes. But what does this have to do with personal finance?
Fuck cars
Fuck landlords
blessed comment 👼
deleted by creator
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.
why is that lucky?
Luckily
for landlords.
Not for the tax pot and the general good.No not for landlords, for homeowners. As it is, it’s just an unfair tax that increases the cost of homeownership, making it unattainable for lower incomes. If they wanted to target landlords, they should tax actual rent income instead.
Of course, no tax ever gets abolished because the government starts to rely on it in their budget, so we’ll be stuck with this forever.
Landlords should pay 100% tax on their empty rentals.
You’ll see how fast they will accept any and all new tenants, at a much lower price.
Which would also flood the market with housing, lowering the prices even more until renting becomes an actual beneficial option compared to buying and paying off a loan.
Real estate would also not be seen as an investment anymore.
It didn’t work this way in the real world.
I’d be so angry if I found out a nusince neighbor was paying less rent than I was.
They should pay 100% tax on all rentals.
Real estate should be considered an investment. It’s one of the few things people invest in that is actually valuable. It’s the speculative and labrynthine financial markets that are the problem in that regard.
The only reason mega-renters like Blackrock and Vanguard are able to monolithically buy property in the first place is because of dubious speculative earnings and government bailouts.
It’s not surprising that home ownership was actually a lot higher 60 years ago.
Why should it be an investment at all?
So that people can decouple their time from their earning power.
Why should a human necesssity be an investment?
Because there is more than enough for everyone.
There’s more than enough housing that everyone can afford to own? Why are there homeless people then?
So, so many reasons…
At the individual level drugs are a HUGE reaaon, mental illness, poor care for veterans etc Although there is SOME government housing and charitable housing for people that need it.
At a macro level there is money printing, endless war, corporate welfare, cronyism etc
Let’s face it though we could probably house everyone in Europe within South Dakota alone. Not to mention most homeless people are in extremely expensive areas like LA, Austin, Seattle and New York.
Passing an ill-conceived law that will have unintended consequences should be way, way low on the list of ways to lower housing prices. Especially since it’s highly likely it won’t be enforced properly.
Really butchering the language here to not say “passive income” or “making other people work for me”
I don’t have a problem with either one of those things so pick your favorite.
deleted by creator
You forget that for one to acquire said property one must first “exploit” one’s self. What I do with the earnings from my exploitation is my business.
Real estate should be considered an investment.
Housing can be affordable, or it can be an investment. Not both.
Why would I build a house if I can’t make money on it?
Because you want a nice house to live in?
Building should be profitable, owning should be of limited profitability.
All you’ve done is move the point I’m arguing to the building process instead of renting.
Building is separate from owning.
…to live in…
Obviously not talking about a property I intend to live in and not sell…
But why should it be anything but a personal investment? I’m not seeing your point there. Isn’t it better for everyone to decommodify housing?
Why should it be anything but a personal investment?
What do mean? I don’t see how what I said negates that.
Isn’t it better for everyone to decommodify housing?
Not really no. Commodfication is why things used to be cheap. High [insert item here] prices are directly related to money printing, corporate welfare and regulations that are designed to raise the barrier of entry for normal people.
Commodifying things makes them cheap? As opposed to decommodifying? That makes no sense
What is an example of decommodifying?
Nationalized healthcare
Making something unsuitable for investment so we preserve its primary function (houses being a home to a family and not an airbnb or an empty rental).
People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.
What should people invest in then? How is land ownership handled? Etc etc etc
What should people invest in then?
Literally any other type of business.
How is land ownership handled?
People should still be able to own land for their own personal use. Land used to extract wealth on the other hand should be more tightly controlled. We should ideally implement georgism to free up the land that the rich own and to increase land use efficiency. After that ownership should look pretty much identical.
Literally any other type of business
You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.
Owning land for personal use
Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?
You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.
And? Should we be trying to help people earn income for doing dick all?
For doing dick all
Yeah because they just plucked the property off of a tree… people often work years and years to get enough for a property investment and it can take 30 years to pay it off. Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.
You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.
If the “safest most attainable way” to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn’t not worth it.
And it arguably isn’t the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system’s failures.
Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?
To use it for a business or enjoyment. I’m not sure where you are going with this.
To use it for a business
This is wealth extraction
Or enjoyment
So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?
In this case landlords could just pay some money to fake tenants to make their rentals appear occupied (at a ridiculously low price). Rental prices could even rise because of free rentals number reduction and necessity to cover additional expenses.
100% on $0
Genius
100% on their rental value, which for many landlords is directly tied to massive loans they’re underwater on. That’s why they’d rather have unoccupied rentals with nominally high values than reduce the rental price to match the market and have their loans called in.
Feel free to react here or on [email protected]
Landlord should always have a few not rented places so that when someone is ready to move there is a place they can go. They also should be doing major remodels and upgrades approximately every 30 years which means a long stretch of not occupied.
That’s called hostels or inns etc. Right now if places are empty it only means someone can’t come because it’s not for rent.
Keeping the place for repair is legitimate, but it’s not what’s done either. It’s be easy to make an exception for repair.
hostels and inns serve a different niche - temporary housing is important, but they don’t give nearly as much space. If you want to live someplace for a year or more then you want more space for your stuff (how much is personal)
By major remodels and upgrades I assume you mean slapping a coat of white paint to cover the cracks and mold, right?
The coat of paint should be done every 5 years, or when a tenant moves out.
Major I mean things like replace the HVAC system, rewire to add GFCIs, replace windows with something better. If it doesn’t cost $20,000 it isn’t major. Most landlords do not do this, but it really should be part of the cost of doing business.
