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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    Sure, but it pushes it onto wealthier people more, since generally cost of property scales with income. It would also discourage vacancy even more, which would put more properties on the market, and it would probably push property values down because the long-term cost of ownership is higher. Likewise, cities and states tend to get their income from property taxes, so they could reduce sales taxes to account for it, and sales tax is much more regressive on the poor.

    So I think it would be a net benefit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      You do realize this discussion is about the housing crisis right? The one caused by the available units being below the demand for them, causing prices to rise?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Punishing landlords for vacancies won’t materially help things, the only real solution there is zoning changes to encourage more construction of higher density housing instead of lower density housing. We can only build so many housing units in a given year, so we should be focusing on higher density instead.

        But we’re not talking about zoning in this thread, we’re talking about taxation.

        Vacancy rates are really low for residential property pretty much across the board, at least relative to the last few decades. So there’s not a lot we can do just by changing the costs for vacancies. The reason I suggest increasing property taxes is for a few reasons:

        • property taxes tend to hit wealthier people more than poorer people because wealthier people have more property
        • higher property taxes make single family homes less attractive because the cost is higher per unit than multifamily homes

        Since we have a limited capacity to build new housing, we should encourage building the types of housing that will resolve the crisis. Penalizing vacancies just encourages landlords to fill vacancies ASAP instead of renovating properties, whereas increasing property taxes should encourage more dense construction.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I’m sorry, I misread your post, and completely missed the last line (it was a long day). I thought you were arguing against this suggestion.

          I agree, taxes aren’t a huge part of the solution, and incentivizing high-density housing (as well as making them more palatable)is a bigger part of it.

      • @Aux
        link
        English
        -11 year ago

        The housing crisis cannot be solved by taxes. They are irrelevant.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          This is basic economics, supply and demand. Reducing demand will affect prices, and incentivizing not having vacant properties will increase supply.

          This is not the complete solution, but it will have some effect. And thinking there is a single complete solution is as wrong as thinking that the suggestions in this article are that complete solution.

          • @Aux
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            Changing taxes won’t do anything as they don’t affect the property market much. The only real solution is to build more. But to build more, construction should be deregulated. But that will make landlords in the government poorer so that will never happen.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              I have rarely seen deregulation where money is to be made working out well for the average person. Feel free to look up the history of the FDA for a taste of what unregulated markets can look like. That said, yes, changing regulations for urban planning will be necessary to have a meaningful impact on the housing problem, and yes, most politicians have very good financial reasons to not let that happen.

              • @Aux
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                You can check deregulation history in Europe and what benefits it brought like cheap and quality flights, cheap and quality railways, etc. I don’t know what FDA is, but if something is wrong, then the market is over regulated.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  They were the people who said you couldn’t sell bread with sawdust in it, or lie about your bread having sawdust in it. Which is what America dealt with before regulations.

                  Other fun considerations are things like phossy jaw, a fatal condition caused by companies forgoing safety at a cost of 1% of their revenue, until regulations were imposed.

                  Certainly, there is a such thing as too much regulation, but too little is also demonstrably bad.

                  • @Aux
                    link
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    Why would anyone buy bread with sawdust? I think the US problem is not the lack of regulation, but that people like shit.