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.
Like what? There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.
I’m glad you changed your mind.
Why?! What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need as opposed to an ice cream shop or whatever? Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses? Usually at great financial risk to themselves? The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally. They can only charge what the market will bear after all.
When what you’re selling is a limited resource necessary for survival, “what the market will bear” easily becomes “all the money you make”. Otherwise you end up homeless and won’t be making any money.
Anything not needed for human survival.
This is just a whataboutism fallacy.
Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.
Landlords don’t work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.
I sure am aware. And I’m always aware that the people who do those things aren’t landlords. They’re construction workers and maintenance workers.
The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.
Funny how “what the market can bare” equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.
A thriving business selling stuff people don’t need for them to buy with excess capital they no longer have.
No you’re just ignoring a hole in your argument. I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.
This analogy doesn’t track. They aren’t selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.
Massive overgeneralization. I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income. This means they worked to make the money to buy the land and the materials and invested their own time in building it which saved them a ton on labor costs. Somebody moved into it and lived there (e.g. value). Somebody should report them to the secret police!
Again. Sometimes that’s the case. Sometimes it’s a dude taking care of everything himself on the weekend.
You’ve never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There’s plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.
I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it’s Jim from work that rents a condo.
That’s not true because housing is not the only form of wealth.
And did I say I approve of that? No. That’s why it is a whataboutism fallacy. The topic is housing. Pointing out other horrible ways to use land doesn’t change the fact that the current housing situation is bullshit.
More people could afford to own their house if not for landlords hoarding the supply.
Those cases are rare.
https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/landlord-statistics
This is again a rare case.
It’s all of the above. Landlords are a part of the problem, and I never once said they are the sole problem.