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.

  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Seriously? OK, you must not really have thought about this before. They are listing their properties for rent but nobody is renting them. They’re listing those properties at the nominal rental value. So the tax would be on that nominal rental cost. This is like, babytown frolics level simple to connect the dots on even if you don’t agree with it - understanding this should have clicked like two replies back.

      • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        nominal income

        nominal income

        nominal income

        you’re welcome to disagree but wasting this much time pretending to not understand is just childish, have a very nice day weirdo

        • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s taxed upon selling, for the value of the house, which would tax exactly what you’re talking about.

          Trying to act like I’m not understanding makes you sound “childish” my dude. Grow tf up and READ. INCOME TAX ON ZERO DOLLARS IS ZERO DOLLARS

          Edit: This dude’s banner is a 9/11 photo. Nice… I’m arguing with a literal troglodyte over the semantics of a dumb article title.

            • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are 100% part of the problem for hexbear’s negative view from outsiders.

              Tax the rich’s 0$ monthly rents! That’ll show um.

              • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                One more reply, since I expect you haven’t got the testicular fortitude to keep up - I, and probably all hexbears, think landlords shouldn’t exist at all. Your idea that some liberal plan to tax them differently is indicative of hexbear is a fundamental ignorance of our actual politics.

                Landlords should not exist in any fashion. mao-aggro-shining

                • QuietCupcake [any, they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, comrade. I think u/Zuberi really is anti-landlord and hasn’t said anything to suggest otherwise. And their comment about hexbear’s reputation on other instances wasn’t anything having to do with the OP, it was about how you were insulting them.

                  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    if that’s the case it’s weird that they decided to be a pedant and pretend not to understand the extremely plain and simple original statement. It’s plain they disagreed with it but didn’t want to just say that.