Economics

1716 readers

11 users here now

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

377

Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not. (gothamist.com)

submitted 1 year ago by CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work to c/economics@lemmy.ml

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Either the properties are valuable as rental properties, they’re not especially suited for rental properties, or they’re not fit to live in. If they’re in the first category, great. If they’re in the second, forcing a landlord to sell instead of sitting on an empty property helps, in that it creates more supply of livable homes for people making the leap to homeownership (that’s the answer to who would buy a house that doesn’t make them money: people who want to live in it). If the property is unsafe/unlivable, it should be repaired in a timely manner or torn down.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think rent-controlled properties tend to be apartment buildings rather than single-family homes. An apartment building can be converted into a co-op or condominium and I admit I don't know much about that process. I can see a lot of potential difficulties. Maybe there are solutions and I am just ignorant of them.

Presumably most of the tenants in the building can't afford to buy their apartment outright but just kicking them all out isn't allowed. If tenants do end up getting their apartments for less than market price, what's to stop them from immediately reselling them? And won't monthly costs for the tenants go up because the co-op/condo can't run at a loss?

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

It’s pretty common to have a building that’s partially inhabited by renters and partially by owners. It’s not super unusual to have a building owner sell only some units in a building.

It’s entirely possible to put a clause in the contracts associated with the sale that the new owner must give the old owner a share of any profits on a resale within five years.

If there’s a building with five rent controlled units, two of which are occupied, and the owner of the building sells off the other three, the two occupied units will continue to be rent controlled and belong to the landlord. If the landlord doesn’t want them and lowers the price by a bunch or makes a special offer to the tenants, people still don’t have to buy it. If people start to think being a landlord is risky and maybe not a great idea, good.