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.

      • ATQ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        They pay for it to be built. Unless you think the workers should work for free and not receive any benefit from their labor. Does hexbear know you feel this way? 🤣

          • ATQ@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Landlords pay up front (directly or via a loan, which the renters presumably cannot get) and assume the risk of vacancies and repairs. If landlords ceased to exist, how do you propose new housing stock be created? Should the government be your landlord?

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Landlords pay up front (directly or via a loan, which the renters presumably cannot get) and assume the risk of vacancies and repairs.

              And then they get bailed out by the government when their risk blows up.

              https://www.wsj.com/articles/landlords-were-never-meant-to-get-bailout-funds-many-got-it-anyway-11590494400

              https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/four-reasons-landlords-should-take-advantage-federal-rental-assistance/

              And they have little to no risk in the first place because the market has such high demand that they can pretty much instantly fill vacancies, and they barely do repairs if at all. And at least where I live, renters are required to have/pay for renters insurance which further drives down the landlord’s risk. And on top of all that, they have security deposits to lower their risk even further. They don’t take on any meaningful risk.

              If landlords ceased to exist, how do you propose new housing stock be created? Should the government be your landlord?

              Government investment into housing development (which then turn into market rate housing/co-ops), zoning fixes, and a LVT is the solution. The builders get paid, home ownership becomes affordable, the risks are dealt with, and renters aren’t being priced gouged. It would also do wonders to help fix the homelessness crisis.

              And none of it needs the government to own your home.

              • ATQ@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Investment into housing development, zoning fixes, market rate housing, co-ops, and a LVT is the solution.

                You can’t be serious? Let’s review.

                Investment into housing development

                By who…? Come on, be honest, who do you think is going to do this 🤣

                zoning fixes

                That allow who to build more housing?

                market rate housing

                Is literally what the West has right now.

                Co-Ops

                We have these now.

                and a LVT

                This is a fine step. Most states have property taxes now that include the land that a rental sits on.

                If you can’t pay for your own housing, your choices are either for the government to pay for it, or for the private sector to pay for it. In either event the entity that owns your house, that isn’t you, is your landlord. If you can’t pay for your own housing, and you don’t want the private sector or the government to provide it for you, then you’re homeless.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  By who…? Come on, be honest

                  It was implied, but I later edited my comment, the government should do so. We have a massive housing crisis on our hands and there needs to be a solution. The government is so bloated that there is easily already the money somewhere to divert to something actually worthwhile.

                  That allow who to build more housing?

                  Private developers, individual citizens, the government itself, etc. Anybody and everybody with a willingness to build a house should be able to do so without dealing with the ridiculous zoning laws we have now.

                  Is literally what the West has right now.

                  We have these now.

                  We have market-rate housing and co-ops at such a low rate. We need a massive increase in quantity. The private sector won’t do this because there is no profit motive, so it largely has to be the government who is building these. But once their built it shouldn’t be the government who owns it, it should be the co-ops, market-rate housing orgs, or literally individual citizens who own the housing,

                  Most states have property taxes now that include the land that a rental sits on.

                  I don’t want property taxes. Those need to be removed along with all other types of taxation. The only valid type of taxation should be land value tax, and a carbon emission tax. A property tax punishes a land owner for developing their land and using it more efficiently. A land value tax on the other hand incentivizes more effective use. It’s a massive topic and a massive difference. If you want to learn more I would recommend looking into georgism.

                  In either event the entity that owns your house, that isn’t you, is your landlord.

                  I disagree with your definition.