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.
100% on their rental value, which for many landlords is directly tied to massive loans they’re underwater on. That’s why they’d rather have unoccupied rentals with nominally high values than reduce the rental price to match the market and have their loans called in.
deleted by creator
No, the rental value is the nominal price of the rental. This is extremely simple, a child could understand this. The landlords have gotten loans based on the assumed rental income, which is not $0.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
amazing, now you understand and it’s almost like I didn’t have to waste any time explaining this stupid concept to you
thanks, good job, very useful