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.

  • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not to be a downer, but how does this fit into personalfinance? Like at all?.. I mean, I agree with the point but this belongs in politics or something.

    • bytor9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m glad to find this comment here. I was about to unsubscribe because I’m here for personal finance; not tax policy debate or politics.

      Now if a policy like that did come out and the article helped to navigate or take advantage of it as an individual, then I would be interested.

      • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is an opinion piece on something that might slightly effect rent. If this is personal finance related than so is literally every economic or business article ever written. Because everything can maybe effect someone’s rent or other expenses.

        • Blaze@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m going to be honest, I see where you come from, and how this is not textbook personal finance.

          However, Lemmy is still in its very infancy, and I try to keep this community active. It’s not always easy to find content to post (most of the PF subreddit is usually questions from users), so here it is.

          By the way, if you have any interesting content or question, feel free to post as well!

      • JshKlsn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Literally no one can afford houses these days. This only affects rich and privileged people.

        • Ryumast3r@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are houses that sell for the same price as a car ($20‐50,000) in Pittsburgh, so your absolutist statement is dead wrong.

        • Torvum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are plenty of houses for sale in the 50-70k range in smaller towns that orbit large cities but sure, “literally no one”

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

            One of the worst parts about house searching is when you look up how much you can get for relatively little if you’re willing to live in impovershed areas in the middle of nowhere. The kind of places defined by the main industry that left the area at least a decade ago.

            Then compare it to where you actually have to live die to life and career situations.