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.

  • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Food is also a basic human need, and markets seem to work well-enough for that. The core difference is that, while we have an extreme abundance of food to the point of waste, cities have been underbuilding housing for decades and there are far more people wanting to move to them than available housing units, so only the richest people get the housing. This puts a lot of positive pressure on housing prices

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

      Food is also a basic human need, and markets seem to work well-enough for that

      That’s because it is easy to compete to sell food. Housing doesn’t work that way.

      cities have been underbuilding housing for decades

      It’s not just cities, but I otherwise agree.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s because it is easy to compete to sell food. Housing doesn’t work that way.

        Agreed, but there’s a lot that could be done to make it much much easier. For nearly a century, housing policy has been explicitly designed to make housing a productive asset for investment, which is a goal that’s fundamentally opposed to housing being affordable.