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.

  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It assumes the owner is planning to fill up the house sooner rather than later. It would punish those who are just sitting on empty houses for an extended period of time because no renter would want to pay the extended vacancy for that extended period, and progressively gets worse with each added time period.

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

      I’m not hugely against vacancy taxes really, but they need to be well-targeted to not affect the occasional bit of bad luck or renovation. Otherwise, the only way it actually helps the market is if it causes enough previously withheld supply to enter the market, and most expensive cities don’t actually have all that many vacancies. NYC is at something like 5%, which included units between tenants and those under renovation. Sure, there’s the occasional billionaire with an empty penthouse, but compared to the millions of renters looking for normal housing, there really aren’t that many rich oligarchs hoarding housing for fun and games.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its why i think of they did, there should be a minimum amount of months, and then applies after the amount of time.