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.

  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

          • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            • Fascist Lib Instance@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s taxed upon selling, for the value of the house, which would tax exactly what you’re talking about.

              Trying to act like I’m not understanding makes you sound “childish” my dude. Grow tf up and READ. INCOME TAX ON ZERO DOLLARS IS ZERO DOLLARS

              Edit: This dude’s banner is a 9/11 photo. Nice… I’m arguing with a literal troglodyte over the semantics of a dumb article title.

                  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    13
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    One more reply, since I expect you haven’t got the testicular fortitude to keep up - I, and probably all hexbears, think landlords shouldn’t exist at all. Your idea that some liberal plan to tax them differently is indicative of hexbear is a fundamental ignorance of our actual politics.

                    Landlords should not exist in any fashion. mao-aggro-shining

                  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The best part of this is the person whose idea I was trying to explain to you - and never once endorsed - isn’t a Hexbear user. You’re just full-on making up shit when all I was trying to do was explain the concept a user from a completely different instance suggested. Congrats on being too dumb to both a) get the idea and b) attribute the idea to the correct instance.

                    This is all entirely too perfect, I hope you don’t delete your replies because they are a perfect encapsulation of the liberal anti-hexbear derangement.

                  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I literally just tried to explain the idea that you were feigning misunderstanding, I have not endorsed anything. You’re typical of the “HEXBEAR IS RUINING THE LEMMYVERSE” chud - making up ideas in your head and getting mad about them. Reading comprehension and your big feelings really get in the way of your engagement with the lemmyverse.

                  • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Any outsider observing this interaction and taking your side is an idiot. You behaved like a petulant child, repeating your one point no matter how many times the actual situation was explained to you. And then getting up on your soapbox acting haughty when someone with more patience for you than you deserved gives up. Reddit tier troll.

                  • Flaps [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Idk my guy the other poster explains it pretty well, at this point it just looks like you’re refusing to learn