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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.