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.

    • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whoa now, let’s not be unreasonable. They can be taxed at a geometric rate, starting at 100% the value of the house and doubling for every one thereafter.

    • JAC@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Property taxes do generally work this way. Maybe they should increase property taxes 2-3x, but also raise the homestead exemption so that owning and living in the home is no more expensive.

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah I wasn’t being serious any actual solution is going to need to be more nuanced than that. Probably involving state provided housing and likely involving high density accomodation. Although it’s a real shame that high density accomodation is archtecturally associated with shoddily built housing intended for people the government doesn’t give a fuck about because palaces and castles are also examples of high density accomodation.

        I think the ideal solution would look like high density state provided housing that is designed to be beautiful and pleasant to live in.