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.

  • zurohki@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Income tax when you aren’t receiving an income is a weird idea.

    It sounds like the author wants a land tax, but hasn’t ever heard the term.

    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another term is a vacant homes tax, something Vancouver and Toronto in Canada are using.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        These sorts of narrow, “feel-good” taxes are the wrong way to go. People find loopholes to avoid paying them.

        Georgist land value tax (LVT) is straightforward and cannot be avoided. It incentivizes owned land to be utilized, otherwise it becomes a huge liability. It does not disincentivize improvements (building stuff) because taxes are tied to underlying land values, not improved property value.

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So, if I own a condo in a high rise building, how does this work? Does the building get the tax, and that gets divided up among all the condos? Or does each living space get it’s own tax?

            • c10l@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except in cuckoo-land (UK) where most apartment owners don’t own any part of the land where their property is built. It’s called a leasehold and is batshit insane.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So rental that gives the same development right as owning the place but without it being for an indefinite length of time? So you need to have a return on investment before the lease expires otherwise why not just go for a normal rent? 🤔

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t that just effectively another property tax where it’s needed? Afaik the issue isn’t people sitting on empty land, it’s sitting on empty housing.

          • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Property taxes discourage building. Empty land is really cheap, property tax wise. Once you build on the land, property taxes go way up. This discourages you from building on the land.

            Land value tax is the opposite. The tax you pay is based on how much the land is worth, based on its location and supply/demand. An empty lot in NYC would cost the same in LVT as if it had a big apartment full of renters. This makes it very expensive to hold on to unless you’re going to build on it.

            The same applies for improvement. If you own a plot with a single family house on it in an area where demand is skyrocketing, your LVT is going to shoot up along with it. This encourages you to either tear it down to build apartments or sell it to someone who will.

            The really interesting part about LVT is that it paradoxically makes housing more affordable. One of the biggest problems with the current property tax system is that people’s taxes don’t go up when the value of their property increases. This leads to little old ladies sitting on multi million dollar homes and paying almost no taxes at all in places like the Bay Area. Land Value Tax would force tons of those houses onto the market, causing prices to go down due to increased supply. Truly expensive areas would also have to have apartments built to cover the tax.

            The other nice thing about LVT is that landlords can’t pass it on by raising rent. Since the cost of rent in the area directly determines the value of the land, rent increases just turn into tax increases. At some point landlords have to stop increasing rent otherwise everyone would move out and then they couldn’t afford the taxes, so this leads to an equilibrium.

            The only thing left to solve in this system is to make sure taxes are used to benefit regular people and not wasted.

          • DaSaw@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Empty housing is empty land. It just has a house on it. And there are times and places where landowners will spend decades sitting on infill waiting for land values to go up. Additionally, land that could be developed into high density housing but is being held at low density at the behest of the area’s politically connected residents, is kind of like “empty” land. It isn’t a binary.

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the thing, it’s not a “property tax” that they want, it’s for landlords to have to utilize the apartments for low income housing like they are supposed to. What’s going to happen is that they are going to leave the apartments vacant for 5+ years and then say, “No one wants to live here, so I’m not making money. I have to renovate to draw in new tenants, so I’ll have to increase the cost to cover my cost.” This is just modern day blockbusting, and it’s fucking terrible.

      • TAG@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What is the incentive for the landlord to keep the building occupied? Why not just immediately tear it down and build luxury apartments?

        • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The incentive is that the building was built with a grant from the government to help initial building costs with the promise that it would be section 8 for X years, but section 8 doesn’t get landlords rich, so they look for loopholes to get around it. One of them is keeping the building vacant for those years and then “renovating” to make more money off of the tenants that aren’t section 8.

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s certainly wasteful. If people are going without any proper shelter, then having extra, mostly vacant housing to yourself should be discouraged.

          • LoamImprovement@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This right here. The US averages some thirty unoccupied houses for every homeless person. A lot of those are just owned by investment firms who will sit on them because housing is treated as an investment first and a human need second. It’s not a supply problem, it’s a fucking greed problem.

    • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just make property taxes higher for empty buildings. Prorate per month. I thought some country was trying this?

      For rentals in general, trying to solve a different problem, we should drastically increase property taxes and then give a discount for primary residence that puts it back to where it is now.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The owner of an apartment is always receiving income from it, either in the form of the rent check or whatever utility it provides for him to keep it to himself.

      I don’t like land taxes and other property taxes because I don’t think there’s a good way to apply those taxes progressively. Rather, if we just take the imputed rent of a given asset (land, building, car, etc.) and add that to the taxpayer’s income, the the progressive income tax can just do its thing.

      • zurohki@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, he’s receiving value from it. That’s not the same thing as income. You can’t tax a percentage of value, only actual money.

        You’re guessing how much rent he could be collecting and taxing a percentage of the imaginary rent payments… You’re really bending over backwards here to implement a property tax or vacancy tax but with a bunch of extra steps.

        • greenskye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wrong. Basically everyone who’s ever paid property taxes has been taxed on value. Even though I haven’t sold it or nor plan to anytime soon, I owe increased taxes because the estimated value of it has gone up.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Basically everyone who’s ever paid property taxes has been taxed on value.

            Right, but you pay property taxes based on the assessed value of the property, you don’t also pay income taxes on property unless that property is actually generating an income.

            For example, you don’t have to figure how much you could hypothetically rent your home for if you weren’t living in it and add that to your income, even if you are wealthy enough to have a second home or summer home or something. It really just sounds like NY should significantly raise the property tax rate for unoccupied residential properties other than a primary residence, especially unoccpied residential properties owned by a commercial entity.

            • greenskye@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed, I’d drastically increase the vacant property taxes such that they might approximate income taxes for a leased property. Seems simpler for the same effect.

          • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t bother. This post is quickly becoming a circlejerk; they’re not interested in learning, just removed and stroking each other off.

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not true. If I receive artwork, a car, shares of stock, room and board, free tuition, etc., then that is income on I which I will owe taxes. Figuring out the value of these things isn’t a guess. It’s an estimate based on actual market data. It’s actually kind of easy in the case of a rental property since the landlord will have advertised the rent amount. So, if he wants to pay lower tax then he can just lower his ask.

      • DaSaw@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Land value taxation is inherently progressive. That’s probably why it’s never been implemented.

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is it really? Isn’t a land value tax suppose to be flatly applied to the value of land and not change with respect to the adjusted gross income of the land owner?

          • DaSaw@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t need to adjust for income. How do you get high value land with a low income? How do you own high value land and not derive an income from it? You’re imagining an extreme edge case of some family that’s been passing high value land down, generation after generation, without ever leveraging this advantage into financial success.

            The more valuable the property, the larger a component of that value that tends to be in the value of the location itself, as opposed to the capital improvements to that location. Low income housing, as cheaply built as it is, is built in an even cheaper location. Conversely, a house but for higher income people is built more expensively, but even greater is the access to good schools, jobs, shopping, low (blue collar) crime rates, and so on that a high value location provides.

            And that’s just residential real estate, which is almost people even think about. With commercial and industrial sites, location becomes even more important.

            People who talk this way don’t know what land value is. They imagine there is a relationship to quantity, when location is almost the entire driver. Maybe a thousand square feet of space in upper Manhattan or San Jose or something is comparable to a hundred acres in rural Wyoming, or wherever.

            And what about the poor in cities? They already pay a land value tax… to the owners of the land. You will say that if the owners are taxed, they will raise rents… but if they can just raise rents like that, why haven’t they already? Normally, a tax can be “passed on” because a tax on a thing affects the supply of that thing: the tax raises costs, which lowers profits, which drives capital out of that industry and into another, which reduces the amount being produced, which allows the higher price.

            But land is fixed in supply. If you’re imagining a way of increasing or reducing the supply, you’re not thinking about land, but capital improvement to it. The supply can be neither increased nor decreased. Its existence is not dependent on any industry or thrift or other service on the part of the landowner and, as such, any income derived simply from owning a location and leasing it out to others is unearned. It’s essentially extortion, one person renting to another the “privilege” of existing, and if there are any landowners not collecting the full value that can be collected, it is either because they haven’t found the highest price yet, or out of the kindness of their hearts.

            • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure what you’re getting at. My property tax bill has separate components for the land and the improvements upon it. I’m sure that a larger portion of my income goes to paying it than some of my neighbors.

    • _NoName_
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what I think too. A law where you pay more tax for additional properties you own on top of your first home. I don’t know enough about the housing market to know if such a law would actually help, but at first glance it does seem like it’d break up some of the corporate slum lord businesses around the US

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rent from unoccupied properties is not income, because there’s no rent.

        Read the post again.