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.

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

    If you have an imputed rental income tax in addition to a wealth or property tax, then I think one has to go. Doesn’t seem right to have both.

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

      Yes there’s both but the wealth tax is much less significant than the imputed rental income

      What I really dislike about it is that if you have a house and rent it out you pay a tax on that rent. If you live on it you pay a tax on a rent that doesn’t exist. It almost incentivizes you to rent your house rather than living in it.

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

        It does exist, but it’s not obvious because it’s income in the form of the rent you don’t have to pay because you are both the owner and possessor of the house. It’s kind of like how, in the USA at least, if I get free tuition because a parent or spouse works at the university I attend, I will owe income tax on the tuition I’m not paying. Or, if I have some debt that gets cancelled somehow, I will owe income tax on that amount.