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.

  • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Losses during the vacancy period would just be accounted for by bumping up the rent on tenants a bit. If you expect an average vacancy to cost you $1200, you’ll just increase rent by $100 a month.

    Sure, you could accept the loss, but if you’re okay with that lower profit margin, you’d have already decreased the rent by that same $100.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It assumes the owner is planning to fill up the house sooner rather than later. It would punish those who are just sitting on empty houses for an extended period of time because no renter would want to pay the extended vacancy for that extended period, and progressively gets worse with each added time period.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not hugely against vacancy taxes really, but they need to be well-targeted to not affect the occasional bit of bad luck or renovation. Otherwise, the only way it actually helps the market is if it causes enough previously withheld supply to enter the market, and most expensive cities don’t actually have all that many vacancies. NYC is at something like 5%, which included units between tenants and those under renovation. Sure, there’s the occasional billionaire with an empty penthouse, but compared to the millions of renters looking for normal housing, there really aren’t that many rich oligarchs hoarding housing for fun and games.

        • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its why i think of they did, there should be a minimum amount of months, and then applies after the amount of time.

    • fresh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the landlord can increase rent by $100 and the market will bear that, why is the lack of a vacancy tax stopping them? Landlords charge the maximum that the market can bear.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        All landlords have occasional vacancies, so a vacancy tax would increase the costs that all landlords bear, at least slightly. Landlords will name the highest price that won’t cause renters to simply choose an alternative. If there is no cheaper alternative because the entire market is being affected, they simply have to find a way to deal with it.

        • fresh@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many vacancy taxes already exist all around the world. There is not a single one that taxes normal short vacancies. It is just false that this increases costs for all landlords. The vast VAST majority of landlords will never pay it.

          On the other hand, the increase in supply due to the tax can be noticeable, which has a much bigger effect lowering prices.