Personal Finance

3819 readers

2 users here now

Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!

Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

WandererLagomorph799@lemmy.ml

nieceandtows@programming.dev

nieceandtows@lemmy.ml

740

Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not. (gothamist.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de to c/personalfinance@lemmy.ml

397 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Javi_in_4k@lemm.ee 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fyi, what you want to say is that we should have a wealth tax. I agree with you on that. We should also tax stock holdings similarly.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ummm, a lot of people that are NOT rich, own stocks. Like nearly every 401k. If those stocks go up, then there is a tax, it's called capital gains and goes up for higher income earners.

Also, where I live there is a tax paid on vacant rental property. It's called property tax. I do not believe people, rich or poor, should be taxed on money they are NOT making. This would hurt owners with a legitimate reason to have a property vacant, like renovations, repairs, or a soft market. So in addition to rent loss the owner would have to pay taxes because the assumption is that the owner is enjoying it?

I don't think there should be a wealth tax. I think the wealthy should just actually pay some taxes.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You need to go back to school professor. All wealth tax proposals are progressive, only affecting those with substantial investments. I used to dislike them, but a tax starting at 1% on $50 million with the highest rate (say 3%) on net worth above $1 billion wouldn't hurt anyone.

Also, that tax can't be avoided either. Even if a billionaire moves to a tropical island with no taxes, their money is still invested in developed countries. It's too much to invest in tax havens. You just need good KYC to know who the ultimate owner is.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't understand why people have to insult to make a point.

I think eliminating tax loopholes, causing rich people to pay their fair share of taxes, is waaay better than an extra tax on incomes over a certain level. It's more fair and also doesn't hurt anyone. Tax avoidance is the reason a wealth tax is even an idea.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"eliminating tax loopholes"

Those words mean nothing without specifying which loopholes you mean. I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying that you are trying to sound smart while not contributing anything.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying that you are trying to sound smart while not contributing anything.

Is this a real sentence, typed seriously, with no irony? What a world.

[–] msage@programming.dev -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do we put retirement funds into stocks?

Because we convinced everyone that's the only place where your money can grow?

So that every time Wall Street can and will again hold everyone hostage?

We should rethink this whole approach.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Perhaps, but unless it's a bond fund or something, most of the options are funds that hold stocks. It's the way it is.

Also, ironically, buying a property to rent is trying to "rethink the whole thing." So naturally, it should be taxed even if it's not making money.

If also like to point out that the article linked did not mention taxing the landlord. I guess that was the poster.