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
411 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
[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

I totally agree that those are all good things, but I still see no real reason why the government has any business telling a homeowner who wants to split the building into a duplex that it's illegal, because reasons.

The political cost of actually abolishing SF zoning is definitely high though, and proposals to make SF homes less attractive are definitely more politically palatable.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Yup, it's really dumb. SF should have virtually no SFH-exclusive zoning since they're very much space constrained, they should have a lot more mixed zoning (i.e. shops at ground level, housing above).

this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
740 points (88.5% liked)

Personal Finance

3763 readers
13 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