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.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

    If the “safest most attainable way” to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn’t not worth it.

    And it arguably isn’t the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system’s failures.

    Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

    To use it for a business or enjoyment. I’m not sure where you are going with this.

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

      To use it for a business

      This is wealth extraction

      Or enjoyment

      So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is wealth extraction

        Yup. I’m ok with some kinds, just not the kind that fucks over the creation/distribution of basic necessities.

        So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment

        Yeah that’s bullshit too and shouldn’t be allowed. Even for personal use/enjoyment there should be a hard limit.

        but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

        That’s bullshit too.

        • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m okay with some kinds (of making money with land)

          Like what? There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

          Yeah that’s bullshit too (in regard to rich people owning acreage for enjoyment)

          I’m glad you changed your mind.

          Yeah that’s bullshit too (in regard to a normal dude owning an investment property)

          Why?! What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need as opposed to an ice cream shop or whatever? Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses? Usually at great financial risk to themselves? The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally. They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

            When what you’re selling is a limited resource necessary for survival, “what the market will bear” easily becomes “all the money you make”. Otherwise you end up homeless and won’t be making any money.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Like what?

            Anything not needed for human survival.

            There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

            This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

            What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need

            Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

            Landlords don’t work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

            Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses?

            I sure am aware. And I’m always aware that the people who do those things aren’t landlords. They’re construction workers and maintenance workers.

            The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally.

            The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

            They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

            Funny how “what the market can bare” equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

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

              Anything not needed for human survival.

              A thriving business selling stuff people don’t need for them to buy with excess capital they no longer have.

              This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

              No you’re just ignoring a hole in your argument. I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.

              Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

              This analogy doesn’t track. They aren’t selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.

              Landlords don’t work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

              Massive overgeneralization. I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income. This means they worked to make the money to buy the land and the materials and invested their own time in building it which saved them a ton on labor costs. Somebody moved into it and lived there (e.g. value). Somebody should report them to the secret police!

              I sure am aware. And I’m always aware that the people who do those things aren’t landlords. They’re construction workers and maintenance workers.

              Again. Sometimes that’s the case. Sometimes it’s a dude taking care of everything himself on the weekend.

              The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

              You’ve never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There’s plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.

              Funny how “what the market can bare” equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

              I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it’s Jim from work that rents a condo.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                to buy with excess capital they no longer have.

                That’s not true because housing is not the only form of wealth.

                I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.

                And did I say I approve of that? No. That’s why it is a whataboutism fallacy. The topic is housing. Pointing out other horrible ways to use land doesn’t change the fact that the current housing situation is bullshit.

                They aren’t selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.

                More people could afford to own their house if not for landlords hoarding the supply.

                I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income.

                Those cases are rare.

                https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/landlord-statistics

                You’ve never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There’s plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.

                This is again a rare case.

                I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it’s Jim from work that rents a condo.

                It’s all of the above. Landlords are a part of the problem, and I never once said they are the sole problem.