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.

  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    if that’s the case it’s weird that they decided to be a pedant and pretend not to understand the extremely plain and simple original statement. It’s plain they disagreed with it but didn’t want to just say that.

    • Thordros [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      For real, nat—take a chill pill. I say this with all the good faith love I share with all my comrades. Somebody being a pedant doesn’t automatically make them a chud. @[email protected] reads like a fellow traveler still working out their brainworms. Cut them a little slack.

      • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hear me out, FUCK landlords. But I shouldn’t have to say that to get respect out of the leftist crowd.

        In the event we’re keeping capitalism here, an empty-home tax would make more sense than an income tax on empty homes. But that would still NOT be an “income” tax. Just let me be pedantic and shit on an article title without throwing me in w/ the lemmy.world crowd :(