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.

  • Stizzah
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Owning a house that you don’t inhabit is weirder.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s certainly wasteful. If people are going without any proper shelter, then having extra, mostly vacant housing to yourself should be discouraged.

        • LoamImprovement@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This right here. The US averages some thirty unoccupied houses for every homeless person. A lot of those are just owned by investment firms who will sit on them because housing is treated as an investment first and a human need second. It’s not a supply problem, it’s a fucking greed problem.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why? I bought a house and lived in it for 15 years, then my wife and I bought a new house and are renting out our old house with the aim to use the income from it to help with early retirement.