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.

  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Should someone be allowed to buy all the freshwater lakes around a major city and then not sell the water for people to drink?

    • Torvum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could now if they wanted. Most lakes are government or private property. You think they’d want to lose profit margin?

      Not to mention the massive difference again, the wellbeing of other people. Houses are crafted by skilled workers, it’s not a right to their labor, nor a right to the owner’s property who purchased it after it was built. You do however have a naturalized right to survival.

      The point is, property taxes are fine but saying “um you should be forced by the government to use something you own in a specific manner” is nonsensical and authoritarian overreach at minimum.