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.

  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Landlords pay up front (directly or via a loan

    You’re describing a developer. Most landlords aren’t developers.

    And yes, the government should take on the role of developing residential properties and ensuring everyone has access to them. Housing is not a commodity, it’s a basic human need.

    • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      not to mention, many big developers aren’t paying cash to construct housing. they get a loan or establish a line of credit with or brokered via investors/banks/funds. the first rule of doing anything under capitalism is to use somebody else’s money to do it, and all those loans drawing on lines of credit ultimately leads back to the central bank anyway.

      it’s a massive shell game to obscure the fact that workers do all the work to create the products and services and then have to pay their shitty wages right back to access the very things they create, just so maybe 2-3 million megarich assholes can roll around in piles of money and make an income for doing literally nothing.

      landlords are among the most nakedly parasitic sectors of society, and even then we still get bootlicking bozos pretending they “provide” housing or are somehow responsible for the community infrastructure that makes living in the place where the house exists desirable.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Food is also a basic human need, and markets seem to work well-enough for that. The core difference is that, while we have an extreme abundance of food to the point of waste, cities have been underbuilding housing for decades and there are far more people wanting to move to them than available housing units, so only the richest people get the housing. This puts a lot of positive pressure on housing prices

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

        Food is also a basic human need, and markets seem to work well-enough for that

        That’s because it is easy to compete to sell food. Housing doesn’t work that way.

        cities have been underbuilding housing for decades

        It’s not just cities, but I otherwise agree.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s because it is easy to compete to sell food. Housing doesn’t work that way.

          Agreed, but there’s a lot that could be done to make it much much easier. For nearly a century, housing policy has been explicitly designed to make housing a productive asset for investment, which is a goal that’s fundamentally opposed to housing being affordable.