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.

  • el_bhm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Multiple holder companies incoming. Now that will need to be plugged up.

    Not saying this is a bad idea. But they will find loopholes.

    • BattleOften@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. Require rental properties to be registered and report when vacant.
      2. Block any new single dwelling rental property purchases.
      3. Only allow more rental property purchases when vacancy rate is below a certain threshold in a metropolitan area.
    • Rekliner@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, there was just recently a big scandal in my city where one guy bought 20 houses with 9 shell companies. Attempted to do shitty flipping jobs. Selling the houses from one company to the next so they didn’t immediately jump up in price in the real estate history.

      The sad part is: if he hadn’t overpriced the market and sold more of them he would’ve gotten away with it, but he waited too long and got stuck. But until that point nobody knew one guy had 20 houses, it was 2 per company on paper.