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.

    • ATQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Oh, so you just want the state to be your landlord? Enjoy your cinderblock gulag.

        • ATQ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          You can rent from someone else. That’s actually easier than moving cities, states, or countries.

          • SunriseParabellum [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            42
            ·
            10 months ago

            Can I rent from someone who isn’t a capitalist who’s charging me way more than the cost of upkeep for the property to make a profit? Also even if we have a housing market wouldn’t the option to live in public housing be good for less well off people to help drive down rents on the private housing market?

            • ATQ@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              If you want to argue that the government should develop low cost housing, that’s an interesting discussion. In general, “supply” regardless of how it’s created, is the answer to high housing prices. I do fear that you’ll be dissatisfied with the quality of that government housing.

              • The_Jewish_Cuban [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                36
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                No it’s not. That’s why you have houses and apartments for hypothetical millionaires going empty because no one can actually afford them. As long as homes and real estate have speculative value there is no guarantee that “supply” will positively affect prices or affect them enough to provide housing for everyone.

                The simple fact that there are more empty homes and apartments than there are homeless people disproves your premise.

      • Nicklybear [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        10 months ago

        As someone who has been homeless, I would MUCH rather live my entire life in a “cinderblock gulag” then spend even a second homeless. So, yes, if we ever were to get such buildings provided to us from the government, I would greatly enjoy them.