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.
Income tax when you aren’t receiving an income is a weird idea.
It sounds like the author wants a land tax, but hasn’t ever heard the term.
Another term is a vacant homes tax, something Vancouver and Toronto in Canada are using.
Landlords generally aren’t going to decline making money. If they’re not renting these units out, that implies that doing so would cost them money despite the rent they would receive. You can force them to rent the units out anyway, but ultimately they’re not going to agree to keep losing money forever. Either they find some loophole that does let them make money, or eventually you end up with abandoned property inhabited by people who can’t or won’t pay enough to actually maintain that property.
I’ve never owned rent-controlled property, but I did own a house which I kept empty for about a year instead of renting out. (Eventually I sold it.) Market rent wasn’t enough to motivate me to do the work and take on the risks associated with having tenants. I know another guy who lives alone in a big two-family house for the same reasons. Some people who don’t own property seem to think that renting it out is just free money, but things aren’t that simple…
If you read the article, they state exactly what you just said. NYC has many unoccupied apartments which are not being filled because the renters concluded that the rent would not pay for cost of upkeep. They’re not selling the properties either, though.
This is occurring in the midst of homelessness being on the rise. A law like this would be to either force the renter to put the property on the market, or fill the vacancy.
The point I’m trying to make is that if renting the property out is a net loss and whoever owns it is required to rent it out, there’s almost no reason for a person who intends to comply with the law to want to own the property. Forget selling - why would anyone even take it for free if it was just a permanent money sink?
Perhaps landowning as an “investment” is a shit idea, and that propety should be owned by HUD, or whatever regional equivalent.
Why not simply take the property from the “landowners” and possibly even jail them for being a leech on society? If you own property that you don’t live in, you are taxed at 100% of the property value if it’s not occupied. If you declare bankruptcy you immediately forfeit the property. Easy.
Where do landlords get their money? (the money they exist with).
From renters.
If they have to pay money (as taxes) for rentals that aren’t occupied, where will that money come from?
From renters in the form of higher rents.
Are you SURE you want to go through with this?
The solution is simply for landlords to keep their units occupied and they can increase occupancy rates by lowering rents, which will also have the effect of lowering their tax obligations. I’m not sure what you think the problem is.
That’s certainly the preferable solution, I guess it’s worth asking if it would work out that way.
So for example, I own 100 houses and I earn £100 per month for each one. (Values for purposes of illustration only!)
Let’s assume 10% are empty at one time.
With an income of £9,000 per month I’m paying 20% tax on that, £1800.
Up that tax to £2000 under this scheme, costing me £200 per month.
so do I drop rents by £5 per building which is going to mean my income changes to £9500 minus £1900 tax for a net earnings of £7600
Or do I increase rents by £5 and keep running with 10% empty buildings? Earnings are now £9450 with a tax bill of £2100. Net earnings of £7350 while holding onto hope that I could rent out some of those other empty buildings?
Put simply, if I’m the kind of person who owns a 100 buildings do you imagine my instinctive response is going to be to cut prices or to pass on my costs to tenants?
If you own 100buildings, the proper tax burden is that you shouldn’t be able to own 100 no matter what the rent would be. The tax burden should be so high that you are losing money for each building regardless of rented status, until you get down to a reasonable number of homes of say 2. And you’ll pay a decent amount for that 2nd one if it’s in an urban area.
There are lots of ways to tax landowners, but ultimately they all punish landowners for existing (which is a great thing for society) so instead they become weird neo-liberal market based schemes like tax credits for entrepreneurs who own land in a disadvantaged area for at least 3 years. so that the people that will be targetted by the tax are able to avoid it by claiming that they also own the bodega in their slum, thereby making them an entrepreneur.
Ultimately it’s not that the people proposing these taxes can’t come up with better tax schemes, it’s that they are paid to come up with ridiculous schemes that are designed not to eliminate landowners.
So…who should own the land instead?
Well your name has “soviet” in it, so maybe look at the place landowners had in various “soviet” nation states.
