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.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Perhaps landowning as an “investment” is a shit idea, and that propety should be owned by HUD, or whatever regional equivalent.