• cadekat@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s nothing saying rent has to cover the owner’s expenses.

    If no one rents a home, the owner must either: leave the home empty, or lower the rent. Either way, if the home loses money, a rational investor has to sell. Enough people selling causes prices to drop.

    I guess what I’m saying is that taxing people who own multiple properties extra is a really weird fix.

    Wouldn’t building more homes be a better long term solution?

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If no one rents a home, the owner must either: leave the home empty, or lower the rent. Either way, if the home loses money, a rational investor has to sell.

      Doesn’t the investor get to list the loss as a tax write-off?

      The investor can always wait. There’s a housing crisis, so people need somewhere to live.

      Wouldn’t building more homes be a better long term solution?

      We need to do both. Addressing the issue from the supply side and demand side makes sense.

      • PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Write-offs are only applicable if some other part of the business is making money

        If the entire business is owning a few properties and they are all in the red, there’s nothing to write off against

        • sbv@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          For small-scale landlords the loss would count against their regular income. For professional landlords, they probably have other properties.

      • cadekat@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t the investor get to list the loss as a tax write-off?

        I’m not 100% certain on the details, but yes. A landlord can reduce their taxes on other income but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still losing money.

        The investor can always wait.

        That’s only true if the expected increase in value covers the cost in carrying the property. If property values don’t increase dramatically over time, waiting just loses money.

        There’s a housing crisis, so people need somewhere to live.

        Exactly what I’m saying. Demand is, for the most part, inelastic. Each person requires some amount of space. Owning multiple properties that are occupied satisfies housing demand as much as each person owning their own home. As far as I figure, only vacant homes artificially inflate home prices/rent.

        I don’t mean to say that people should be stuck renting forever. Everyone should have the opportunity to own their home.

        • sbv@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Owning multiple properties that are occupied satisfies housing demand as much as each person owning their own home. As far as I figure, only vacant homes artificially inflate home prices/rent.

          As we said above, the renter has to cover the costs of the property, plus the landlord’s profit.

          • cadekat@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s just not how rent works. Tenants don’t care what the landlord’s expenses are. If a home is priced above what people are willing to pay, it’ll sit empty.