- cross-posted to:
- personalfinance@lemmy.ml
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.
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’re that kind of person then you’re already charging as much as the market will bear. I think you would have an easier time doing what you can to fill the vacancies or just selling the vacant units.
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.