• henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Not really, because the rental market does not behave like commodities do. Generally, you have to live within a reasonable distance of employment. For this and other reasons, renters are much more vulnerable and tend to get exploited far beyond the cost of the service.

      Basically, if tenants had any more money to exploit, they would already take it. Rents are maximally high wherever possible to extract maximum money from people who need a place to live.

      Consider the common joke that I pay this much in rent every month but the bank says I can’t afford a house where the mortgage would be substantially less.

      • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Agreed, and this would be solved by sufficiently high land value tax - if wasn’t profitable to be a landlord nobody would do it and the price of land would decline sharply. Henry George saw all of this coming a long time ago.

        • TrueMonoxidist@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          First time I’ve heard of the idea of a separate land value tax… Frankly it seems like an awesome idea, especially for cities.

          I imagine it would make dense housing more profitable than McMansions, and punish the NIMBYs who keep standing in the way of affordable housing. Maybe we could make the tax increase significantly with the number of properties an individual owns and start it at the highest rate for things like shell corps and LLCs.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.

      They could try to pass it on to consumers, but smaller landlords wouldn’t have to pay it.

      Making the biggest get out of the game first

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.

          That might not have been clear.

          Set it at the parent company level so it’s not easy.

          If they have X amount invested in rental real estate, that can just be taxed then

          Believe me, the tax code for the wealthy is already complicated, they can handle this

          • Eheran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Then there is no parent company…? Just another random company. It does not need to be complicated and this is far from it. It needs to be such that they can not easily avoid the taxes.