cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/12162
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.
if that’s the case it’s weird that they decided to be a pedant and pretend not to understand the extremely plain and simple original statement. It’s plain they disagreed with it but didn’t want to just say that.
Weird, maybe, but the argument wasn’t an ideological one from what I can tell, it was one about the wording not making sense that I honestly didn’t understand either. I admit to being stupid about economic things, but I didn’t know that “nominal income” meant something different than just income.
Like, you’re going off with “You’re typical of the “HEXBEAR IS RUINING THE LEMMYVERSE” chud” when glancing at their history, it doesn’t look like they’re a chud at all and were actually defending Hexbear when lemmy.world did the preemptive defederation shit.
For real, nat—take a chill pill. I say this with all the good faith love I share with all my comrades. Somebody being a pedant doesn’t automatically make them a chud. @[email protected] reads like a fellow traveler still working out their
. Cut them a little slack.
Hear me out, FUCK landlords. But I shouldn’t have to say that to get respect out of the leftist crowd.
In the event we’re keeping capitalism here, an empty-home tax would make more sense than an income tax on empty homes. But that would still NOT be an “income” tax. Just let me be pedantic and shit on an article title without throwing me in w/ the lemmy.world crowd :(
Thumbs up emoji goes here.
Sorry that we come across as hostile weirdos sometimes. We’re actually very nice hostile weirdos once you get to know us!