Economics

Another term is a vacant homes tax, something Vancouver and Toronto in Canada are using.

Owning a house that you don't inhabit is weirder.

The owner of an apartment is always receiving income from it, either in the form of the rent check or whatever utility it provides for him to keep it to himself.

I don't like land taxes and other property taxes because I don't think there's a good way to apply those taxes progressively. Rather, if we just take the imputed rent of a given asset (land, building, car, etc.) and add that to the taxpayer's income, the the progressive income tax can just do its thing.

I disagree. Land value taxes are flat unlike a progressive income taxes. Therefore, a land value tax can be unfairly burdensome to people with low incomes who happen to own land. If imputed rent is taxed as income, then the tax burden is more fairly shared. It also creates more insentive to keep rents low and units occupied.

That's why San Francisco implemented a vacant storefront tax.

But getting commercial landlords to comply has been a struggle.

https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/06/01/few-retailers-respond-to-sfs-new-vacancy-tax-as-only-2-6-pay-up/

They also have relatively low amount of homelessness.

Based on the mean projection, 0.02% of the adult population is homeless in this country. The proportion in neighbouring Austria is 0.25%. In Germany, the share of homelessness is 0.41%, in France it is 0.22% and in Italy the share is 0.08%.

So...who should own the land instead?

The solution is simply for landlords to keep their units occupied and they can increase occupancy rates by lowering rents, which will also have the effect of lowering their tax obligations. I'm not sure what you think the problem is.

I don't know about anywhere else but in Australia if you are using the unit you can't claim the expenses as a rental, so there's no advantage to keeping it empty.

Easiest solution would be to have 2 property tax brackets and manage it at a city council level.

Occupied/under maintenance or vacant. If you rent a house you show the city council the lease and they give you a form that says you're entitled to the lower rate for the term of the tenancy,or you go to them and inform them that the property is underrgoing maintenance and is expected to be that way for X months and again you're entitled to the lower rate. If you cant provide evidence or tenancy or maintenance/repairs for say... 75% of the year, you pay a higher rate. Not extortion levels of higher but a definite incentive.

Oh and absolutely ball breaking fines for anyone found to be doing dodgy shit.

They're arguing against imputed income... possibly not understanding how it works... not that rent isn't income.

This is for apartments only. For the most part I don’t believe corporations should own single family housing, with the exception of vacation homes and those numbers need to be booked up at least 50% of the year and there should be a cap on how many a corporation can own

I would do a tiered tax rate depending on vacancy for apartments.

Example 1% property tax if property is 95-100%

5% 80-94%

10% 60-79%

Etc etc

Absolutely punish the complexes that charge ridiculous rates while sitting at a 20% vacancy. I know plenty in my town that are doing exactly that. Charging $1500 for a small one bedroom apartment while all the units are sitting empty.

Reward the full ones with a low tax rate and punish the ones sitting on empty housing with a high rate.

If you read the article, they state exactly what you just said. NYC has many unoccupied apartments which are not being filled because the renters concluded that the rent would not pay for cost of upkeep. They're not selling the properties either, though.

This is occurring in the midst of homelessness being on the rise. A law like this would be to either force the renter to put the property on the market, or fill the vacancy.

Landlords don’t generally leave money on the table.

Here’s two anecdotes about landlords leaving money on the table.

The thing is, there’s too much hassle and insecurity there for you. The income tax on empty properties would almost certainly change the equation, whether it incentivizes you to sell the building or rent it out, that helps tenants.

I suspect a lot of it is an opportunity-cost fixation. If I rent this unit to you today at $900/month, what happens if someone comes in tomorrow offering $1300 and I have to say "sold out."

I know with commercial space, the financing and valuation associated with the properties are dependent on specific rent levels, where it's better for Wall Street to see an empty $4000 unit than a full $3000 one.

Holding out for a better deal seems like common behavior for anyone. You describe doing it yourself. However, the consequences of withholding housing are pretty bad. We need policies that convince landlords to cut their losses sooner and either accept lower rents or sell to buyers who will.