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.
There are like 5 places in the world that do it, and at least one of them got rid of it because of how stupid it is ( https://www.ubs.com/ch/en/private/mortgages/information/magazine/2021/abolition-of-imputed-rental-value-what-happens-next.html )
Counting an implied value as income simply because you own something is ridiculous and not something that should ever be considered.
Imputed rental income is no more “implied” than property value. The difference is that I don’t think there’s a good way to tax property value progressively. If there’s already a progressive income tax in place then all you have to do is make imputed rental income taxable and you’re pretty much good to go.
How exactly are you supposed to calculate imputed rent either though? People will rent out their properties for as much as someone will pay, so does that mean the “imputed rent” should be $10000 a month on a one bedroom shack?
Again, there’s a reason that essentially nowhere does it - it’s ridiculous and makes no sense charging someone income tax on no income.
In the case if vacant rentals it’s actually kind of easy since the landlord will have advertised the rent amount. And therefore, there’s a lot of data out there as to how much could be charged for so many square feet and bedrooms, probably more than what is available to estimate property values.