Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#141

Post by hiyer »

raverbashing wrote: post #42
snissn wrote: post #9

i tried to negotiate being month to month at my manhattan apt at the same rate and my land lord wouldn't accommodate me. Now the apt has been unrented for a few months and they're asking for a 10% drop in rent and probably won't get it for a long long time. happily commenting from hawaii

Real estate, being a straightforward investment attracts those who couldn't be making more money at pretty much any other type of investment. Hence you get the most clueless people managing the properties.

I concur. Here in India I had once finalized an apartment for rent for around Rs. 35000/month. The landlord bailed at the last moment because an agent found him another tenant willing to pay Rs. 2000 more/month. However:

1. I had approached the landlord directly since his previous tenant had been a friend of mine. So there was no agent fee (one month rent) to be paid.

2. The other tenant moved in almost a month after i was supposed to, so another month's worth of rent lost for him.

The landlord didn't realize it would take him almost 3 years to recoup the losses even with the increased rent. I didn't push my case much, and found someplace else to stay.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#142

Post by drak0n1c »

j2bax wrote: post #10
economusty wrote: post #4

Remember which political party runs the city.

While we are at it, lets remember which political party runs the areas that are most dependent on the government. Source: https://wallethub.com/edu/most-independent-states/36426#main...

That difference will soon be wiped out if the state legacy budget bailout rider ends up being passed.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#143

Post by denimnerd42 »

deeeeplearning wrote: post #104
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+ proposed $3 tax for every package ordered :) ..because you can't buy anything "non essential" locally, because everything is closed... https://abc7ny.com/package-surcharge-nyc-extra-fee-for-deliv...

Not that this helps costs in NY but really how many packages would you need to order in a year for this to make a significant dent in your budget?

would have increased the price I paid at amazon by 10% last year. So that's not a significant dent but on the other hand that's obscene.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#144

Post by cmdshiftf4 »

yurielt wrote: post #52
vrperson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

de-gentrification is a good thing if you don't like cupcakes and cafes and nice restaurants and nice shops.

ANd if you like payable rent non obnoxious hipsters and their shitty music, POC and people that have politics informed by more than buzzfeed

Do you know how I can tell you’ve never lived in a low income area?

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#145

Post by MetalGuru »

llampx wrote: post #107
pc86 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The landlord's paying for the building no matter what, so it's possible that depending on how it's leveraged and their income overall, they'd rather lose money and get a reduction in taxable income than break even with lowered rent.

I'm no tax lawyer but I think you get to deduct the costs whether or not the apartment is rented out. Also you can only deduct costs from revenue. This is no VC backed entrepreneur with a growth story where you get more money with a negative contribution margin. ;)

If it’s not a primary residence, you don’t get to deduct the taxes from other sources of income. It’s restricted to deducting from rental income. You can carry the loss forward though.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#146

Post by fizwhiz »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #114
raverbashing wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real estate, being a straightforward investment attracts those who couldn't be making more money at pretty much any other type of investment. Hence you get the most clueless people managing the properties.

Putting your money in an index fund will probably make more money than the average real estate investment.

Looking at the returns alone is an incomplete picture; a huge part of being a real estate investor is having clever tricks at your disposal to reduce your taxes.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#147

Post by pengaru »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #116
pc86 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The landlord's paying for the building no matter what, so it's possible that depending on how it's leveraged and their income overall, they'd rather lose money and get a reduction in taxable income than break even with lowered rent.

I don't see any kind of mathematical gymnastics that has landlords making more money on vacancies. Any tax they'd save would be a fraction what would otherwise be revenue. Besides, real-estate investors attempt to keep their costs (interest, depreciation, etc) all very close to their revenue, not the other way around. Less revenue is simply less of a chance to deduct expenses (not to mention less money for them). The…

A buddy of mine rents in a 90% vacant building he claims the owners haven't bothered putting tenants in at lowered rents because they're borrowing against the value established by the high rents. It's also a rent control scenario, which strongly disincentivizes ever lowering the rent.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#148

Post by MetalGuru »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #112
jfengel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're calling de-gentrification isn't really the opposite of gentrification. Gentrification is the destruction of long-standing neighborhoods and the displacement of poor people, who may have no good place to go and lose their support structures. Often, those poor people rent their homes/apartments, and so they don't benefit from the increase in prices. Their rent just goes up until they have to leave. Rich peo…

So in summary no matter what rich people do, they're the problem.

Seriously. The argument is that rich people come in, raising rent due to increased housing demand and constant supply, which pushes poor people out. But the reverse (rich people leave, rental demand decreases, lowering rents and allowing poor people to come back) isn’t true. Makes perfect sense /s

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#149

Post by rayiner »

medium_burrito wrote: post #86
jokethrowaway wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting point of view Don't you think it's exactly the high taxes that give space for corruption and incompetence? Once you accumulate a large pool of money (especially if it's someone else money), the larger the pool, the easier it is to waste it. We see it with governments, big tech companies, VC funded startups, even when pooling money for a road trip with friends. I think the enemy is human nature a…

Everything gives room for corruption and incompetence. The problem is the US has some of the most incompetent government on a local level in the developed world. Part of it is American individualism, part of it is the Republican party starving the beast, part of it is the government as a giant jobs program. There is no reason we cannot have competent civil servants, long term planning, clean cities, etc. I'm complete…

> The problem is the US has some of the most incompetent government on a local level in the developed world. Part of it is American individualism, part of it is the Republican party starving the beast, part of it is the government as a giant jobs program.

Blaming individualism and "the Republican Party" is bizarre in connection with a complaint about "incompetent government on a local level." Almost all of the local governments people complain about (San Francisco, New York City, etc.) are completely dominated by Democrats. Of 51 seats on the New York City Council, just 3 are held by Republicans, and only 1 of those isn't on Staten Island. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is all Democrats.

This is not a matter of my team versus your team, but a real dysfunction in our political system. If people in blue cities in blue states blame Republicans for problems with education, transportation, policing, planning, etc., then there is literally no accountability. We saw this happen this summer. George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin. Almost everything to do with his training, pay, etc., was decided by the Minneapolis City Council or the Minneapolis Mayor. The last Republican on the city council left office 23 years ago. There hasn't been a Republican mayor of Minneapolis since 1973. That guy served for a day--the last Republican who served a real term left office in 1961.

Somehow, police brutality in Seattle, Minneapolis, New York City, etc., was laid at the feet of Trump has his voters, who have pretty much nothing to do with and no power over municipal services in Seattle, Minneapolis, New York City, etc.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#150

Post by rayiner »

Merman_Mike wrote: post #94
medium_burrito wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything gives room for corruption and incompetence. The problem is the US has some of the most incompetent government on a local level in the developed world. Part of it is American individualism, part of it is the Republican party starving the beast, part of it is the government as a giant jobs program. There is no reason we cannot have competent civil servants, long term planning, clean cities, etc. I'm complete…

> There is no reason we cannot have competent civil servants, long term planning, clean cities, etc. I agree absolutely. That's what makes it so frustrating.

Why do you think that's true? Many (most?) countries don't have competent civil servants, long term planning, clean cities, etc. Why do we just assume Americans can do it when say Italians cannot?
Post reply on HN