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

New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#71

Post by bryanlarsen »

WarmWash wrote: post #64
bryanlarsen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top 10% is the upper middle class, not the ultra rich. A successful surgeon making $1M per year is paying well over 40% a year in taxes, while Bezos is paying 1%.

Bezos pays 40% too. His assets are not income. Just like your assets are not taxed. Ok, but he does that loan-against-assets hack! Well the fact is that those loans eventually need to be paid, so at some point he will pay that 40% (unless he does the step-up basis hack when he dies) Ok, but he should be paying annually like everyone else! Well, technically he is, his assets, the company Amazon, pays a lot of taxes an…

> unless he does the step-up basis hack when he dies

I'm sure we can count that as a given.

> The government views Amazon as a money printer, states get their sales taxes, and the federal government gets their income taxes.

Except when states fall all over themselves to give Amazon a massive tax break to build their second HQ.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#72

Post by 9dev »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #45
9dev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This claim is often repeated but simply misleading. Taxable income is only a tiny fraction of the wealth of ultra rich folks - many even take symbolic wages, because their real compensation happens in stock, which they can use to lend effectively infinite money. There's a great episode of the Ezra Klein Show on this topic too[0]. [0]: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Jjy4drElYHNMRtxVQPENR?si=5...

That does not address the point. You say they should pay even more to address the idea that very few people pay most of the taxes, what is the logic here?

I'm not. I'm saying that the numbers OP stated were misleading. They refer to people with a high income - surgeons, laywers, or engineers -, but not the ultra rich, which don't have a high income in the first place, or it's a tiny slice of their cash flow, while the majority of it is made via non-taxable or low-taxed income streams.

Which means that a lot of people pay a proportionally high percentage of their income, while the Epstein class pays effectively none. That's the logic here.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#73

Post by NickC25 »

bix6 wrote: post #10
busterarm wrote: post #5

I strongly doubt that this is going to have the effect that they want it to. It won't raise the taxes that they expect it to. It won't free up inventory. It will halt construction.

It’ll halt construction on luxury second homes? Wonderful!

Seriously. Instead of using that land to build a $250 million penthouse Ken Griffin only spends 10 days a year in, they could probably build enough housing for 500+ middle class families.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#74

Post by idle_zealot »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #45
9dev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This claim is often repeated but simply misleading. Taxable income is only a tiny fraction of the wealth of ultra rich folks - many even take symbolic wages, because their real compensation happens in stock, which they can use to lend effectively infinite money. There's a great episode of the Ezra Klein Show on this topic too[0]. [0]: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Jjy4drElYHNMRtxVQPENR?si=5...

That does not address the point. You say they should pay even more to address the idea that very few people pay most of the taxes, what is the logic here?

You're insisting on shifting framing to percentage of tax collected. That's irrelevant to the fairness question of percentage of income paid as taxes. The insane imbalance where the rich end up paying half of all taxes while simultaneously paying a fraction of their proportional wealth in taxes only highlights the massive difference in personal wealth. Taxing that at a higher rate only seems unfair if you take the view that all wealth is earned fairly and any attempt at altering the market's allocation of wealth is against the natural order.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#75

Post by fumar »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #61
nickv wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because wealth is also distributed in a very lumpy way across the city. 154 residents of NYC own 33% of the entire wealth of the city... notice I didn't say 1%, I said top 154. They are not contributing 33% of the tax income to the city. So yes, the ultra rich pay "less taxes" if you look at how much of the resident wealth they control. Also, property taxes are significantly lower than appraised value and the richer…

Wealth distribution is a false flag. Rain distribution across the globe is not equal, solar light distribution is not equal and they impact people's life more than wealth distribution. USA and the entire planet's population is at record high in living standards and wealth, but some people are still unhappy because not everything is perfectly equal and at zero entropy like the thermal death of the universe: this is mo…

A false flag to what?

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#76

Post by bobthepanda »

asdff wrote: post #34
nickv wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, when I think of a place that has an overabundance of 2 floor single family homes, I think of Manhattan.

It isn't that which is the issue. It is the fact greenwich village has been at the same height since even before Don Draper's time. You see, the suburban enclaves of long island and upstate and new jersey and the comparatively more built up areas of manhattan do have the exact same issue with regards to housing, and that is there is little room in the zoned capacity to legally add any more housing. In 1961, NYC adopt…

With historic landmarks or districts you can generally transfer unused development capacity to other sites. Grand Central famously was spared from demolition but its unused zoning rights have been transferred elsewhere.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#77

Post by giantg2 »

webdood90 wrote: post #57
bsimpson wrote: post #40

Reactionary taxes like this have a tendency to be ill-considered and have unintended side effects. NY also has a 1% penalty on paying more than $1 million for housing, which was probably enacted to proletariat applause when $1 million was still considered a lot of money. Now it distorts the value of entry level housing in NYC, where you'll have a hard time finding anything more than a studio apartment for $1 million.…

Who are you protecting here? You realize a very small subset of the population can afford a million dollar home, let alone a five million dollar home? The majority of the city does not give a shit.

"The majority of the city does not give a shit."

Based on the voting, it seems they do give a shit but in the opposite direction.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#78

Post by bobthepanda »

stavros wrote: post #63
bestouff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sarcasm (and I enjoyed it).

Yes, and I'm asking what the context for that sarcasm is.

the political and financial elite of New York are coming to terms with the fact that they have completely lost the faith of the lower and middle classes in terms of maintaining or improving living standards. it has been interesting watching the media try to contort themselves to address this.

The WSJ somehow managed to best the infamous "avocado toast" line about saving for a house by suggesting that current youngsters are splurging on rotisserie chicken: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/wall-street-jou...

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#79

Post by bombcar »

cyberax wrote: post #55
ch4s3 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a place like Manhattan might benefit from first up-zoning the low slung sections that are currently 4-8 stories. My point here is that I'd start with trying to build enough housing before spending political capital on marginal things that neither unlock supply nor generate much revenue.

LOL. Why not just build bunkhouses and then rent out bunk beds there? For a cool $5000 a month. Because that's the end goal, isn't it? Manhattan is _already_ one of the densest cities in the world. It needs a good _downzoning_ to be liveable again.

If everyone who wants to pay $5k a month to live in NYC is able to; I’ll be super happy and pleased for them.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#80

Post by bjourne »

ch4s3 wrote: post #4
mikeweiss wrote: post #2

Good! Second homes in any region with low inventory should be taxed...

It seems like a place like Manhattan might benefit from first up-zoning the low slung sections that are currently 4-8 stories. My point here is that I'd start with trying to build enough housing before spending political capital on marginal things that neither unlock supply nor generate much revenue.

How do you know it's ineffective? Other targeted taxes, such as alcohol tax, tobacco tax, congestion tax, etc., have been shown to be very effective.
Post reply on HN