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

191–200 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#191

Post by lovich »

cybercatgurrl wrote: post #182
lovich wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy thinks a tax on second homes in fucking NYC is going to disproportionately harm the middle class. He is economically illiterate. Edit: scratch that, he also mentioned leaving a rent controlled apartment because of a crabs in a bucket mentality. I think he’s lying to push his own political agenda which appears to be that of the rich never paying taxes. I’ll lol if he’s some pleb like most of us and is just ru…

many people are convinced on some level that things are the way they have to be for a reason. lots of people internalise capitalism. it’s a way to rectify the cognitive dissonance

It’s nothing to do about capitalism. It’s just being deceitful or ignorant to reality. It’s one of the most expensive areas for land and homes on the planet. Owning multiple units means you are definitionally not in the middle class.

You can be in that cohort and not necessarily be the 1%, 0.1%, etc but you are not the middle.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#192

Post by Garlef »

kube-system wrote: post #158
Jblx2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is one source (with 2022 data): https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... - The top 1% of income earners pay 40.4% of the total U.S. Federal Income Tax receipts - Top 5% pays 61.0% - Top 10% pays 72.0% - Top 25% pays 87.2% - Top 50% pays 97.0% ...of course that doesn't include payroll taxes (Social Security).

And for reference, here's what kind of incomes those percentiles are: Top 50%: $53k/year Top 25%: $93k/year Top 10%: $155k/year Top 5%: $210k/year Top 1%: $450k/year

I think these numbers are not suited to say anything substantial about the position of ultra rich people in society.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#194

Post by gaadd33 »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #139
dwa3592 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>This post makes the mistake of counting unrealized gains as income. That's not how taxes or investments work. Unrealized gains are NOT income. Rich people always borrow money on the stocks they own. In effect, those unrealized gains help them borrow money which they spend like income. I will spend part of my paycheck to buy a cup of coffee and they will spend part of the loaned money to buy the same cup of coffee.…

The interest rate charged generates taxes, the purchases they make with the credit they borrow generate taxes, and the money they leave in their investments generate taxes through capital usage like paying employees, paying vendors, building facilities, etc. The government taxes every little thing so don't think that money is not generating taxes at all. It actually generates more federal and state taxes by staying i…

How does the interest rate of margin loans generate taxes? Just curious since I'm not sure there's any provision explicitly taxing margin income for banks and brokerages. Especially since some brokers will give you the prime rate plus a few basis points, I can't see how there's enough margin in that to cover an explicit tax on it.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#195

Post by bfeynman »

javanissen wrote: post #52
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.

Do you live here? I do, and I’m astounded by the number of 1- to 3-story buildings and surface parking lots (!) dotted throughout Manhattan, especially outside of the skyscraper clusters in midtown and downtown. There is an unbelievable shortage of housing that is solvable only by increasing supply and building upwards. It’s not even single-family homes; why are there any one-story buildings in the lower east side?

is that really what people want? The fact that people say why not have 50 story concrete blocks everywhere to get more people feels like exact thing that would destroy what makes living in the city nice... Tenement housing sucked, why add thousands of people to crammed parts of city. We should be incentivizing sprawl and better transportation.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#197

Post by zeroonetwothree »

saulpw wrote: post #51
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.…

Gosh, 1% on $1m, that's almost $10k! I can see that how would discourage homeownership and distort the market. Actually wait, I can't.

“almost”?

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#198

Post by 9x39 »

javanissen wrote: post #180
cyberax wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The flophouses and dorms and SROs were a key part of the housing market that kept Manhattan more affordable and therefore livable in the 20th century, when density was up to 40% greater than it is now. ???? Can you provide the citation for higher density in the early 20th century? > I live here. The thing making Manhattan unlivable is that a one-bedroom is $4500 in the east village due to not enough supply. And the…

> Can you provide the citation for higher density in the early 20th century? It was a quick google search and the value was taken from the Gemini result, which is not great practice. Thank you for asking for citations. Unironically! Good discussion on this site matters to me, and I want my positions to have strong foundations. I looked into it more deeply and have found the actual numbers. The 1910 density was more l…

Thoughtful reply.

>I claim that Detroit was hollowed out precisely by anti-density and pro-suburbanization practices.

>When you send factories to the suburbs and then put highways straight through the neighborhoods in your city where people actually live and work, that's not densification leading to bad outcomes. It is detonating a city via discriminatory urban policy

Isn't this overstating the role of policy?

1. Wage arbitrage by the Big 3 to avoid urban auto unions out to the suburbs

2. Post-WW2 economic manuf. wind-down [1]

3. Post-WW2 highway build-up enabling suburbia

Looking at the things out of Detroit's hands, I don't think we should lean on policy as much because policy can't nail the factories to the ground or prevent their closure. The economic trends simply appeared much more powerful than city policy.

The fate of the Detroit city limits auto cluster could have been sealed with the war end. Businesses often want to escape high costs if they can do so without giving up their operation or market share, and they were able to do just that with the MI suburbs and highways.

Policy might have been able to delay the collapse if, like you promote, the city managed to encourage building housing to relieve the rent and home price pressure. However this seems nigh impossible in practice (even in NYC?) because property owners are politically connected and generally do not like values to go down, a classic case of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs [2].

[1] https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2...

[2] https://1889institute.org/the-problem-of-diffuse-costs-and-c...

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#200

Post by zeroonetwothree »

wat10000 wrote: post #128
Jblx2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is one source (with 2022 data): https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... - The top 1% of income earners pay 40.4% of the total U.S. Federal Income Tax receipts - Top 5% pays 61.0% - Top 10% pays 72.0% - Top 25% pays 87.2% - Top 50% pays 97.0% ...of course that doesn't include payroll taxes (Social Security).

Focusing on a single tax is silly. We should look at all taxes paid across all levels of government. Federal income tax is one of the most progressive taxes out there, so of course that's what people focus on when they want to make the point that wealthy people are being sacrificed to the altar of taxation. If you look at all taxes, the share paid is remarkably close to the share earned. According to https://itep.org…

How do I sign up for this magical 25% “effective tax rate”? Last year mine was 46% and that’s only counting income tax (state + federal).
Post reply on HN