211–220 of 288 posts
Tax them to oblivion, the goal should be for them to sell! Let them go to Dubai if they don't like it.
Before long Mamdani will provide yet another proof of Thatcher's well-known dictum on socialism: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes. I feel like Americans and New Yorkers have been very clear about what they want in housing: more of it, and cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they way to “handle” this is to stop viewing housing as “investment” - especially short-term investment. once you do that, you are good. when you buy you will consider all the implications of that decision and then you can live with it when you need different housing
> stop viewing housing as “investment” whether something is an investment or not is not a subjective opinion, but an objective fact. If it takes effort, capital and time/labour to create, it's an investment, because such resources have alternative uses. Just because this cost have been paid as a lump sum in the past (for constructing a building and/or buying the land etc), doesn't mean that cost is now sunk and is "l…
There’s no reason that the cost of something you need “must be recouped” in future by you having and using that thing.
> an initiative to appease Mayor Zohran Mamdani and liberal voters Taxing the rich is not a Liberal thing, but the Rich is calling it that because they do not want to pay any taxes at all. He was elected because people are starting to feel real pain and seeing the ultra rich paying far less taxes then they are. If it was up to me, I would tax all the second homes above 5 million USD and add a Luxury Tax on all valuab…
taxing the rich is a how the fuck do we afford to take care of society thing, plain and simple. a poor government can’t provide services and infrastructure. anything else is framing and optics
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.
I don't think the demand for second homes worth over $5 million is a major driver of construction of new units in NYC.
Tax them to oblivion, the goal should be for them to sell! Let them go to Dubai if they don't like it.
Before long Mamdani will provide yet another proof of Thatcher's well-known dictum on socialism: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> is that really what people want? Yes. I feel like Americans and New Yorkers have been very clear about what they want in housing: more of it, and cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> stop viewing housing as “investment” whether something is an investment or not is not a subjective opinion, but an objective fact. If it takes effort, capital and time/labour to create, it's an investment, because such resources have alternative uses. Just because this cost have been paid as a lump sum in the past (for constructing a building and/or buying the land etc), doesn't mean that cost is now sunk and is "l…
Now do cars and food… There’s no reason that the cost of something you need “must be recouped” in future by you having and using that thing.
Food is obviously not comparable (you must consume it and only s*t is left over).
Cars depreciate quickly becase they wear out in the timespan of a couple decades. You can keep them going longer but it's a labor of love, not really economically worthwhile.
Housing is completely different. Absent some disaster (fire, earthquakes) it will last centuries with just basic routine maintenance. Given that inflation is a perpetual constant, something that lasts that long can't possibly not appreciate, it inevitably must.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
>I'm sure we can count that as a given. It's very unlikely, he has pledged to give away most of his wealth in his lifetime, but there are a variety of factors that will always add space for detractors to make fair points. Bill Gates is still worth billions despite being an endless waterfall of charity money for decades. Either way, the step-up thing is way way way more common in the upper class, where people with ~$2…
> It's very unlikely, he has pledged to give away most of his wealth in his lifetime,
The ultra rich give away donations in the form of stock, so they never sell it, just transfer it. So no tax to them and they get a tax deduction for the donation fair market value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now do cars and food… There’s no reason that the cost of something you need “must be recouped” in future by you having and using that thing.
> Now do cars and food… Food is obviously not comparable (you must consume it and only s*t is left over). Cars depreciate quickly becase they wear out in the timespan of a couple decades. You can keep them going longer but it's a labor of love, not really economically worthwhile. Housing is completely different. Absent some disaster (fire, earthquakes) it will last centuries with just basic routine maintenance. Given…
The housing is artificially inflated and you are one administration away (e.g. see current one for the kind of power we experience in 'democracy') from having your "investment" worth a lot less than you think it is. Why do you think you and I are able to deduct mortgage interest but when I charge my credit card for gambling, hookers and cocaine (a lot more enjoyable than housing) I am unable to deduct my 29.99% interest on my Visa?! What about "villas for 1 euro" that you can buy throughout say Italy? some of them are older than our country is and I am not sure you'd be happy with your "investment" if you bought it in 1999 but you know, "something that last that long can't possibly not appreciate, right?!"