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

241–250 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#241

Post by Ar-Curunir »

Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #226
Ar-Curunir wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that a number of modern social and economic problems can be traced back to Thatcher and Reagan policies, anybody quoting Thatcher unironically should not be taken seriously.

Given that Socialism has shown time and time again to lead to economical and societal disaster, anyone supporting it unironically should not be taken seriously. Show me the proof of a working Socialist system [1] and I might change my mind. Otherwise you're just deflecting through misplaced ad-hominems. [1] No, the Scandinavian countries are not socialist countries - I live in one of then. Neither is the Netherlands,…

Whatever Mamdani is implementing is also not USSR-style socialism. It’s at best similar to the system you live in Europe.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#242

Post by kube-system »

anamax wrote: post #190
kube-system wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He pays income tax just like everyone else. He only paid income taxes on $80k while at Amazon. The wealthy often make their money as capital gains, which if they held for at least one year, are exempt from the income tax and taxed at no higher than 20% Billionaires literally have their own set of tax brackets in this country: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409

> The wealthy often make their money as capital gains, which if they held for at least one year, are exempt from the income tax Not even close. As your link shows, "the wealthy" pay taxes on long-term capital gains. The lowest rate (for "the wealthy") is 15% but they can owe 20% or even 28% in certain circumstances.

I didn't say they didn't pay taxes. I said the money was exempt from the income tax, which it is.

Capital gains are not taxed as income, it is taxed as a capital gain, which has significantly lower rates than income tax.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#243

Post by kube-system »

Garlef wrote: post #192
kube-system wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree which was why I included the context.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#244

Post by WarmWash »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #237
WarmWash wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting confused because you are failing to recognize that the owners wealth is being taxed when those other taxes are paid. If the company had a magical exemption from all taxes, the owner would have a substantially high net worth. The gap between that hypothetical value, and the real value, is the tax being paid.

This is not only self-serving and/or bootlicking drivel, it's economically illiterate at a level that shouldn't exist outside econ 101 class. Taxes on a transaction are paid by the party with less elasticity / bargaining power, which is, in aggregate, the worker. Also, you didn't address the r>g elephant in the room.

From the governments POV, they don't care, businesses are farms where tax money grows. The corn may claim full ownership of it's kernels, but the farmer and the broker know that the farmer is the one who took the risk and provided all the needs for the corn to safely divide cells all day. The larger the farm, the more money tax revenue harvested.

Thankfully we are not corn, and every one of us is free to break off and make our own farm (or go to another one). However for the last few hundred years, people have flocked away from having their own farms into just safely dividing cells all day on someone else's farm. It's not surprising that capital concentrates when everyone would rather work for someone else than work for themselves. But at least we have a lifeline, where pretty much anyone can sign up with a broker and buy capital assets in a day.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#245

Post by bobthepanda »

bragr wrote: post #91
bobthepanda wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure but they are still a finite resource. Once you've transferred those rights to a super tall luxury condo building, you can't readily transform that into affordable middle class and lower income housing.

You could, theoretically, just keep upzoning the underlying parcel without any detriment to neighborhood character.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#247

Post by NordStreamYacht »

gaadd33 wrote: post #193
NordStreamYacht wrote: post #187

If I was a rich dude in nyc I would set up a shell company, transfer ownership to that, and then rent it back from the shell.

So then the rich guy is an NYC resident and pays taxes there, that's a great outcome for the city.

Huh.

That's disappointing.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#248

Post by lux-lux-lux »

javanissen wrote: post #230
al_borland wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was a developer and building owner who only cared about money, it seems like it would be much better to build a luxury building where the units are sold, but sit empty most of the time. This seems to be the environment in NYC. The proper systems need to be in place so it makes sense to build housing for actual people, rather than building stored real estate value for the ultra rich, especially foreign investors…

> these mostly vacant buildings in a city with a housing affordability problem Vacancy rates are extremely low in NYC at 1.4%. Anything below 5% indicates drastic under-supply of housing. I don’t think that vacant real estate for billionaires is a significant contributor; it’s almost exclusively an issue of supply.

That percentage only includes the openly listed units; NYC has a massive shadow inventory of rentable inventory deliberately kept off-market for various reasons.

1 Wall St, for example, kept 85% of its units arbitrarily off market in order to prop up rents, and thus imputed property valuation. This kind of behavior shouldn’t be encouraged by the state and financial system, but guess what we do!

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#249

Post by rootusrootus »

bobthepanda wrote: post #78
stavros wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 youngste…

> rotisserie chicken

It has to be a deliberate joke, right? Isn’t rotisserie chicken the poster child for loss leaders? For all the reasons to buy it, luxury is the bottom of the list.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#250

Post by TitaRusell »

bfeynman wrote: post #195
javanissen wrote: post #52

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 nobody wants to live in cities which is why nobody lives there.

Tokio, Singapore, Amsterdam- all ghost towns.

Post reply on HN