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

251–260 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#251

Post by rootusrootus »

wan23 wrote: post #89
saulpw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're comparing the wrong numbers. The question is what 1% of the purchase price does to the amount you need for your down payment and fees. On a 10% down payment an extra 1% increases the amount you need by 10%. Remember that while a million dollar home sounds extravagant, it's first time buyers who often have just barely enough who are trying to buy these.

> On a 10% down payment an extra 1% increases the amount you need by 10%

Because you are not allowed to roll that tax into the loan?

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#252

Post by SoftTalker »

9dev wrote: post #144
SoftTalker wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stock is easier to sell, yes, but it's still just a gain on paper until you actually sell it. Otherwise, those gains could be lost next year. Or tomorrow.

Now this is just disingenuous. As if the net worth of Jeff Bezos and the rest of the Epstein class was somehow threatened by market fluctuations or some high-risk investments. As long as the economy continues to grow, these people will thrive. All while avoiding to pay their share for society.

I have no doubt his investments are well-diversified. He's not an idiot.

My point was simply that income and wealth are two different things, at least for tax purposes.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#253

Post by saulpw »

rootusrootus wrote: post #251
wan23 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing the wrong numbers. The question is what 1% of the purchase price does to the amount you need for your down payment and fees. On a 10% down payment an extra 1% increases the amount you need by 10%. Remember that while a million dollar home sounds extravagant, it's first time buyers who often have just barely enough who are trying to buy these.

> On a 10% down payment an extra 1% increases the amount you need by 10% Because you are not allowed to roll that tax into the loan?

That seems to be the case, though there are other tricks (like raising the sale price and getting the seller to pay the tax).

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#254

Post by rootusrootus »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #241
Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, a cursory check suggests that these kinds of tax schemes are common in Europe.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#255

Post by rootusrootus »

Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #224
trolleski wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes are not socialism.

...bub Mamdani is a socialist and he will run into these problems.

Isn’t he a democratic socialist? I.e. European style social democracy? We don’t see many honest-to-god actual Socialists in the US.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#256

Post by rootusrootus »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #42
jmclnx wrote: post #7

> 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…

i am not in NY, but aren't yearly auto registrations scaled significantly by the value of the auto? that seems to be true in Arizona, for example.

That varies a lot by state.

> Arizona

That’s funny, isn’t Arizona a red state? I guess I’m not that surprised though.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#257

Post by kube-system »

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…

> in 2024, the top 1% earned 20.1% of income while paying 23.9% of taxes.

Within that group, the share is not evenly distributed, though.

Most who are in the 1% club are people who are earning wage income, like doctors, and are getting absolutely reamed with taxes. The vast majority of the 1% are not rich enough to be doing elaborate schemes to avoid taxes.

Billionaires, who are in the top 0.0002%, are an entirely whole different story. There are many figures that show they generally do not pay their fair share in taxes.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#258

Post by rootusrootus »

kube-system wrote: post #242
anamax wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Even though it would hurt me, I feel like eliminating the distinction between capital gains, income, and payroll taxes would be a fairer solution.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#259

Post by jjtheblunt »

rootusrootus wrote: post #256
jjtheblunt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i am not in NY, but aren't yearly auto registrations scaled significantly by the value of the auto? that seems to be true in Arizona, for example.

That varies a lot by state. > Arizona That’s funny, isn’t Arizona a red state? I guess I’m not that surprised though.

Arizona, i find, doesn't so much subscribe to the red / blue dichotomy, seems blended and somewhat balanced, as far as i can tell.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#260

Post by kube-system »

rootusrootus wrote: post #258
kube-system wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even though it would hurt me, I feel like eliminating the distinction between capital gains, income, and payroll taxes would be a fairer solution.

I'd be happy with just a couple of brackets added to the income and capital gains taxes to target the 0.1% and 0.01%
Post reply on HN