101–110 of 459 posts
I'm really curious about this. Wont, as a rule, any super-rich 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes in New York be completely unaffordable for almost everyone? It feels a bit like you're potentially spreading around the super-luxury homes across a wider breadth of the super-rich, but not much else. Is there a better way to think about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Miami? Have you checked home insurance rates lately? The thought of these NYC second home owners getting gutted by the next hurricane is rather amusing though.
The rich don't really care about insurance rates down here because they can a) pay them, b) tend to gravitate towards newer buildings that have better protection and c) have the money to retrofit older buildings with the necessary protection to lower insurance rates. Miami has the strictest hurricane codes in the country, so while there's a possibility that they may get gutted, it's probably going to be less than peo…
But in all seriousness, they all already own homes in Florida.
On unoccupied or secondary residences specifically, not on wealth overall. This is more of a housing policy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. I wont hold my breath though.
> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account? They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what do you think investment does?
Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?
I heard about a system for this that struck me as brilliant. Make someone declare the value of their property. Then the government has the choice of taxing them at the scheduled rate, or buying the property from them, for that cost.
TADA.
And if someone wants to artificially inflate the value of their home, to reflect the difficulty of moving out, finding a new secondary residence, etc, then that's their business. No worries. We'll tax that additional value, no problem.
I think this system goes back thousands of years. Why not use it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. I wont hold my breath though.
> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account? They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what do you think investment does?
Money is not a tangible thing, you can't eat or drink it. Instead it is a signalling protocol for resource allocation. If the very wealthy have many empty homes, when many people are homeless or inadequately housed, then that signalling protocol has failed (from a social justice point of view), and 'trickle down' is not working.
Property tax is the workable wealth tax. There's no such thing as a perfect policy, but in the context of NYC this seems worth trying. I'll be interested to see if it helps create some liquidity in the housing market (the goal), or if it only functions as revenue source. One wrinkle I haven't heard much discussion of -- cities respond to incentives too. NYC is a global destination for the mega wealthy. If it turns ou…
[flagged]
Stocks should be bought and sold, period the end. That is how the market is supported to work.
If you closed this simple loophole, you would see a massive amount of tax revenue.
Property tax is the workable wealth tax. There's no such thing as a perfect policy, but in the context of NYC this seems worth trying. I'll be interested to see if it helps create some liquidity in the housing market (the goal), or if it only functions as revenue source. One wrinkle I haven't heard much discussion of -- cities respond to incentives too. NYC is a global destination for the mega wealthy. If it turns ou…