New York passes pied-a-terre tax • Hacker News Board

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#151

Post by lazide » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #135

arw0n wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fairest and easiest to realize wealth tax is on inheritance. It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world, it is terrible for them and the people around them to set them up for life.

I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed. Passing the fruits of a lifetime of work to ones heirs so they can continue do productive work instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed.

First one makes sense, second one I’m quizzical about.

Inheritance taxes tend to only kick in at the 8+ digit range.

If anything, taxing that should encourage descendents to do productive work, eh? Since not taxing it, but taxing other things actually discourages it?

I can’t imagine how it would result in anyone relying on public largesse either unless they are really terrible with money. In which case a few extra zeros is unlikely to help any?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#152

Post by WalterBright » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #95

burlesona wrote: post #22

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…

> If it turns out the uber-rich don't mind paying and this becomes a cash cow for the city, that creates incentives for the city to cater to them and try and get more uber-rich people to have second homes in the city. The tax is reasonably small enough that I wouldn't expect a lot of wealthy people from divesting from their properties, but it's probably going to make them think twice about buying new properties. That…

> If you make the tax too high it starts discouraging the behavior you're taxing, which can paradoxically reduce overall tax revenue.

The Law of Supply and Demand is not a paradox.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#153

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #135

arw0n wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fairest and easiest to realize wealth tax is on inheritance. It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world, it is terrible for them and the people around them to set them up for life.

I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed. Passing the fruits of a lifetime of work to ones heirs so they can continue do productive work instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed.

> Earning…

Inheritance is, notably, not earning it.

> continue do productive work

That's a pretty bald assertion. Useless nepo babies abound.

> relying on public largesse

Any chance the existence of a stable, well-educated, high-trust society benefits the children of wealthy people at all?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#154

Post by gopalv » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

arw0n wrote: post #110

burlesona wrote: post #22

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…

The fairest and easiest to realize wealth tax is on inheritance. It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world, it is terrible for them and the people around them to set them up for life.

> It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world

I might live till 72, my kids will be my age right now when they hit inheritance instead.

That's not a headstart.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#155

Post by dml2135 » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #7

I think this is in the right direction, but the cut off at $1M is interesting. Why's there an obsession with the $1m cutoff? The dollar has been turned to dust. $1M is not that much money, especially in housing, especially in NYC. Why tax $1m second homes and not second homes generally? Effectively, you're going to tax almost all second homes. So why the arbitrary cutoff? Chicago wanted to add a "millionaire's tax" o…

As TFA states, in NYC the assessed value of a home and the market value of a home are wildly different, with the assessed value being much, much lower.

This is $1mil in assessed value which would translate to roughly $5mil in market value.

In NYC $1mil market value is pretty much the starting price for a 1-bedroom condo in a gentrified area. $5mil market value, on the other hand, is a pretty luxurious place.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#156

Post by zeeveener » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

petcat wrote: post #122

VikingCoder wrote: post #106

> While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said. 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 bu…

What happens after the city buys it? Also, most municipalities do not have the funds on hand to buy up people's houses just to call their bluff on taxes.

They attempt to sell it at market-rate which, assuming the previous owner intentionally under-valued the house, would earn them money that they can use to continue the program.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#157

Post by nonethewiser » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

Neywiny wrote: post #3

Probably the least complicated tax law. Increase taxes to increase revenue. Makes sense. Align valuations with reality while maintaining relatively constant absolute tax dollar amounts. Also makes sense. It's really not that hard.

>Probably the least complicated tax law. Increase taxes to increase revenue. Makes sense.

Not so fast.

1) It is complicated. It has progressives rates that start out higher for 2 years then decreases but coincides with how the base is calculated.

2) The budget projections assumes no behavioral changes from the taxed residents. This doesn't seem like a safe assumption. You should at least assume some amount of the tax base leaves since it disincentives 2nd properties.

This doesnt mean its a bad plan. But it's definitely not the least complicated tax law. I'd say thats more like sales tax or something.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#158

Post by kelseyfrog » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #135

arw0n wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fairest and easiest to realize wealth tax is on inheritance. It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world, it is terrible for them and the people around them to set them up for life.

I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed. Passing the fruits of a lifetime of work to ones heirs so they can continue do productive work instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed.

And I think that inheritance, while a natural desire, is morally wrong. It's an example that desires aren't always congruent with morality. People will go to great lengths to justify their conclusion.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#159

Post by csomar » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:50 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #22

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…

No, a tax will always reduce demand \saying otherwise basically ignores decades of established economics.

> that creates incentives for the city to cater to them

What does that even mean? If catering to the wealthy was profitable, everyone would do it. Just look at Dubai, it's built entirely around that model, and it's a brutally competitive space. NYC attracts the mega-wealthy for a different reason: network effects. Meta-wealthy come to be around other mega-wealthy people.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#160

Post by jmull » Thu, May 28, 2026, 4:50 PM UTC

cjs_ac wrote: post #12

> New York City’s new tax on second homes will more than double property taxes owed by many wealthy luxury apartment owners, according to tax experts. > State lawmakers on Wednesday passed the tax on nonprimary residences in order to help close the city’s budget gap. The so-called pied-a-terre tax will be imposed on second homes valued at $1 million or more. It’s expected to raise $500 million in revenue. > Details o…

You missed a key detail: the NYC valuation system undervalues properties to the tune of around 10% of their actual market value. So your 6.5% tax is effectively aroubd a 0.65% tax against actual market value. That’s not bad (it’s a lot better than what I pay for my regular middle class home. Not in NYC, but I pay a bit shy of 2% annually)