Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York passes pied-a-terre tax

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 459 posts

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#171

Post by Terr_ »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #158
SoftTalker wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> while a natural desire

Or look at monarchies and titles of nobility. In the past direct inheritance of political assets was common, and acting on that natural desire, the people involve claimed that parents deserved to direct what they (and their ancestors) had accumulated on to the next generation of their own family.

Yet nowadays most countries and people have decided it is immoral, and they also took steps to make common forms of it extremely illegal.

My point is that economic inheritance today is just as much a social-construct as political inheritance was then. It exists because we permit it to exist, don't be fooled by anyone claiming it's an intrinsic law of the universe or a divine mandate by god that must be obeyed.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#172

Post by WalterBright »

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.

The federal estate tax is 40%. NYC adds in another 16%.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#173

Post by throwaway2037 »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #149
Aurornis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm not sure why if you or I were to expatriate and let go of our US citizenship, we'd still be on the hook for taxes for (iirc) 15 years, but the ultra wealthy can get away with tax havens while remaining citizenship and reaping the benefits of protection by X state. What prevents the tax following the offshoring attempts? Is it simply that the IRS doesn't have the manpower? or is there a legal loophole for avoiding…

    > we'd still be on the hook for taxes for (iirc) 15 years
This is defintely not true. I did some light Google searches and I cannot anything. There is an exit tax, but only applies if your net worth exceeds 2million USD.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#174

Post by jlamberts »

thomasjeff1 wrote: post #128

Why tax the middle class within $1m-$5m. The tax should only apply to upwards of $10m. This is wrong.

I'd agree with you if this applied to primary residences, but it seems like this only applies to secondary residences? I find it hard to reconcile "middle class" with "has a second home in NYC"

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#175

Post by nonethewiser »

ceejayoz wrote: post #119
freediddy wrote: post #73

What's to stop them from selling to a holding company so that it's not literally his own second house?

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-pied-a-terre-tax-and... > It is unclear how DOF will treat properties owned by LLCs and trusts. In general, these owners are not considered residents. However, this does not mean that the properties are not used as primary residences. For instance, based on publicly available information, Mayor Bloomberg established his primary residence in two adjacent buildings on the Upper E…

Now remember they are changing how property values are assessed. So everyone's base rises and the rich with 2nd homes dont pay the extra tax because they move it into an LLC.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#176

Post by tantalor »

nonethewiser wrote: post #141
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…

> Then the government has the choice of taxing them at the scheduled rate, or buying the property from them, for that cost. Uhh... what? How is this not an insane system? 1. You give an accurate, good faith projection. 2. Government taxes you. OR Government buys your house. Weird. You buy a comparable house with the proceeds. 3. Repeat.

For the tax authority (and the public) it's a win/win:

1. Property is taxed at correct rate (win)

2. City buys property at low cost (win)

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#177

Post by WalterBright »

gruez wrote: post #167
SoftTalker wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"?

> So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"?

Taxes on somebody else.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#178

Post by newaccountman2 »

happytoexplain wrote: post #116
newaccountman2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In what world is 1 million US not wealthy? In the US itself (?) lol I disagree with the comment and entire existence of the person to whom you are replying, but they aren't wrong about $1m actually not being as big or watershed a number as it used to be. A basic middle-class house in just about any part of the country that's worth living in is going to be $1m, plus or minus 200k.

"that's worth living" is doing some Herculean lifting there. I'm sorry to inform you that only the wealthy can live in the places you deem "worth living". You are not using the phrase "middle-class" correctly. I'm not coming at this from a rural perspective. I live in the greater NYC area. I have friends in NYC. They make a lot of money and live very close to Grand Central, and even they don't live in $1M properties.

I will generally concede to you, sure lol

I have lived in both NYC and Southern California, and I was mostly thinking about SoCal, where in general one assumes a basic middle-class house in a reasonably decent area is going to cost $1m. Do they always? Not necessarily, but even fairly modest houses like my parents house now exceed $1m in value easily.

Out of curiosity, do your friends own condos? Doesn't even a studio condo on the UES cost at least like $600k base (i.e. not counting any fees related to the sale, nor any ongoing HOA)?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#179

Post by toomuchtodo »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #166
toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is unlikely anyone with a second home at these price levels is going to sell to avoid this (immaterial to them) tax. But certainly, if they do sell to someone who will occupy as primary residence, that's also a win, regardless of the coin flip (heads, wealth tax, tails, more housing for those who actively live in the city). Edit: You start somewhere and keep tightening the policy ratchet as loopholes or ot…

>Edit: You start somewhere and keep tightening the policy ratchet as loopholes or other policy leakage are detected. You've found a clever hack? Congrats! The law is updated accordingly. God I hate this sort of armchair despot type thinking. People are not stupid. They're only ok with the absurd attitude given to the government to tax and regulate insofar as it's mostly kept it out of the grubby mitts of those who'll…

The scope of my comment you cite is the usual "extremely wealthy people using loopholes to avoid taxes while burdening your average joe with them instead".

This is not "your math is slightly off and we're going to be punitive." This is defending against tax evasion strategies by those with the wealth and power to attempt them. If you don't believe in taxes, or don't believe the wealthy should have the majority of the burden, certainly, we will not find common ground.

My mental model is "You are very wealthy because you are very lucky. The cost to you for the societal socioeconomic system enabling this wealth is higher tax rates than those who work. Please pay your taxes due for a system that enabled your accumulation of wealth, and permission to keep it during your lifetime. If you attempt to evade the system, we will improve the system accordingly." One owes taxes on a lottery ticket, this is no different, just a different form of lottery ticket that paid out.

If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance. - https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-... - March 1st, 2018

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 : Talent vs. Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

Tax evasion by millionaires and billionaires tops $150 billion a year, says IRS chief - https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/22/tax-evasion-by-wealthiest-am... - February 22nd, 2024

Panama Papers helps recover more than $1.2B around the world - https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/panama-pap... - April 3rd, 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#180

Post by JackFr »

newaccountman2 wrote: post #66
everdrive wrote: post #21

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?

> Wont, as a rule, any super-rich 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes in New York be completely unaffordable for almost everyone? ?? The point is to raise revenue. In some sense, City is calling the bluff of these deeply immoral rich fucks; the tax is incredibly affordable for them, and almost all of them will simply complain and pay it, and thus generate revenue for the City.

> these deeply immoral rich fucks

If that is your starting point, I don't think you're going to approach tax policy rationally.

Ken Griffin may be deeply immoral -- I don't know -- but it's not a condition of being rich.

Post reply on HN