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

251–260 of 459 posts

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#251

Post by cyberax »

jdappletini wrote: post #242
everdrive wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I feel sort of stupid for failing to notice that it would if nothing else just increase tax revenue. I was stuck in a perspective that this was about increasing housing stock.

Yeah Mamdani is firing on all fronts. There is plan to add to the housing stock as well: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/05/mayor-mamdani... He is also aggressively going after landlords withholding repairs, maintaining dilapidated units, etc. and thus tackling the quality of the housing stock problem.

That's because he's planning to fail upwards. None of his plans will result in positive outcomes but they'll look good on paper.

So he'll move to a higher office and leave his messes for the next sucker.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#252

Post by cakealert »

ceejayoz wrote: post #218
cakealert wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you invest in $AMZN, much less so. But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.

It's not really that "out of my control" if I can convert it back to cash with a few clicks of a button.

The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#253

Post by newaccountman2 »

jmye wrote: post #231
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.

> 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. Help me understand your comment. Do you think the country is only made up of like, 3 big coastal cities? Do you think the only houses worth living in are several thousand square feet in only the coolest parts of town? I want to understand what you think the country actually looks like, her…

You quoted the part that clarifies this: "worth living in"

Subjective, obviously. My view is that I wouldn't live almost anywhere outside of one of the major coastal cities in a blue state. Certainly nowhere in "flyover country".

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#254

Post by arbitrary_name »

elevation wrote: post #35
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…

[flagged]

what does this even mean?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#255

Post by technothrasher »

Manuel_D wrote: post #236
socalgal2 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious what you think the correct solution is? You're rich, you have a kid, you die when the kid is 2yrs old. So they get nothing? 12? 22? 32?. Is there some "correct" number? If you're raising them in some $100m home do they get booted out and put in a tenement? On the other hand, most people die closer to 75-80 and their kids are 50+. Leaving inheritance to them isn't really spoiling them as they are alread a…

In the US, the inheritance taxes don't kick in until $15M ($30M for married couples). Even at 2 years old, a child can inherit more money than most people will make in their lifetime before a dime is paid to the IRS.

Federal inheritance taxes. There are also state inheritance taxes in many states. NY, for example, kicks in at ~$7M. MA kicks in at $2M.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#256

Post by ExoticPearTree »

LauraMedia wrote: post #39
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #27

[flagged]

This argument is used again and again and I wonder: Why do "people with money" stay where they are when there are countries, islands, even just states where there is less taxes to pay?

> This argument is used again and again and I wonder: Why do "people with money" stay where they are when there are countries, islands, even just states where there is less taxes to pay?

Like others said in the comments here: there's a balance of how much money you have to pay as tax until you move to other places. New York is taxing people on top of whatever other taxes are there just because they have money.

My issue is that if people earned the money fair and square, they shouldn't be taxed because they were successful. And this is what this tax does: oh, you afford to buy a 10M home, here's an X% annual tax just because.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#257

Post by nkohari »

dirtikiti wrote: post #208
blactuary wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of this isn't simply to raise revenue, it's also to discourage parking money in empty properties when it's one of the most expensive cities to live in and doesn't have enough housing

No, the goal is to overhaul the property tax system. This is going to raise property taxes for everyone. The ultra wealthy can just pack up and move. It doesn't affect them in the slightest. But in two years when the property tax overhaul is complete, the middle class will foot the bill. As per usual.

Can you explain how that would happen? This tax is limited to second homes only.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#258

Post by steveBK123 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #224
steveBK123 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.. spend enough time amongst the inheritocracy and you'll see the wealth is as often as not wasted on them. There's just too much fun to be had with 0.1% wealth that you didn't have to sacrifice your 20s, 30s (and maybe 40s) to build. Coast at some job with a top 25-50% income and 0.1% inheritance in NYC and live the life.

So if you're spending your inheritance living the high life, that economic activity benefits a lot of other people. Still a net positive in my view. I get the political power concern, and money = power at a certain point. But I'd rather work on getting money out of politics than putting limits on what people can decide will happen to their assets after they die.

The problem is that theres a lot of stuff in the tax code that allows those at the higher end to also defer taxes indefinitely. So not taxing estates/inheritance, and allowing these deferrals leaves assets untaxed at the high end forever.

For example, step up basis allows inherited assets to have their cost basis re-struck at the value at time of inheritance. So if there is no inheritance tax, the assets transfer to a new owner and a large chunk of value is forever untaxed, even when/if they eventually sell.

Similarly all sorts of interesting stuff that can be done with trusts. Again stuff that's only accessible / worth the hassle to 1%.

In a world with extreme outcomes due to scaling, we might accidentally be re-inventing the hereditary aristocracy if the assets can accumulate outside the tax system.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#259

Post by jandrewrogers »

joquarky wrote: post #235
jandrewrogers wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't done because it has overt pathological economic characteristics. This forces the owner to write a long-term call option on a non-commodity asset without even collecting the offsetting risk premium expected for such a call option. This puts the asset permanently underwater by construction, which would crater asset values. The maths don't math. You can't just pick one side of a balanced equation and pretend th…

When people start using financial terminology outside the natural context, it's either gish gallop or justifying antisocial behavior.

It is a good thing this is the natural context for this terminology then, being the literal domain for which the terminology exists. If someone doesn't understand the fundamental concepts being discussed then why should anyone give credence to their opinion?

Your "gish gallop" and "justifying antisocial behavior" dismissal is almost literally how creationists dismiss discussions of evolution.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#260

Post by ceejayoz »

cakealert wrote: post #252
ceejayoz wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really that "out of my control" if I can convert it back to cash with a few clicks of a button.

The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.

> Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that.

Liquidity doesn't matter? Huh.

That's a Nobel Prize in Economics waiting to be awarded, if true.

Post reply on HN