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

291–300 of 459 posts

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#291

Post by bdangubic »

wat10000 wrote: post #283
ElevenLathe wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how you envision money ever leaving politics. I hear this phrase often and every time I do it feels more and more nonsensical. Politics is what we call the social aspect of resource management (it's often called "political economy" for this reason). The only way I can see to remove money from politics is to create a society that has no money at all. I assume that isn't what you mean?

I'm sure it can't be removed entirely, but we could, for example, start imprisoning people who give or accept bribes.

We already do that.

- Bob Menendez (Senator)

- Randy Cunningham (Congressman)

- William J. Jefferson (Congressman)

- James Traficant (Congressman)

And a bunch more at more "local" level...

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#292

Post by dnautics »

sandeepkd wrote: post #161
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 think its a good idea in general to tax the second property for any country where housing is a struggle. Its usage based taxation so fair in some sense. Housing is somewhat of a critical asset for a normal safe life. Commercialization of housing properties creates a circular effect on the pricing, thereby increasing the cost of almost everything else.

[dead]

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#293

Post by dirtikiti »

nkohari wrote: post #257
dirtikiti wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this is literally a cover to overhaul the property tax assessment system in New York.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/new-york-passes-ma...

"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.

Rather than overhaul the system immediately, the city will gradually update valuations – and the tax – according to the budget documents. Starting in the 2028-2029 tax year, the property values will be based on comparable sales. Since valuations will skyrocket, the tax rates will fall to compensate."

this is, at minimum, a 10% increase in ALL property taxes. And the people most affected will be the lower and middle class.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#294

Post by carlosjobim »

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…

Who benefits most of a city being improved by tax dollar spending? Property owners. They benefit in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars each. Thus it makes sense they contribute the most tax dollars.

Or show me a worker who benefits the same amount of money from the city being improved.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#295

Post by hungryhobbit »

kjshsh123 wrote: post #266
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.

It's really not the easiest. You have to prevent gifting things at a lower tax rate while alive. That means it comes bundled with income tax or gift tax implications. Fairest? I mean, land value tax is fair. So are Pigouvian taxes. In fact they're arguable more than fair. Not having these taxes is arguably unfair. Who deserves ownership of natural resources or to inflict negative externalities on others? Taking thing…

I think to everyone but a nepo baby it's clear that the children of the rich don't deserve their wealth.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#296

Post by janalsncm »

cyberax wrote: post #271
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

Expensive cities will never have enough housing. The cure is to discourage investment in them and force it into less dense cities.

They are expensive largely because of housing so your statement is a bit of a tautology.

Historically NYC housing used to be a lot more affordable before they stopped building, reducing supply relative to demand and thereby raising prices.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#297

Post by idontwantthis »

waisbrot wrote: post #212
idontwantthis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing owning a house with having paid off a mortgage. I can go get a mortgage for $1 million tomorrow, but that does not make me a millionaire. It makes me an debtor with a house I can't afford.

Most Americans cannot get a mortgage for $1M.

Yes, that’s more to the point.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#298

Post by closetohome »

jimbob45 wrote: post #74
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…

I agree and I’d prefer to see apartments excluded from this. Apartments are what I want second-homeowners to own rather than hoarding valuable land.

> The bill exempts the following categories:

> The primary residence of at least one owner.

> The primary residence of a parent or child of at least one owner.

> Cooperative and condominium units that are appraised at less than $5 million in the previous three years.

> Properties and dwelling units that are rented to a NYC primary resident.

(https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-pied-a-terre-tax-and...)

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#299

Post by jandrewrogers »

comrade1234 wrote: post #274

Interesting system to compare here in Switzerland. They've never had a property tax. However they did have a tax where they calculate the putative rent you could get for your property and tax you on that income (that you don't really have). So basically a property tax. But they just repealed that system so no more property tax but you can also no longer deduct mortgage interest from your taxes. So now the system favo…

In the US land property taxes are essentially use taxes that pay for the maintenance of infrastructure that supports the property. This is why rural property taxes are very low -- there is no infrastructure that needs to be maintained that would justify the tax. Use taxes are broadly efficient.

If land property taxes were wealth taxes then you'd be able to deduct e.g. mortgage debt when applying the tax rate.

In this regard, property taxes in the US largely make sense.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#300

Post by happytoexplain »

newaccountman2 wrote: post #253
jmye wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Even disregarding the fact that your description here still doesn't meet the $1M bar you set in the original comment, you are using the general term "worth living in" to describe places you would live, which is way more elitist than is typical of HN.

I too would only live in a small subset of the country (a different, but not opposite, subset from you). But I would never do something as petty/hostile as describe those places as "the only places worth living."

Post reply on HN