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

361–370 of 459 posts

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#361

Post by ycdeebs »

ryandrake wrote: post #205
koliber wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems with inheritance tax is that they can be avoided through trust structures and insurance schemes. In theory it's a good tax, but in practice many wealthy people figured out how not to pay it.

Those schemes are also human-created though, and can be human-fixed. I've never really understood the arguments that go like: "This regulation won't work because the people it targets will avoid it through loopholes and other schemes." Well, get rid of the loopholes and schemes, then! Granted, this requires lawmakers to explore more of the "exploit space" around their proposed regulations, but I don't think that's re…

The only way to get rid of tax avoidance is to simply tax transactions, every time, for every person, on every transaction.

“Oh, that’s regressive” they will say.

Make it small per transaction. A rich person spending 100x what a normal person spends will pay 100x as much tax. A billionaire spending 10000x what a normal person spends will pay 10000x as much. And they will also be taxed if they borrow money (that’s a transaction) against assets so they don’t have to sell them.

And when someone inherits, that’s also a transaction. Money moves from one person to another. So that same tax applies.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#362

Post by kelseyfrog »

orangecat wrote: post #280
kelseyfrog wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are gifts morally wrong? If I'm near death is it wrong for to give my assets to my children beforehand, or does it only become immoral if done via a will?

Yes. I get the desire, but gifts of wealth when done at scale contribute to the destruction of society. Quantity is a quality all its own.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#363

Post by ycdeebs »

ceejayoz wrote: post #153
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.

> 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?

> Useless nepo babies abound.

Useless non-nepo babies abound. Useless rich people abound. Useless poor people abound. And?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#364

Post by kelseyfrog »

SoftTalker wrote: post #312
kelseyfrog wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think if we're saying inheritance (at least beyond some point) is morally wrong, then we're really just saying that achieving a certain level of wealth is morally wrong. So deal with that directly, rather than putting your hand in someone's wallet after he dies.

That is dealing with it directly.

If I had diabetes, taking insulin is an acceptable remedy even if there is no cure for diabetes.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#365

Post by VikingCoder »

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…

Sorry all, I wasn't explicit, but I was proposing that this would be on non-primary residences.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#366

Post by WalterBright »

Terr_ wrote: post #214
WalterBright wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The federal estate tax is 40% It's misleading to cite that since it basically never happens. The tax doesn't even come into the picture for fortunes below $30 million dollars (for two parents), and the rest of the time it averages ~14%. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-federal-estate...

Why not repeal it, then?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#367

Post by Neywiny »

nonethewiser wrote: post #157
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…

1) A bit of hyperbole on my part but consider that minimum wages and other worker benefits have worked like this for a long time. They tend to ramp up.

2) good. The more people who are in the city the more actual sales tax and other revenue is generated.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#368

Post by VikingCoder »

everforward wrote: post #202
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…

> Why not use it? It dramatically cuts housing security, and allows local governments to inflate their own property values by doing what is basically eminent domain without the requirement to show need. Make everyone pay taxes, use those to buy up homes, re-list the homes at a higher price. They can effectively price gouge using tax dollars. This could happen to you at literally any point, and that local government d…

I wasn't explicit, but I was proposing this for the same non-primary residences that the NY law is talking about.

Now that I've explained that, do you still think this would "dramatically cut housing security"?

If you still feel this would make housing "insecure", because someone's secondary home, if it has a value over $1 million, is subject to this system I propose, then you and I have a fundamentally different idea of what "housing security" is.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#369

Post by ycdeebs »

ceejayoz wrote: post #264
mikhailfranco wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumption taxes and sin taxes. Consumption tax is sales/VAT tax excluding some necessities and capital goods. Yes, there are some awkward edge cases: in the UK the exclusions were food and children's clothes, which leads to battles over prepared cold food (e.g. sandwich), takeaway and restaurant dining. Sin taxes are obviously things society might want to discourage, mainly for health reasons, like alcohol and smok…

Consumption taxes disproportionately impact the less wealthy, who spend most of what they earn on consumption of necessities. > Don't tax things you want: working / income and investment / capital gains. What if I don't want hoarding of wealth?

In a world where you are the supreme ruler, then what you individually want matters. In our actual world, it’s more about what the society in general wants.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#370

Post by nemomarx »

retired wrote: post #304
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…

The Netherlands has a 2.2% tax on secondary properties with a €50k threshold (total wealth, not per-property). So any holiday home, shed, storage locker, garage space, parking spot, bungalow, pied-a-terre, apartment for your children falls under that tax. It's.... problematic to say the least. Say you bought a bungalow for €30k in the 2000s that you frequently visit to escape the city. You are a middle class worker,…

That's a pretty low threshold, but isn't the goal of the tax to make you sell the bungalow so someone can live in it? This seems like a policy working as intended if it's really worth 350k
Post reply on HN