Tax them to oblivion, the goal should be for them to sell! Let them go to Dubai if they don't like it.
New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
101–110 of 288 posts
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a place like Manhattan might benefit from first up-zoning the low slung sections that are currently 4-8 stories. My point here is that I'd start with trying to build enough housing before spending political capital on marginal things that neither unlock supply nor generate much revenue.
LOL. Why not just build bunkhouses and then rent out bunk beds there? For a cool $5000 a month. Because that's the end goal, isn't it? Manhattan is _already_ one of the densest cities in the world. It needs a good _downzoning_ to be liveable again.
> bunk beds… $5000/month
The market prices full one-bedrooms at less than this in most of Manhattan. Flophouse beds would cost a fraction of this and they would get cheaper the more of them you have. They’d also slow the growth of rent price in NYC.
Let’s take your example at face value. Suppose Manhattan added one million beds to its existing ~3.8M bedroom housing stock via the “missing middle” housing that you described, perhaps over the next ten years. These might have small private bedrooms and shared kitchen/office/bathroom facilities. They might even include dorms, but I’ll focus on single-room occupancy units. You’d get the space for this from some mix of re-developing office buildings or upzoning or re-developing low-slung buildings.
The rent of these single-room occupancy units would be a fraction of the rent of a normal place. The people living there would be far less rent-burdened than they would have been otherwise, freeing up more income for consumption or savings/investment, boosting economic activity. Some of them would be new residents, whose income taxes (if they pay them) and spent dollars/sales taxes would be a net benefit to the city budget. Some of them would otherwise become transiently homeless due to affordability concerns, which would be destabilizing for them and expensive for the city due to homeless program spending.
Others would be people who currently live in apartments but would move to these units because they prefer cheaper rent, greater privacy (they might be sharing a room today), a newer building, or the greater efficiency of having multiple bathrooms. Maybe right now they are sharing e.g. a four-bedroom one-bathroom apartment with three strangers in Hell’s Kitchen for $1400/month. These people would otherwise be in the housing market for a full apartment, and removing them leaves more full apartments for people who want to occupy them, either alone or with roommates. Ergo we get downward pressure on full apartment rents.
The flophouses and dorms and SROs were a key part of the housing market that kept Manhattan more affordable and therefore livable in the 20th century, when density was up to 40% greater than it is now. It was deeply shortsighted to get rid of them. The idea that we should downzone even further makes no sense to me; you get to decrease affordability and decrease the economic benefits of agglomeration to the local economy at the same time, all so… there are fewer people on the subway, I guess? I disagree with the “too much density” argument on its face anyway. Density has clear economic benefits via agglomeration and productivity gains; diverse and dense housing stock via upzoning increases affordability via supply/demand and filtering effects; and the way you manage density is through appropriate infrastructure spending on housing, services, and public spaces which—you guessed it!-becomes cheaper per person the denser you build. Seoul has twice the density of Manhattan.
I live here. The thing making Manhattan unlivable is that a one-bedroom is $4500 in the east village due to not enough supply. Fix the housing costs by building more of any and all kinds of housing and then we can deal with the other problems via better governance and increased tax revenues. There’s nothing we can do otherwise that isn’t just rationing or some other bandaid solution.
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
IDK what Bezos made as "income" last year but paper gains in asset values are not "income" for tax purposes, though some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year. But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least.
> some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year What in gods name would you call that otherwise? > But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least And that somehow justifies rich people paying less taxes, because they navigate the system better than regular people?
He pays income tax just like everyone else. But the majority of his money is in investments, which many Americans already do as well with 401k and personal brokerage accounts. The people who can't afford to invest like that already pay close to 0% income tax as 40%-60% of households, historically, have paid 0% income tax in the US.
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#104California next please! If you aren’t in your home 9 months of the year you can stay in a hotel. Thanks! Edit: lol -4 nice! What are y’all upset about?
Not all of California, but San Diego has Measure A[1] on the upcoming primary to tax non-primary homes.
1. https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/04/20/2026-primary-e...
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a place like Manhattan might benefit from first up-zoning the low slung sections that are currently 4-8 stories. My point here is that I'd start with trying to build enough housing before spending political capital on marginal things that neither unlock supply nor generate much revenue.
How do you know it's ineffective? Other targeted taxes, such as alcohol tax, tobacco tax, congestion tax, etc., have been shown to be very effective.
The power to tax is the power to destroy
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#106Reactionary taxes like this have a tendency to be ill-considered and have unintended side effects. NY also has a 1% penalty on paying more than $1 million for housing, which was probably enacted to proletariat applause when $1 million was still considered a lot of money. Now it distorts the value of entry level housing in NYC, where you'll have a hard time finding anything more than a studio apartment for $1 million.…
Golly gee willikers, not the spooky potential for possible side effects! Wouldn't want any of those when we could have gigantic sucker-punch scarcity-amid-plenty instead!
my neighbors have so much they don't deserve, how can i steal their property!
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
IDK what Bezos made as "income" last year but paper gains in asset values are not "income" for tax purposes, though some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year. But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least.
> some people might look at the increase in his wealth and call that money he "made" that year What in gods name would you call that otherwise? > But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least And that somehow justifies rich people paying less taxes, because they navigate the system better than regular people?
Let's say you own your home and it increased in value last year. Do you feel like you "made" any money from that? Unless you sold it, probably not.
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last year year Jeff bezos and I both paid taxes for the year of 2024. The percentage he paid on the money he made is far less than I did. I gave higher share of my income to the government than he did. Bezos's true tax rate was less than 1% and mine was around 25%. Link - https://itep.org/washington-post-rich-not-paying-fair-share/
This post makes the mistake of counting unrealized gains as income. That's not how taxes or investments work. Unrealized gains are NOT income. That's how they mistakenly come up with the number that he pays less than 1% in income tax. Investments, in general, are not income (unless held less than 12 months or if they pay dividends). Imagine you had to pay income taxes every year on the unrealized gains of your 401k,…
This post makes the mistake of assuming that everyone is on board with the "unrealized gains are totally different from income and should never ever be taxed a penny because that would be communism and implode the economy and kill kittens" hustle. It's a good hustle, because it takes precision to argue against and it's built around a kernel or two of truth, but these two kernels are firmly planted in a gigantic monumental turd of tax avoidance by the obscenely wealthy.
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#109Good! Second homes in any region with low inventory should be taxed...
It seems like a place like Manhattan might benefit from first up-zoning the low slung sections that are currently 4-8 stories. My point here is that I'd start with trying to build enough housing before spending political capital on marginal things that neither unlock supply nor generate much revenue.
Is increasing housing the goal of the tax, or is it just raising revenues to balance the budget?
Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bezos pays 40% too. His assets are not income. Just like your assets are not taxed. Ok, but he does that loan-against-assets hack! Well the fact is that those loans eventually need to be paid, so at some point he will pay that 40% (unless he does the step-up basis hack when he dies) Ok, but he should be paying annually like everyone else! Well, technically he is, his assets, the company Amazon, pays a lot of taxes an…
[flagged]
If you can convince people that Amazon is a bad value proposition (i.e. stop giving amazon money for stuff), then you will effectively accomplish that.
But you probably couldn't even count the number of people with Prime subscriptions that show up to an "Eat the 1%!" march...
"It's just so convenient!"