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

New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#111

Post by 8note »

ch4s3 wrote: post #4
mikeweiss wrote: post #2

Good! 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.

i think upzoning which requires kicking people out of the homes they currently live in is spending more political capital than changing tax policy to get more utilization out of the existing empty houses.

The people that have second luxury homes in new york are the people that spent through the roof to avoid mamdani being elected

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#113

Post by 9dev »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #103
9dev wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They still pay payroll taxes, among others, which disproportionately affect poor people.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#114

Post by phyzix5761 »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #108
phyzix5761 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 monum…

Would you rather they hoard the money under their mattress or invest it back into the economy? Like I explained, the reason unrealized gains are not taxed is because they generate more tax revenue than if the individuals pulled out the money, made a 1 time lump sum tax payment, and hoarded the rest. Its not tax avoidance at all. Its a way to multiply tax revenue as that capital is used through numerous transactions that all generate federal and state income and sales taxes.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#115

Post by WarmWash »

Jblx2 wrote: post #82
sbarre wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought looking at the aggregates that the top 10% pay something like 1/3rd of all income/cap gain taxes. If we're bringing receipts, how about you start? Do you have the data for this initial statement of yours?

Here is one source (with 2022 data): https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... - The top 1% of income earners pay 40.4% of the total U.S. Federal Income Tax receipts - Top 5% pays 61.0% - Top 10% pays 72.0% - Top 25% pays 87.2% - Top 50% pays 97.0% ...of course that doesn't include payroll taxes (Social Security).

Please delete this comment before it bankrupts half of click-bait driven media outlets.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#117

Post by atmavatar »

giantg2 wrote: post #65
dwa3592 wrote: post #50

Earlier 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/

It seems your article is saying the same sort of thing I already stated - "The share of taxes paid by the richest 1 percent (24 percent)", right? You are talking about effective taxes rates, which are different. To discuss that, I would have liked to see a bit more detail in the article, like what the income sources were and the deductions and losses to offset gains. I think changes around capital gains and loans aga…

> I think changes around capital gains and loans against equities could use some adjustments.

At minimum, taking out a loan based on the current value of an asset should trigger immediate realization of capital gains/losses for at least those assets used as collateral. After all, the gains are already de facto being realized for the purpose of the loan.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to address the other side of things - that said loans often don't have to be repaid so long as the assets continue to gain. As such, the capital gains are actually being realized continuously by the loan, but I doubt it's feasible to properly handle that in tax law.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#118

Post by dwa3592 »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #98
dwa3592 wrote: post #50

Earlier 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 counting unrealized gains as income. That's not how taxes or investments work. Unrealized gains are NOT income.

Rich people always borrow money on the stocks they own. In effect, those unrealized gains help them borrow money which they spend like income. I will spend part of my paycheck to buy a cup of coffee and they will spend part of the loaned money to buy the same cup of coffee. They can also buy a house with that money. All they need to do is keep paying the 4-5% interest rate on that loan meanwhile the underlying stock appreciates at 15-20%.

Is this a loophole that rich people enjoy? Absolutely. Does this loophole need to be closed - absolutely.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#119

Post by wat10000 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #107
9dev wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Only because I live it in and can't easily sell it to raise cash.

Let's say you own some stock and it increased in value last year. Do you feel like you "made" any money from that? I did and it did and I do.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#120

Post by 8note »

bsimpson wrote: post #40

Reactionary 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.…

> people tend to lose money on housing in NYC unless it's held for many years.

I'd generally consider that a success metric? People making money flipping houses on short terms is a bad thing

Post reply on HN