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

141–150 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#141

Post by ch4s3 »

asdff wrote: post #100
bobthepanda wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With historic landmarks or districts you can generally transfer unused development capacity to other sites. Grand Central famously was spared from demolition but its unused zoning rights have been transferred elsewhere.

One issue with using hollywood accounting for zoning is failing to consider the context of the site, especially in terms of infrastructure and job access, in favor of historical protections. All that subway capacity and walkability to so many jobs in greenwich village for example is being squandered by punting potential upzoning elsewhere.

Bulldoze greenwich village.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#142

Post by linkregister »

busterarm wrote: post #5

I strongly doubt that this is going to have the effect that they want it to. It won't raise the taxes that they expect it to. It won't free up inventory. It will halt construction.

While rent control and exclusionary zoning do have measurable negative impacts on building, a vacancy tax on second homes is unlikely to have side effects beyond raising revenue. If a price-sensitive owner of a pied-à-terre is forced to sell or rent out the unit, then the policy is successful: the residence will be occupied.

Ideally no second home tax would be implemented, and we could treat housing as an export. But due to intense local planning constraints, housing is scarce.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#143

Post by ch4s3 »

bityard wrote: post #99
ch4s3 wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

If someone tried to "up-zone," wouldn't they incur enormous popular and media backlash for demolishing buildings and displacing communities that have been there for decades just so they could build high-rent luxury skyscrapers? I feel like that was the backdrop to about half the movies I watched in the '80s.

Then star with Greenwich Village.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#144

Post by 9dev »

SoftTalker wrote: post #131
wat10000 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stock is easier to sell, yes, but it's still just a gain on paper until you actually sell it. Otherwise, those gains could be lost next year. Or tomorrow.

Now this is just disingenuous. As if the net worth of Jeff Bezos and the rest of the Epstein class was somehow threatened by market fluctuations or some high-risk investments.

As long as the economy continues to grow, these people will thrive. All while avoiding to pay their share for society.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#145

Post by dwa3592 »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #139
dwa3592 wrote: post #118

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. 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.…

The interest rate charged generates taxes, the purchases they make with the credit they borrow generate taxes, and the money they leave in their investments generate taxes through capital usage like paying employees, paying vendors, building facilities, etc. The government taxes every little thing so don't think that money is not generating taxes at all. It actually generates more federal and state taxes by staying i…

Good attempt at manipulation. Why don't you link some studies here which say it will be better to leave the tax system as is than taxing the unrealized gains somehow.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#146

Post by bix6 »

Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #137
NickC25 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Instead of using that land to build a $250 million penthouse Ken Griffin only spends 10 days a year in, they could probably build enough housing for 500+ middle class families.

Who will build those homes? Who will pay for them? If it were a lucrative business to build those homes I'd assume someone would be building them but that does not seem to be the case. Why is this?

Upvoting you for a great question! Not everything has to be lucrative amigo. The city could build multifamily housing and finance it through municipal bonds that pay a reasonable rate (tax free, booyakasha).

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#147

Post by kube-system »

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.

> He pays income tax just like everyone else.

He only paid income taxes on $80k while at Amazon.

The wealthy often make their money as capital gains, which if they held for at least one year, are exempt from the income tax and taxed at no higher than 20%

Billionaires literally have their own set of tax brackets in this country: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#148

Post by bix6 »

ecliptik wrote: post #104
bix6 wrote: post #8

California 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...

Let’s go baby!! We love a vibrant local community.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#149

Post by dwa3592 »

eudamoniac wrote: post #140
dwa3592 wrote: post #118

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. 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.…

What is the loophole? That banks are allowed to give out loans to trusted clients? Are you proposing that banks can no longer loan to rich people or what? Why does the source of the collateral being a stock matter? A normal person gets a loan based on his home value, assets, other factors, all of which might appreciate faster than the interest rate. When does it become a loophole? You really don't want loans to be ta…

Let me simplify it like i would for a 5 year old.

The loophole is that they never pay taxes on the unrealized gains bc they lived on the borrowed money their whole life. They will never sell their stocks, so there will be no taxable event. When they die they will leave their wealth to the children which effectively erases the unrealized gains. So no one pays taxes on that huge chunk of money. Google "buy,borrow,die".

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#150

Post by smallmancontrov »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #127
9dev wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I 100% agree. Roosevelt implemented that in 1935 and it was meant as a safety net for social security. Economists estimate that by 2035 social security, as its currently structured, will no longer be able to fund the aging population. Instead, a better alternative is to invest that same amount into an ETF that tracks the S&P 500 and after a 40 year working career the individual would have almost $5 million assuming a…

The trouble with "investments did better" is that they did so in considerable part due to 40 years of trickle down economics that swung the pendulum away from labor and towards capital. The pendulum is slowing, so that trick is extremely unlikely to work twice. If that's not concrete enough for you, we can talk about what it would take to swing the pendulum as far in the next 40 as we did in the last 40 and this thought experiment will make it obvious that this approach makes the social security trust fund look like an exercise in sustainability.
Post reply on HN