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

201–210 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#201

Post by gib444 »

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.…

> ...when $1 million was still considered a lot of money

They knew exactly what they were doing by not indexing it.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#202

Post by zeroonetwothree »

mjamesaustin wrote: post #92
AdrianB1 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth distribution is a false flag. Rain distribution across the globe is not equal, solar light distribution is not equal and they impact people's life more than wealth distribution. USA and the entire planet's population is at record high in living standards and wealth, but some people are still unhappy because not everything is perfectly equal and at zero entropy like the thermal death of the universe: this is mo…

Imagine 1.6% of the earth receiving nearly 50% of all sunlight, and 82% of the earth only receiving 12% of all precipitation. If rain distribution and solar light distribution were even half as unequal as wealth distribution, our global ecosystem would collapse.

Wealth is not income. Most of the world has zero or negative wealth so these types of calculations are kind of silly.

A better comparison would be imagine 1.6% of the earth having 50% of the valuable minerals. But that’s roughly what it actually is!

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#203

Post by zeroonetwothree »

stavros wrote: post #38
JuniperMesos wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will that tax result in more houses existing?

It will result in fewer second homes existing, therefore more first homes.

Perhaps. Homes are not zero sum though so it’s also possible there will be fewer first homes.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#204

Post by [deleted] »

bix6 wrote: post #146
Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

[deleted]

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#206

Post by chii »

bdangubic wrote: post #183
bsimpson wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a reasonable time horizon? What should happen when you find a mate and need more space than you did when you moved into your current unit? A friend moved out of his space after 7 years to start a family, and the appreciation didn't cover the closing costs.

they way to “handle” this is to stop viewing housing as “investment” - especially short-term investment. once you do that, you are good. when you buy you will consider all the implications of that decision and then you can live with it when you need different housing

> stop viewing housing as “investment”

whether something is an investment or not is not a subjective opinion, but an objective fact.

If it takes effort, capital and time/labour to create, it's an investment, because such resources have alternative uses.

Just because this cost have been paid as a lump sum in the past (for constructing a building and/or buying the land etc), doesn't mean that cost is now sunk and is "lost" - it is, and must be, recouped in the future, otherwise the initial cost will not make sense to have been spent, and said investment would not be made and the world would now have one less of it.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#208

Post by dgellow »

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.

Spending political capital? Mamdani is gaining political capital with such taxes!

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#209

Post by dgellow »

temp8830 wrote: post #196
mikeweiss wrote: post #2

Good! Second homes in any region with low inventory should be taxed...

All the owners have to do is transfer the property to an LLC. I'm sure none of them will figure this out. This proposal's only purpose is PR.

Which isn’t a bad thing per se. A lot of politics is about messaging, there is value in formalizing a position such as this one

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#210

Post by dgellow »

tekla wrote: post #26

I dunno why anyone thinks this matters. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-pied-a-terre-tax-and... "We find that, before adjusting for these factors, our choice of tax rates and brackets could raise almost exactly $500 million from a little over 11,200 properties. However, revenues could be reduced to between roughly $340 million and $380 million based on assumptions on exclusions for rented units and behavioral…

So, in addition to doing something very popular, meaning gaining political capital, it is ALSO expected to get hundreds of millions from this? That’s very substantial in my book
Post reply on HN