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

221–230 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#221

Post by xenihn »

SoftTalker wrote: post #81
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/

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.

My networth increased by $600k in the past year, but my actual income after taxes was a quarter of that. I haven't sold and collected gains, but it still feels like I "made" that much money in that span of time, especially since most of the appreciation came from RSUs. I'm just choosing to not convert it to cash.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#222

Post by xenihn »

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.

False equivalence. You're comparing liquid assets with an illiquid one here.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#223

Post by nobodyandproud »

jjav wrote: post #217
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is that really what people want? Yes. I feel like Americans and New Yorkers have been very clear about what they want in housing: more of it, and cheaper.

Would paving over all of Central Park to fill the area with residential skyscrapers be a good idea?

This is the opposite of a steel-man.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#224

Post by Mallory_Ringess »

trolleski wrote: post #163
Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before long Mamdani will provide yet another proof of Thatcher's well-known dictum on socialism: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money

Taxes are not socialism.

...bub Mamdani is a socialist and he will run into these problems.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#225

Post by Mallory_Ringess »

trolleski wrote: post #211
Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before long Mamdani will provide yet another proof of Thatcher's well-known dictum on socialism: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money

Also, in 2008 it was terrific to bail out private banks, right? Socialisation of problems seem to be allowed only for the super rich - interesting.

Nope, bailing out banks is a bad idea, why would I think otherwise? Two things can be bad at the same time: socialism is a dysfunctional ideology just like crony capitalism is a bad idea.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#226

Post by Mallory_Ringess »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #216
Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before long Mamdani will provide yet another proof of Thatcher's well-known dictum on socialism: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money

Given that a number of modern social and economic problems can be traced back to Thatcher and Reagan policies, anybody quoting Thatcher unironically should not be taken seriously.

Given that Socialism has shown time and time again to lead to economical and societal disaster, anyone supporting it unironically should not be taken seriously.

Show me the proof of a working Socialist system [1] and I might change my mind. Otherwise you're just deflecting through misplaced ad-hominems.

[1] No, the Scandinavian countries are not socialist countries - I live in one of then. Neither is the Netherlands, nor France nor any other European country.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#227

Post by javanissen »

jjav wrote: post #217
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is that really what people want? Yes. I feel like Americans and New Yorkers have been very clear about what they want in housing: more of it, and cheaper.

Would paving over all of Central Park to fill the area with residential skyscrapers be a good idea?

Relaxing the zoning requirements that unnaturally force huge swaths of the city to be under-built would fix this without sprawling housing into existing greenspace.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#228

Post by drsalt »

Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #134
trolleski wrote: post #101

Tax them to oblivion, the goal should be for them to sell! Let them go to Dubai if they don't like it.

Before long Mamdani will provide yet another proof of Thatcher's well-known dictum on socialism: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money

there is no "other" people, there's only we the people

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#229

Post by wat10000 »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #200
wat10000 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Focusing on a single tax is silly. We should look at all taxes paid across all levels of government. Federal income tax is one of the most progressive taxes out there, so of course that's what people focus on when they want to make the point that wealthy people are being sacrificed to the altar of taxation. If you look at all taxes, the share paid is remarkably close to the share earned. According to https://itep.org…

How do I sign up for this magical 25% “effective tax rate”? Last year mine was 46% and that’s only counting income tax (state + federal).

By being somewhere around the 40th percentile of income, according to that link.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#230

Post by javanissen »

al_borland wrote: post #165
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 I was a developer and building owner who only cared about money, it seems like it would be much better to build a luxury building where the units are sold, but sit empty most of the time. This seems to be the environment in NYC. The proper systems need to be in place so it makes sense to build housing for actual people, rather than building stored real estate value for the ultra rich, especially foreign investors…

> these mostly vacant buildings in a city with a housing affordability problem

Vacancy rates are extremely low in NYC at 1.4%. Anything below 5% indicates drastic under-supply of housing. I don’t think that vacant real estate for billionaires is a significant contributor; it’s almost exclusively an issue of supply.

Post reply on HN