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

231–240 of 288 posts

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#231

Post by WarmWash »

tastyface wrote: post #172
SoftTalker wrote: post #81

Earlier 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.

Oh, then Bezos must be living a humble, middle-class life with very limited liquidation of his assets. Surely, he’s not using loans, write-offs, and legal tricks to fund a Great Gatsby lifestyle while pretending to have no actual income? Right?

Your headline-expert confusion on how it works isn't the flex you think it is.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#232

Post by trolleski »

Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #225
trolleski wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends on the alternatives. The real alternative is technofeudalism and eventual coming revolutions where you won't get constructive reformists anymore.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#233

Post by WarmWash »

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…

You can use the same "loop hole", it's called a securitized loan.

The real hack is being able to save money rather than "treat yourself" every single time you get more money.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#234

Post by trolleski »

Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #226
Ar-Curunir wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

A lot of things in USSR did not work - but they did educate masses upon masses of people in reading, writing and stem.

Similarly, it's still unheard of in Europe to go bankrupt because of healthcare.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#235

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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?

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

As a moderately wealthy former New Yorker? I say no. If we put it to a referendum? I’d give it even odds. If the referendum were for developing part of Central Park into public housing? I’d guess it would pass.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#236

Post by WarmWash »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #162
phyzix5761 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers are self evident. If you've ever owned a business you know that you have: 1. Corporate income tax 2. Employee Federal income tax 3. FICA Payroll Tax 4. Sales Tax on transactions 5. Property Taxes Now multiply that by each node on the graph. Each employee, vendor, business that comes in contact with your company spends the money you paid them and is taxed on it as well. It grows exponentially after just a…

"I shouldn't be taxed because my employees and customers will be!" Folks, we've found it! Pure, distilled, refined, 100.0%, 200-proof trickle down economics! Just one teeny tiny itty bitty problem: r>g Oops.

You're getting confused because you are failing to recognize that the owners wealth is being taxed when those other taxes are paid.

If the company had a magical exemption from all taxes, the owner would have a substantially high net worth. The gap between that hypothetical value, and the real value, is the tax being paid.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#237

Post by smallmancontrov »

WarmWash wrote: post #236
smallmancontrov wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I shouldn't be taxed because my employees and customers will be!" Folks, we've found it! Pure, distilled, refined, 100.0%, 200-proof trickle down economics! Just one teeny tiny itty bitty problem: r>g Oops.

You're getting confused because you are failing to recognize that the owners wealth is being taxed when those other taxes are paid. If the company had a magical exemption from all taxes, the owner would have a substantially high net worth. The gap between that hypothetical value, and the real value, is the tax being paid.

This is not only self-serving and/or bootlicking drivel, it's economically illiterate at a level that shouldn't exist outside econ 101 class. Taxes on a transaction are paid by the party with less elasticity / bargaining power, which is, in aggregate, the worker.

Also, you didn't address the r>g elephant in the room.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#238

Post by neogodless »

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

How close are we to all of the richest people being out of money?

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#239

Post by chii »

barnabee wrote: post #213
chii wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "l…

Now do cars and food… There’s no reason that the cost of something you need “must be recouped” in future by you having and using that thing.

the investment for a car is in the manufacturing facility, similarly with food. While there's a consumption component to both, it's the same as a house - it's an investment to build it, and it produces shelter (which would be the equivalent of the food from the investment in a farm).

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#240

Post by smallmancontrov »

eudamoniac wrote: post #174
smallmancontrov wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that's only the long term part of the plan. The short term part of the plan is that the marginal propensity to consume drops with income. Poor people earn and spend all their money, both of which are heavily taxed, while rich people "earn" capital gains and invest all their money, neither of which are taxed. Here's how investment isn't taxed: take out a loan collateralized against the assets with unrealized…

Poor people pay no income tax. It isn't "heavily taxed."

They pay payroll and consumption tax, which are quite steep compared to the 0% tax bracket for mega billionaires.
Post reply on HN