New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC • Hacker News Board

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#271

Post by thrance » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

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.…

I'll hit you with a big: source?

This kind of talking point is reiterated ad nauseam, but never justified or backed by any empirical research.

I'll state one simple thing: if America is unable to raise taxes on second homes over $5M in Manhattan by 1% then this country is well and utterly fucked. The 1% are paying less taxes than anyone else in this country while hoarding the majority of the wealth. Homelessness is skyrocketing, debt levels are through the roof, but god forbid we raise the tax on second homes over $5M by 1%.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#272

Post by SoftTalker » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:36 PM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #266

SoftTalker wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no doubt his investments are well-diversified. He's not an idiot. My point was simply that income and wealth are two different things, at least for tax purposes.

This is well known. The question is whether they should be. It's not some immutable law of nature, it's a deliberate policy choice to tax returns on capital differently from returns on labor.

I don't think it's all that well understood. People see a headline that Bezos "made" $X billion last year, when that was the increase in his net worth, not that he actually was paid $X billion in cash income. Then they complain that he didn't pay taxes on any of that.

Whether or not we should have a wealth tax and at what level that should apply is an entirely separate issue. I'm quite sure Bezos pays all the taxes he's legally obligated to pay.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#273

Post by SoftTalker » Tue, May 19, 2026, 9:21 PM UTC

xenihn wrote: post #221

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.

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.

So, you didn't pay taxes on the $600k increase? Do you think it would have been more "fair" if you had to?

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#274

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, May 19, 2026, 9:30 PM UTC

bfeynman wrote: post #268

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Eh, I would only think if its like at the top of the park where less people/tourists ever visit.

> its like at the top of the park where less people/tourists ever visit

Tourists don't vote or show up to community-board meetings. The top of the park is closer to Harlem. That is why it would be easier to bulldoze.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#275

Post by dlenski » Tue, May 19, 2026, 9:47 PM UTC

dlenski wrote: post #58

mikeweiss wrote: post #2

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

We have similar taxes in major cities in Canada (including both metro and provincial taxes here in Vancouver). Housing is still massively squeezed and unaffordable for many in the Vancouver metro area, but the taxes definitely have encouraged some homeowners to sell or rent their properties, especially foreign investors, and their seem to be few or no downsides for people of middle-class and even moderately-affluent…

"there seem", not *their seem… argh, embarrassingly uneditable

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#276

Post by javanissen » Tue, May 19, 2026, 10:35 PM UTC

bfeynman wrote: post #267

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.

I am a New Yorker, people want more housing but there is still NIMBYism because they want to preserve the charm, and I'm mostly only talking about manhattan. While people are not fans of the low density luxury skyscrapers popping up in places, I've not seen people who currently live in the place think we should add massive housing blocs carte blanche. Sure there few scattered places for a few projects but not like ad…

> people who currently live in the place

I currently live in Manhattan, have lived here for years, and I support relaxing zoning at least to the point where most Manhattan neighborhoods can ~double their building heights. YIMBYs are everywhere. Not everyone can be fortunate enough to get a stabilized unit (like me) or to have bought decades ago when prices were low.

> add massive housing blocs carte blanche

IMO this is dichotomous thinking that is actually brought on by zoning rules.

It is very difficult and very expensive to get construction approved, so the only projects that make sense to fund are towers full of units, which can attract more rent and therefore higher returns per lot, justifying the risk and expense of permitting.

If you just deleted zoning restrictions carte blanche and made it much easier to build (an automatic "Yes" if you meet basic criteria), then a lot of sagging and old 1-3 story buildings which are everywhere in Manhattan would get naturally replaced with six- to eight-story buildings. This is the natural evolution of a built environment.

The amount of additional housing and commercial space that comes online from this is huge, and there's no need to dot the city itself or even Brooklyn/Queens with commie blocks

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#277

Post by jjav » Tue, May 19, 2026, 10:48 PM UTC

bdangubic wrote: post #220

jjav wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now do cars and food… Food is obviously not comparable (you must consume it and only s*t is left over). Cars depreciate quickly becase they wear out in the timespan of a couple decades. You can keep them going longer but it's a labor of love, not really economically worthwhile. Housing is completely different. Absent some disaster (fire, earthquakes) it will last centuries with just basic routine maintenance. Given…

With all due respect I am not sure how you can write this with a straight face. You premise is that "something that last long can't possibly not appreciate "?? I am sure you can find myriad of examples where this simply does not hold water. The housing is artificially inflated and you are one administration away (e.g. see current one for the kind of power we experience in 'democracy') from having your "investment" wo…

> You premise is that "something that last long can't possibly not appreciate"??

Not "something", housing. A pebble may last billions of years and not appreciate, but we're talking housing.

Yes housing which last a very long time cannot help but appreciate because we always have inflation. The only exception is what you identified, if the town has an economic collapse. Then, sure, nobody wants to live there. Detroit of the past being the typical USA example.

Looking at records my house cost ~$90/sqft to build. Today the exact same house on the exact same lot would cost about ~$500/sqft to build on the low end if you can find the labor, but probably closer to ~$650/sqft if you want to get it done this year.

So of course the older equivalent houses in the neighborhood will match in price to the new construction. Anything else would be impossible.

If you disagree, explain by what mechanism the old house wouldn't do that?

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#278

Post by xracy » Tue, May 19, 2026, 10:57 PM UTC

phyzix5761 wrote: post #153

dwa3592 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Gotta love "I don't need to show my work! It's self-evident!"

It's not self-evident, or the person wouldn't have asked for a source.

And you have numbers that you're pulling from "somewhere" without sharing a source for them, which means it's even further not self-evident.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#279

Post by wat10000 » Tue, May 19, 2026, 11:47 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #272

wat10000 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is well known. The question is whether they should be. It's not some immutable law of nature, it's a deliberate policy choice to tax returns on capital differently from returns on labor.

I don't think it's all that well understood. People see a headline that Bezos "made" $X billion last year, when that was the increase in his net worth, not that he actually was paid $X billion in cash income. Then they complain that he didn't pay taxes on any of that. Whether or not we should have a wealth tax and at what level that should apply is an entirely separate issue. I'm quite sure Bezos pays all the taxes h…

Few people think the ultra rich are illegally evading taxes. The issue is exactly that they’re paying all they’re obligated to, and it’s not very much, relatively.

You’re really strawmanning here. Instead of arguing as if we’re morons who don’t know that unrealized gains aren’t taxed and think Bezos is committing tax evasion, convince us of why it’s wrong to think that Bezos should be legally obligated yo pay more, maybe by taxing those unrealized gains.

Re: New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC

#280

Post by mbrumlow » Tue, May 19, 2026, 11:59 PM UTC

bfeynman wrote: post #269

TitaRusell wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes nobody wants to live in cities which is why nobody lives there. Tokio, Singapore, Amsterdam- all ghost towns.

You are missing the point. Of course people want to live in one of the most vibrant cities in the world. People also want a vacation home at the beach or in the mountains thats private and beautiful and easy to get to. Except if we built giant monstrosities and condos in the hamptons and make all ski homes tenement housing it will be much less desirable to go to them. No ones asking to make more apartments and housin…

This. We don’t have a housing problem. We have a “I want to live here problem.” And if we could snap our fingers and everybody in the world who wanted to live in NY could, it would be the same second nobody would want to live in NY.

It just does not scale like people think. And that is why the price has to go up, and that is the forcing factor for max capacity of any given parcel of land.

The fact is we all can’t live in the same city. And people need to do what we did in the past. And that is move to new locations that are cheaper.

Every hot spot today once was a crappy place, it was over time that it became the desirable place. That is just how it works. You got to move and live where you can afford.

Every city has a max amount of occupancy, and density. It’s so silly to even think about this on the individual level. I can find 1BN people who want to live in NY today if told today they could have a place today for $500 a month but 1BN other people are also joining would instantly turn down the offer.