311–320 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure it can't be removed entirely, but we could, for example, start imprisoning people who give or accept bribes.
We already do that. - Bob Menendez (Senator) - Randy Cunningham (Congressman) - William J. Jefferson (Congressman) - James Traficant (Congressman) And a bunch more at more "local" level...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed. Passing the fruits of a lifetime of work to ones heirs so they can continue do productive work instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed.
And I think that inheritance, while a natural desire, is morally wrong. It's an example that desires aren't always congruent with morality. People will go to great lengths to justify their conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second homes (and beyond) should be taxed out of existence while people are still trying to find their first. This tax is not steep enough, but it's a start.
Taxing a pied-a-terre $40K/yr or more per year provides more resources for developing housing than simply evicting the owner and reclaiming the space. There aren't enough pied-a-terres to house the people who need housing. We need expensive premium housing to fund affordable housing at scale.
A new house costs at MINIMUM $400k to build (in New York state, not to mention the city).
There are around 100k pied-à-terre in New York CITY alone.
There are about 350k homeless people in New York city.
Taxing all of those secondary 'homes' at 40k would and spending those taxes ONLY on new housing construction would yield at MOST 100k houses (per year).
So I was incorrect in what was more efficient IF taxes only go to building new houses... which I AFAIK is not accurate to how those taxes would be distributed. (it may still be better if enough revenue is going to housing dev).
So a ~10% tax rate for SECOND+ homes is still too small considering how many houses we need to build. I argue for 100% tax: pay that price every year if you want a SECOND+, that would completely offset a new house in compensation for tying one up).
If you are rich enough to afford a vacation home: you pay vacation prices. You don't get to use it as an "investment vehicle" we need to dissuade that mentality completely.
What's to stop them from selling to a holding company so that it's not literally his own second house?
The tax is based on residency, not ownership. If nobody lives there as their primary residence, it's subject to the tax.
I'm really curious about this. Wont, as a rule, any super-rich 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes in New York be completely unaffordable for almost everyone? It feels a bit like you're potentially spreading around the super-luxury homes across a wider breadth of the super-rich, but not much else. Is there a better way to think about this?
This is really more about raising revenue for the city than increasing the housing supply.
It is. Increasing the housing supply[0] is a different initiative.
[0] https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/05/mayor-mamdani...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fairest and easiest to realize wealth tax is on inheritance. It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world, it is terrible for them and the people around them to set them up for life.
I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed. Passing the fruits of a lifetime of work to ones heirs so they can continue do productive work instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trickle down economics is a political label to criticize Reagan era policies, it’s not an actual thing.
It's a label for a very real tax policy and the advertised reason behind it, it's definitely a thing (or was, at least, the argument is less common today)
The original comment, and many other comments spread across the Internet including yours, are written as if the elites themselves are the ones "advertising" the label of "trickle down economics" as if it's some kind of economic theory they are advocating for. But it's always been a label used by opponents, particularly Democrats to derogate Reagan era policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah Mamdani is firing on all fronts. There is plan to add to the housing stock as well: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/05/mayor-mamdani... He is also aggressively going after landlords withholding repairs, maintaining dilapidated units, etc. and thus tackling the quality of the housing stock problem.
That's because he's planning to fail upwards. None of his plans will result in positive outcomes but they'll look good on paper. So he'll move to a higher office and leave his messes for the next sucker.
Also outcomes are generally not positive or negative in & of themselves: if you could specify who exactly you anticipate will be worse off, it would make your comment much more insightful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expensive cities will never have enough housing. The cure is to discourage investment in them and force it into less dense cities.
They are expensive largely because of housing so your statement is a bit of a tautology. Historically NYC housing used to be a lot more affordable before they stopped building, reducing supply relative to demand and thereby raising prices.
Yes. And that's impossible to fix.
> Historically NYC housing used to be a lot more affordable before they stopped building, reducing supply relative to demand and thereby raising prices.
Demand will _always_ outstrip supply. And there's no such thing as "affordable housing", it's a contradiction like "hot liquid helium". If housing sells, then it's affordable for _somebody_.
What you're talking about is subsidized housing in some form. Like rent control or housing projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fairest and easiest to realize wealth tax is on inheritance. It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world, it is terrible for them and the people around them to set them up for life.
So you want to tax something that has already been taxed throughout the course of someone's life, just because they want to give it to their kids? The only tax that is fair to everyone is a sales tax.