Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York passes pied-a-terre tax

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 459 posts

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#401

Post by cakealert »

swiftcoder wrote: post #371
cakealert wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? What exactly is it you are claiming? Sounds like something a populist youtuber would say.

> So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? The claim is that wealthy folks aren't typically interested in generating more wealth for other, non-rich folks

That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else. Capturing 100% of the value is all but impossible.

Also you didn't address what he said, possibly because it's complete nonsense?

> A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#402

Post by OkayPhysicist »

gruez wrote: post #277
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their take on inheritance taxes is insane, but I tend to agree that income taxes are immoral. Corporations get taxed on profits: If OkayPhysicist, Inc. spends $200 to make $300, it would be taxed some fraction of $100. Individuals, on the other hand, get taxed on revenue. It doesn't matter if it costs me $4000 in rent, groceries, transportation, etc., to make $6000, I'm getting taxed on that full $6000. Capital gains…

>It doesn't matter if it costs me $4000 in rent, groceries, transportation, etc., to make $6000, I'm getting taxed on that full $6000. So if I spend $5000 on groceries because I'm eating wagyu steak and lobster everyday, is that a fair "expense" too? You might retort that's obviously a luxury and there should be some baseline that's tax free, but then you're just describing the standard deduction. >but as long as the…

Businesses don't pay extra tax because they chose to met their needs at a greater-than-minimum cost. If my boss buys some reagents from Dave for $300 bucks instead of Bill's $200 offer, the company's not paying taxes based on a hypothetical $200 cost basis.

If we want to tax "luxury" expenses, we have excise taxes for that.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#403

Post by leephillips »

8note wrote: post #391
jamiequint wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you make the tax too high it starts discouraging the behavior you're taxing, which can paradoxically reduce overall tax revenue." I am generally against more taxes, but the structure of this one is quite good in terms of the incentives. If wealthy people who only live in the city part-time stay in hotels instead of buying second homes, the net effect should be to increase the cost of hotel rooms and reduce the co…

> stay in hotels instead of buying second homes, the net effect should be to increase the cost of hotel rooms and reduce the cost of owned-housing. airbnb begs to differ? the conversion goes from owned/rented housing to airbnb conversions however, the slack is absorbed, and the airbnbs are gonna about match the actual need for how many ultra-rich people are actually in NY at a time

Not in NYC. Airbnb is effectively outlawed by regulation there.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#404

Post by cakealert »

ceejayoz wrote: post #306
cakealert wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liquidity is an emergent property. It doesn't change the fact that when you buy something the money moved.

And that doesn't change the fact that Jeff Bezos, fundamentally, is extremely wealthy, even if he'd have to sell or borrow against a few shares to use it.

Perhaps refer to the root of this convo branch:

> Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?

You changed the subject. Wealth wasn't it.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#405

Post by wat10000 »

huhkerrf wrote: post #338
wat10000 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything recent? The practice seems to have fallen off in recent years.

My dude, Menendez was imprisoned in 2025...

Still doesn't seem to be happening as much as it should lately. We have worse things being done by people currently in office. Maybe I should ask, any recent Republican examples?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#406

Post by apparent »

gorgoiler wrote: post #331
apparent wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd just end up arguing about when the property appreciated. The owner would say it all happened since the last tax payment was due. It would also complicate the home buying negotiation. People would look at your recent tax payments and put a cap on the bids they would make based on what would trigger back taxes for you.

I was indeed assuming that if you declared a value of $X but then sold N years later for $Y, then you pay N*(Y-X) in taxes. You are right to imply that it seems unfair if you discover in year 49 of your happy 50 year tenure that your Queens bungalow was built on top of a seam of pure gold nuggets all along.

Wouldn't you pay taxes every year, so N would never be ≥ 1?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#407

Post by [deleted] »

eli wrote: post #398
postflopclarity wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when you tax things you get less of it. when you tax supply, you get less supply many of these second homes are currently on the rental market. if there is less supply of these coming into the rental market, rent prices rise. I don't know why everybody's brains are so broken when it comes to housing policy. let's say you own an uninhabitable 2 family home in Brooklyn that was built in 1910 but would require serious r…

Getting fewer people owning homes that nobody lives in is a good thing. Where are you getting the idea that these homes are on the rental market? Why aren’t they being rented? I also don’t actually think this applies to buildings that are uninhabitable.

[deleted]

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#408

Post by harmmonica »

wsve wrote: post #248
harmmonica wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is sarcasm, but in case it's not isn't this the opposite of trickle down? Trickle down means lower taxes for the wealthy so they'll then have access to those extra funds to create jobs (through direct and indirect actions (investing in their companies, buying more stuff, etc.)). This is actually taking money away from the wealthy. If this works (meaning NYC gets the revenue without kneecapping those extr…

Yes it's definitely the opposite of trickle down. Higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce income inequality and provide more funding for social programs

I'd slightly adjust what you're saying because I think in this NYC case, and oftentimes generally-speaking, those funds are not reserved solely for what would conventionally be considered social programs.

Only adding this because I think it's important to point out that tax increases that solely target the rich are not always a transfer of wealth from rich(er) to poor(er), but sometimes fund things that those rich taxpayers also benefit from (in the NYC case those funds could easily be paying part of the police, parks, sanitation, etc. budget).

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#409

Post by pydry »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #186
pydry wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land value taxes don't discourage desirable behavior when raised. Property taxes might discourage construction but if land values are high enough then property taxes approximate land value taxes. Raising income tax on the other hand discourages working even when it is set very low. This is one which ought to be lowered if anything. tl;dr it doesnt work the same way for every tax.

>Land value taxes don't discourage desirable behavior Are you serious? LVTs expressly incentivizes landlords to kick out "grandfathered in" developments and uses in favor of redevelopment and sale for that purpose. But those grandfathered in developments and uses are exactly what made the place valuable in the first place and you need some amount of them to remain.

I mean, I guess if you're a NIMBY who wants to inhibit the construction of more affordable housing that's a bad thing.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#410

Post by queenkjuul »

8note wrote: post #391
jamiequint wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you make the tax too high it starts discouraging the behavior you're taxing, which can paradoxically reduce overall tax revenue." I am generally against more taxes, but the structure of this one is quite good in terms of the incentives. If wealthy people who only live in the city part-time stay in hotels instead of buying second homes, the net effect should be to increase the cost of hotel rooms and reduce the co…

> stay in hotels instead of buying second homes, the net effect should be to increase the cost of hotel rooms and reduce the cost of owned-housing. airbnb begs to differ? the conversion goes from owned/rented housing to airbnb conversions however, the slack is absorbed, and the airbnbs are gonna about match the actual need for how many ultra-rich people are actually in NY at a time

Good news, Airbnb can't operate in NYC.

Here in Chicago, they're banned from certain wards

Post reply on HN