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

421–430 of 459 posts

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#421

Post by lux-lux-lux »

gruez wrote: post #164
blactuary wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of this isn't simply to raise revenue, it's also to discourage parking money in empty properties when it's one of the most expensive cities to live in and doesn't have enough housing

>it's also to discourage parking money in empty properties when it's one of the most expensive cities to live in and doesn't have enough housing Is that really needed when the homeowner vacancy rate is 1.3% in the New York-Newark-Jersey City MSA? https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/rates.html

The actual vacancy rate is many times that, as properties are kept off market for a variety of reasons (one of which this tax directly addresses)

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#422

Post by WalterBright »

Terr_ wrote: post #389
WalterBright wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not repeal it, then?

Is this perhaps some sort of badly-signaled satire, or a comment mis-submitted to the wrong thread? I cannot understand what though-process led you to suggest repealing "it", whether that means the entire tax or whether it means reducing the number of brackets.

> it basically never happens

Why have a tax that never happens?

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#423

Post by Terr_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #422
Terr_ wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this perhaps some sort of badly-signaled satire, or a comment mis-submitted to the wrong thread? I cannot understand what though-process led you to suggest repealing "it", whether that means the entire tax or whether it means reducing the number of brackets.

> it basically never happens Why have a tax that never happens?

No, I'm saying the tax basically never takes 40% of the estate assets that are being gifted to recipients. That 40% is just one number in a larger equation, and it's wrong to use it out of context in a way that makes the policy seem harsher/scarier than it really is.

However it also true that 99% of the time the estate tax is $0, but that just tells you 99% of Americans die without being that rich. It doesn't mean that piece of the system is not effective or necessary at doing a job. If we had no estate tax, that would create a massive loophole people would abuse so that other taxes stop working as intended.

It's like how the vast majority of cars will not hit the railing that stands between them and a deadly plunge off the edge of the cliff... but we still need to keep it for when it matters.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#424

Post by gruez »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #402
gruez wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>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.

Right, but consumption for a business is fundamentally different than a person consuming. When you eat lobster (vs eating ground beef), any extra benefit goes down the toilet, so to speak. Whereas for a business, it's presumably to further the enterprise. Maybe getting a purer reagent will make the product better and drive more sales. After all, a business itself can't have any needs or wants. In any case a business can't have wants to get the $300 reagent just because, unlike a person. The employees can get benefits, but there are strict policies set by the IRS on what you can count as a business expense, specifically to prevent you from putting lobsters as a business expense.

Moreover such favorable tax treatment isn't restricted to businesses only. It's available to anyone that conducts business. If you're self employed you can deduct the cost of your F-150 truck, if it's used as part of your job.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#425

Post by gruez »

lux-lux-lux wrote: post #421
gruez wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's also to discourage parking money in empty properties when it's one of the most expensive cities to live in and doesn't have enough housing Is that really needed when the homeowner vacancy rate is 1.3% in the New York-Newark-Jersey City MSA? https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/rates.html

The actual vacancy rate is many times that, as properties are kept off market for a variety of reasons (one of which this tax directly addresses)

Why wouldn't it be captured? This is from the census, so it presumably captures units that aren't on the market.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#426

Post by kjshsh123 »

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #344
kjshsh123 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bastiat was opposed to inheritance taxes. He wrote about this in Economic Harmonies. I think he'd call the connection you're trying to make a stretch

Yes, the famous bourgeois economist Bastiat is certainly a reference in how to provide economic justice on this planet. /s To be clear, i'm not exactly defending inheritance tax if resources are shared another way. For instance, it would make sense to let people keep a − modest − home across generations. But i'm tired of rich capitalist tech bros saying income taxes are unfair because they've worked so hard, and inhe…

The person I replied to was referencing Bastiat's parable of the broken window.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#427

Post by kjshsh123 »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #323
hungryhobbit wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to everyone but a nepo baby it's clear that the children of the rich don't deserve their wealth.

Wow, someone downvoted me? The definition of the word "deserve" is: > To deserve means to be worthy of, entitled to, or to have a valid claim to a reward, punishment, or treatment based on your actions, qualities, or circumstances So you genuinely believe that nepo babies, despite not taking actions or creating any circumstances to earn their wealth .... nevertheless deserve to have it anyway?

It's less that about the recipient deserving to receive it, and more about the giver deserving to give it.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#429

Post by senordevnyc »

zozbot234 wrote: post #241
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Redevelopment often mitigates housing scarcity in general, including for existing residents. They may have to move to a slightly smaller apartment within a generally much improved area, which usually leaves them better off. This is especially true for LVT, which amounts to a decrease in property tax for the improvements to land.

They may have to move to a slightly smaller apartment within a generally much improved area, which usually leaves them better off.

Good luck selling this to voters.

Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax

#430

Post by senordevnyc »

ceejayoz wrote: post #382
ycdeebs wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world where you are the supreme ruler, then what you individually want matters. In our actual world, it’s more about what the society in general wants.

> In our actual world, it’s more about what the society in general wants. God, if only! In the actual world, it's more about what the powerful want. Why do you think billionaires spent more fighting Mamdani than they stood to lose in new taxes?

The powerful didn’t want this.
Post reply on HN