91–100 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure yeah, all those middle class families with second homes in New York City . Right. Nobody affected by this is middle class. Nobody that will be affected by this in the next 20 years would be considered middle class by any rational measure.
That really depends on how you define middle class. I can easily see how someone with a net worth of 100m being considered middle class compared to billionaires.
> New York City’s new tax on second homes will more than double property taxes owed by many wealthy luxury apartment owners, according to tax experts. > State lawmakers on Wednesday passed the tax on nonprimary residences in order to help close the city’s budget gap. The so-called pied-a-terre tax will be imposed on second homes valued at $1 million or more. It’s expected to raise $500 million in revenue. > Details o…
> In the UK, the equivalent tax on housing is council tax, and local councils in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) are empowered to double the rates of council tax on second homes. Very interesting to know. Many readers may not be aware that council tax in the UK is quite regressive and tops out at ~£4-5K / year on properties valued higher than ~£1M. So you can own a £5M GBP house and still pay only £5K / year…
Nothing, absolutely nothing do we have to adjust to America, neither up or downwards.
That being said, and as much as I think Mamdani is an Ideologue, taxing second, unoccupied homes sounds absolutely reasonable (at least if they aren't rented out). Expect all kinds of shenanigans to circumvent this, but still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. I wont hold my breath though.
> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account? They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what do you think investment does?
Property tax is the workable wealth tax. There's no such thing as a perfect policy, but in the context of NYC this seems worth trying. I'll be interested to see if it helps create some liquidity in the housing market (the goal), or if it only functions as revenue source. One wrinkle I haven't heard much discussion of -- cities respond to incentives too. NYC is a global destination for the mega wealthy. If it turns ou…
The tax is reasonably small enough that I wouldn't expect a lot of wealthy people from divesting from their properties, but it's probably going to make them think twice about buying new properties.
That second-order effect is the important balancing act for any locality-based wealth tax. If you make the tax too high it starts discouraging the behavior you're taxing, which can paradoxically reduce overall tax revenue.
France discovered this the hard way when they implemented their first wealth tax: Many ultra-wealthy people moved their capital out of France to avoid the tax, which was suspected to have had an overall decreasing effect on tax revenue from that demographic. They replaced the wealth tax with a property tax, which probably played a large role in inspiring this pied-à-terre policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you need to read the rest too: "While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said." It also mentions they plan to adjust property valuations in coming years, and when the valuations go up the rates will go down: "After the valuation adj…
> I dunno, 1.3% seems.. not at all unreasonable? I live in TX and that's about what my property taxes are, for a property valued at several orders of magnitude less than any of Ken Griffin's NYC properties. Bear in mind, it's 1.3% on top of the existing ~1.8% average NYC property tax rate, so it may still be comparatively expensive relative to TX property taxes.
If that argument holds up in court, we are all screwed.
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?
> Wont, as a rule, any super-rich 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes in New York be completely unaffordable for almost everyone? ?? The point is to raise revenue. In some sense, City is calling the bluff of these deeply immoral rich fucks; the tax is incredibly affordable for them, and almost all of them will simply complain and pay it, and thus generate revenue for the City.
Yep, I'm sorry -- I was very confused here, sorry for the not-very-useful initial post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. I wont hold my breath though.
> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account? They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what do you think investment does?