Time for aggressive new NYC & NYS taxes

It not just "for tax reasons", its cosmpopolitan rich people generally. I would bet a huge chunk of them split their time between OTHER high tax areas - LA, London, Paris, as much as lower tax places like Dubai or Geneva.

Yes, the article makes that clear. We need to find a mechanism to much more highly tax those people who maintain residences here but are not taxed as residents -- or to much more highly tax those residences that they maintain here while not paying local income tax.

Alan: I hope that was one of your slyly facetious posts, and that my sarcasm detector is on the fritz. Rich part-timers are an asset. They pump money into the local economy (retail, arts, services, RE taxes, sales taxes, etc.) while consuming very few public services.

If they are EARNING a lot of money in New York and evading local income taxes, that's one thing. But if they're coming here to SPEND, it doesn't make much sense to punish them. Think of them as tourists who happen to own their hotel rooms.

"We need to find a mechanism to much more highly tax those people who maintain residences here but are not taxed as residents -- or to much more highly tax those residences that they maintain here while not paying local income tax."

If you maintain a home here, you are taxed plenty.

If we're splitting hairs here, Alan, if anything they should be given a tax DISCOUNT for tax-funded services they're not using, like police/fire/refuse/etc.

I also feel that if you don't have children, you shouldn't have to pay school taxes. And if you have more than two children burdening the public school system, your taxes should be raised accordingly.

West81st, not facetious at all (nor do I think tax policy will change). I highly doubt that people who keep apartments and visit for a total of two months or so spend at nearly the rate of people who stay in luxury hotels -- and certainly not at the rate of people who actually live in those same luxury apartments on a more nearly full-time basis -- and who will pay local income taxes, to boot.

This post is non-sensical. Condos and Coops are assessed taxes with no consideration as to whether it's a primary
or secondary residence. Now if your talking a tax other than real estate such as a sales tax, you'll only
discourage people from coming here to shop. If your talking about an additional real estate tax, this would be
very problematic for coops which are taxed by the city and then apportion to their investors. You'll also find that raising real estate taxes would not bring in nearly as much revenue as you believe it will, and would have the
additional effect of decreasing market prices, increasing invventory available for sale.. in other words an economic
disaster.

I'm talking about a very substantial increase in RE tax rates -- NYC's are much lower than our suburban neighbors, last I check -- offset equally by a rebate similar to STAR in the case that the owner is a tax resident at that address.

"I'm talking about a very substantial increase in RE tax rates -- NYC's are much lower than our suburban neighbors"

So you're trying to drive rich people OUT of the city so that vacancy rate will be closer to 60% ... why?

Have you heard of the term "cutting off your nose to spite your face"??

These ARE rich people "OUT of the city" ... that's the whole point to the article. I want rich people spending their money here during ten months of the year rather than two. These owners are not the only rich people who want to buy those apartments ... they're displacing the people who would better serve our economy. Tool.

"they're displacing the people who would better serve our economy."

Really.

How exactly are they "displacing" them? Is there some shadow New York City Department of Housing Appropriation that GAVE those apartments to all those rich people?

Or did they buy those apartments on the free market, that same market that allows YOU to do the same?

Please explain.

"...have the additional effect of decreasing market prices, increasing inventory available for sale.. in other words an economic disaster."

No, it will mean more affordable housing for people who actually live here.

"No, it will mean more affordable housing for people who actually live here."

I'm not sure how aggressively increased property taxes will make housing more affordable. Very high carrying costs might lower pricing, but I'm not convinced it makes housing more affordable.

"Or did they buy those apartments on the free market, that same market that allows YOU to do the same [if you had the same financial resources]?"

NYCMatt, how come you do not apply that same logic to foreign workers in the city? It would sound something like this: "Or did they got those jobs on the free market, that same market that allows YOU to do the same [if you were willing to work for less]?"

they're displacing the people who would better serve our economy."

On the contrary. They pay real estate taxes and require very little in terms of public services from the city. When they do come they eat in restaurants and purhcase services from the local economy. Many people who work in the city commute
from Long Island, New Jersey & Connnecticut. You've also left out the construction jobs created from building
the units the out of towners have purchased.

bjw2103, I'm guessing alanhart is thinking to taxes that would target those absentee owners who do not pay local income tax specifically. I am certainly not for raising RE taxes across the board.

"I'm guessing alanhart is thinking to taxes that would target those absentee owners who do not pay local income tax specifically."

You're right.

SO much better to just chase those absentee richies out altogether, so that those apartments will sit empty with NO owners paying ANY taxes whatsoever.

Oh wait, but in Alan's milk-and-honey-flowing-through-the-Hudson world, those empty Fifth Avenue apartments would just be given to People Who Really Deserve Them like little old ladies who can only afford $400/month or "disadvantaged" people of color who despite having broken laws just by being in this country illegally, deserve a nice place to live because they've been so victimized by The Man!

"SO much better to just chase those absentee richies out altogether, so that those apartments will sit empty with NO owners paying ANY taxes whatsoever."

SO you think the city would not get to collect any RE taxes if the apartments sit empty? SO you think the apartments would actually sit empty for long? You would be SO wrong.

There are plenty of "richies" who would want to live here full time.

NYCMatt, I hope when you refer to illegals being victimized by The Man, that The Man isn't also messing up their body clocks, which routinely happens to the union workers.

Sunday, you must be patient with Matthew, and explain things very slowly and deliberately.

Matthew, not all places are like Fort George. Not all apartments are in walkup tenements. Some are in such demand that people are willing to pay lots of money for them, people who are rich and will spend money locally, in NYC, for ten months a year on all kinds of other things. But while those people are willing to pay lots of money for the better-than-walkup apartments in areas that are not quite as much like Fort George as Fort George is, they're not willing to pay lots and lots and lots of money. Instead, they will buy in Old Greenwich and buy their pleasure in Port Chester.

And by the way, Matthew, those Fifth Avenue apartments ARE sitting empty ... no need for the hypothetical. And "disadvantaged" is really not a very nice euphemism for "sodomite" ... you risk offending The Gays (of every color under the tacky Frisco hippie rainbow) with that sort of talk.

See, Sunday, you just have to be nice and dumb things down a really really lot, then some more, and at some point even Matthew will be able to understand.

Alanhart -- I am usually in agreement with you, but I could not be further in disagreement with you on this issue. For one, it is backwards to suggest that property taxes should be increased for individuals that make absolutely no use of its primary purpose (schools), and little or not use of its secondary purposes in supporting services. It is also impossible to police, since it cannot possibly reach part time renter residents, and what does it mean to be part time. I also think it is naive to believe that there is an endless supply of replacements if someone doesn't want to pay a punitive "part-time" tax. Virtually everyone that I know that is a part time resident would be out of here in a heartbeat if they were subject to NYC income tax, and while I assume any "non-resident" property tax might have less significant financial impact, the idea of keeping a NYC apartment makes less and less sense as costs that really irk people, like taxes, mount.

I also do not think it remains true that NYC property taxes are substantially below other options, and the "Star" rebate/exemption no longer applies to anyone that makes the sort of money that would involve empty NYC apartments. There is a severe property tax apportionment problem in Manhattan, particularly in the UES/UWS pre-war buildings, but that is a function of ineptitude and politics as usual, not any taxation policy.