Bloomberg to raise NYC property tax?

Hi Glamma!

Both concerns overblown, IMHO. The proportion of the city budget coming in from real estate transfer taxes dipped as transaction volume dipped, post-2008, and some of the rises we've seen in co-op/condo taxes have been an attempt to balance that out, but those have been the way of the world for the past few years and aren't really anything new. If anything, a lot of market watchers predict that transaction volume will increase going forward, so that might take some of the pressure off.

The whole "Republican repeal" story stems from this post on the Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/22/a-very-significant-tea-leaf-in-the-gop-platform.html

You can see as you read through it that it's pretty weak and speculative.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Honestly, anyone on this board who argues for the special status of NY real estate in a weak economy, or as a place to live so special that no one would be tempted to move elsewhere despite lower costs, is arguing that the mayor can go ahead and raise taxes, at least on high value Manhattan and Brooklyn real estate.

It won't hurt his election prospects since he isn't running. It won't hurt most of the Council since most of the city rents, much of the rest don't own in those areas, and of those who do many aren't even residents.

Why shouldn't the people who benefited from the rise in NY real estate pay their fair share?

just change the tax abatement rules on new construction. NYC will be filthy rich.

"Why shouldn't the people who benefited from the rise in NY real estate pay their fair share?"

They already do because the property will be assessed at a higher value.

Repeal of the mortgage tax credit will never happen under the GOP, even if it might be consistent with their talk. Their best rank-and-file voters remain suburban and rural homeowners, who value the "some people are more equal" aspect of unwarranted financial advantage for themselves.

I'm not really up on RE taxation throughout NYC, so maybe I've got this wrong, but ... Tax equalization in NYC -- upping SFR tax rates in the boroughs -- would make sense at this point, in the vast majority of neighborhoods. Those areas received preferential rates a generation or two ago, to stem the outflow to suburbia. Now the situation has stabilized, and suburban taxes are so much higher that an adjustment in NYC won't make much difference.

Av: They can jack up property taxes all they want, but the burden is not going to be equally distributed and will disproportionately fall on newer or newly improved properties.

Glamma: I think as far as your own property goes, you're good. The cap isn't going to be touched.

He should immediately due away with all abatements. Full tax load for everyone. If there are no special circumstances to due away with them, create a new temp tax for properties with abatements until they run out.

Alan: upping SFR tax rates isn't going to do much because of the way the cap interacts with actual property taxes paid.

Ali is right. Doctors should pay their fair share. Astronauts should pay their fair share. Educators should pay their fair share. But 'homeowners' should always be given a tax free ride on the first $500k gain. Interest expense on consumption should be exempt. You should be able to pull $100k in 'equity' and that interest should be exempt. And of course re taxes should be kept as low as possible so that more re humpers can be bailed out.

Of course fk the renters. Taxes should be increased on renters bc they are not paying their fair share.

Mitt Romney for president!!! The 'why the fk should I pay taxes' party. Never realized all re borkers are Romney humpers toooooo.

Bigger concern is whether the GOP will take away the local & state income tax deduction. Forget the real estate fluff.

nyc10023, why assume the cap won't be touched? I can see them getting creative with the number, in small but snowballing incremental increases. Too fancy for the average person to see what's coming.

Tax abatements are quietly winding down in some of the most expensive new developments. Tax collections will increase significantly, although I don't know much percentage-wise the buildings with 10 and 15 year abatements affect total tax collections.

Most of the buildings with 25 year abatements have fairly low unabated taxes, I have no idea how much is lost due to those programs.

w67, you called that one wrong. I have an important Republican client who is very special to me, but I'm the daughter of a Democratic Party politician and a big Obama fundraiser.

Renters don't pay property taxes? I guess they also don't pay maintenance costs, ultilities, staff salaries, etc. It seems that renters really get ripped off. Or am I wrong on something?

"just change the tax abatement rules on new construction. NYC will be filthy rich."

Given that you still don't understand tax abatements, I'd guess that wouldn't make the kind of dent you think it would.

>>"Why shouldn't the people who benefited from the rise in NY real estate pay their fair share?"

They already do because the property will be assessed at a higher value.<<

And why not increase the rate on higher value properties. If income taxes should be progressive shouldn't real estate taxes as well? Don't the rich benefit more from the glamour of the city and their locations in "prime" locations?

"Bigger concern is whether the GOP will take away the local & state income tax deduction. Forget the real estate fluff."

For the rich, of whom we are talking, this has already been done circa 1982, via the AMT. So really we should blame a Democratic Congress and a republican president who signed it.

WHOOPS sorry guys!!! I am way out fo practice LOL. I kept getting that stupid "#5 train service down" message, meanwhile the threads were posting totally normally, didn't realize. My bad! Now that i've created 6 duplicate threads

well thanks guys, i'm very glad to hear there is not much meat to either of these things!

If you don't think taxes will go up.. watch this
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0

Alan: the cap is a state thing.

bjw, if everyone will stop paying the $100 per month and start paying the $500-2K, that will not change anything for NYC? someone is math averse here, and it ain't me.

Didn't say it wouldn't change anything; just don't think it would instantly make the city "filthy rich." I imagine you're still going off your previously cited figures from that misleading (read: math averse) NYT article.

no, just realize that you have 10s of thousands of apartments paying 10% or less of property taxes. that's not a few pennies.

Is it that many? Granted this is rather difficult to quantify, but let's assume your numbers are correct (I think they're overstated, but no biggie). Let's say the average unabated tax amount per unit is 12k and everyone is currently only paying 10% of that. Automagically removing the abatements, that's an additional yearly revenue of 216m for 20k apts. That may sound like filthy rich money to you and I, but I suspect the city would blow through it in 20 minutes. And I think those estimates are rather aggressive.

>Granted this is rather difficult to quantify, but let's assume your numbers are correct (I think they're overstated, but no biggie).

No biggie, because you are the expert on numbers, right?

"No biggie, because you are the expert on numbers, right?"

Duh.