Hochul angling towards $5M+ pied a terre tax

A lot of people think governments spend wastefully. I can’t say I disagree. At the same time, I find multiple homes and pied a terres wasteful. So to me, this seems like a match made in heaven.

Nada, Transfer and mansion taxes are very high on expensive properties. So the more expensive properties are sold, the more goes to city and state coffers upfront. This revenue will reduce if there is increases tax on non doms.

I guess your point is that NYC collects taxes in form of income tax and property tax.

Why should people who live here less than 183 days be able to avoid the income tax portion?

I would agree with that if they were to talking about not increasing spending and use that additional rev to reduce remaining property taxes. But they want to spend like crazy without results and then look for revenues.

And why not tax on rentals which are pied-a-terre? That is the same concept. Why only penalize ownership?

I wasn’t making a particular comment on the policy aspect. More commentary on the poetic justice: “Wasteful government taxes wasteful people.”

>> So the more expensive properties are sold, the more goes to city and state coffers upfront. This revenue will reduce if there is increases tax on non doms.

Are you sure? Pied a terre owner keeps apt => more property taxes than status quo. Pied a terre owner sells apt to NYC resident as a result => more transfer taxes. Heads, Aunt Hochul wins; tails, rich homeowner loses.

Ahh. That is funny.

But wasteful people like Ken have a second headquarters here which may become a higher hurdle when they feel unwelcome to have a pied-a-terre. He left Chicago already due to too much BS.

I always thought it is good to have Billionaires come to the city for extended periods of times as many of them are good for economic growth due to their ideas and investment capability.

For people who already bought it is true. Stiff them. But not for future buyers.
———
Are you sure? Pied a terre owner keeps apt => more property taxes than status quo. Pied a terre owner sells apt to NYC resident as a result => more transfer taxes. Heads, Aunt Hochul wins; tails, rich homeowner loses.

It is basically partial confiscation of their property vs what was indicated when they bought - same treatment as others for property taxes.

Remember Uganda. They confiscated. And then ran out of things to confiscate.

>> So the more expensive properties are sold, the more goes to city and state coffers upfront.

And in case you are referring to new development going to pied a terres, let me remind you that this is the same city+federal govt officials talking about spending $2000 ppsf to build *affordable housing* units in Sunnyside Yards—train tracks in Queens.

It takes $1B+/yr of recurring taxes to offset costs of a $21B boondoggle. Maybe we forgoe both the incremental taxes and the need for such boondoggles if less pied a terres get built?

Ah. The issue is boondoggles will continue and look to “confiscate” resident’s property with further above inflation increase in re taxes as well after they have spent money from non-residents.

>> But wasteful people like Ken have a second headquarters here which may become a higher hurdle when they feel unwelcome to have a pied-a-terre.

Ken’s a reasonable guy. I’m pretty sure another $1M/yr won’t make him “feel unwelcome”. He’s got $1B of RE holdings on its way to $1.5B. That’s $200M/yr of forgone returns in his funds in the capital he’s sunk. And another $50M/yr in taxes & upkeep? Once you’re are $251M/yr, you’re not gonna do something silly to avoid $251M/yr.

Wait for exit tax. And one time billionaire tax like CA.

Yeah, tell me about it. Back in 1912 there was no Federal income tax—took an amendment to make it happen! Ditto on NYS and NYC. They’ve been “confiscating” increasing amounts of income ever since. Why keep it solely aimed at income?

Ha.

On Ken, you are right. He wouldn’t care about $2mm extra. But who is to say they wouldn’t make it $10mm extra. But $5mm people will care about $50k extra.

They should fix under taxation as a percentage of MV of many ultra luxury properties first.

>> above inflation increase in re taxes

Isn’t this somewhat the necessary state of play? Expenses grow with GDP, not inflation. Sure, govt workers may be sitting around doing nothing. But wages grow with GDP, so they need to be paid *more* next year to sit around doing nothing. It’s boring on the job, and you need the latest iPhone with all the new features to keep you entertained.

Meanwhile, grandma is complaining about how she can’t get a larger-screen iPhone without COLA adjustments to her Social Security… so she can schedule her appointment with the doctor… who needs to overbill Medicare by larger amounts by overtreating a too-sick-to-cure patient… so he can keep up on payments on his new 3-year lease with the latest BMW model.

No. Real estate taxes, in general, are supposed to be fixed as a percentage of property value. When property values go up they go up. Total revenue can grow as there is more housing available. Workers wage budget collectively is supposed to grow as per inflation as total production of these
workers remains the same absent more programs and housing units. Individual workers can get inflation plus productivity increase (GDP) but retiring workers get replaced by lower paid workers.

>> Real estate taxes, in general, are supposed to be fixed as a percentage of property value. When property values go up they go up.

Yeah, that’s the theory. Unfortunately, reality has a way of getting in the way. RE prices in NYC tripled 1995-2005. Property taxes “only” went up ~50%:

https://www.ibo.nyc.gov/content/publications/2025-citywide-summary

Apparently, people do not like taxes tripling over a short period, just their home values. Such is the legacy of the packing of 30 years of price increases into 10 years: home prices stagnate while taxes catch up.

Now this is not to say the govt hasn’t been profligate recently, just that your mental models are not quite right. People expect more from the govts over time, in line with GDP. To put a fine point on it, warships from 1812 don’t do the job anymore. And people now demands $45K/yr (!!!) of federal spending per senior citizens in the way of SS and Medicare. Not just for the needy, just as a rule for every senior citizen.

It’s kinda another piece of irony, no? A populace so profligate that they cannot (as a rule) save for their own retirement puts a government in place to meet their profligate needs… and then they get surprised by that very government’s profligate behaviors!

In terms of patterns of profligate spending, take a look at Figure 2:

https://www.cato.org/blog/federal-spending-debt-1790-2050

Note how federal spending as fraction of GDP hovered around 2-3% for the first 150 years of the nation and steadily moved up since 1930 under govts of all stripes, now at 25% and projected to become 30%.

The good news is that we don’t have another 10x increase in the cards.

I like Hochul's plan, relative to other proposals we've seen. I think, taxing RE is the way, you cannot really get away with taxing anything else when you are already the highest tax location. And finding ways to discourage bad behaviors (buying second homes in a city where there is a housing shortage), while concentrating impact at the very high end of the market, is a decent move.

>>>And why not tax on rentals which are pied-a-terre? That is the same concept. Why only penalize ownership?

But that is a very good point. No answer to this.

>>>The good news is that we don’t have another 10x increase in the cards.

No, we don't. In the cards is my child paying off this credit card that funds current seniors' cushy retirements + wars

Sad

I think a good law would be that if NYC is not your primary residence as evidenced by your tax return, than the property tax on the house, condo or co-op should be 50 percent higher. No need to look at any other number and the tax would be very easy to administer, unlike the current proposal by Hochal.
A big reduction in city and state spending is really also needed. Lets start by eliminating pension benefits increased based upon overtime for state and city workers and MTA employees

“And finding ways to discourage bad behaviors (buying second homes in a city where there is a housing shortage), while concentrating impact at the very high end of the market, is a decent move.”

When did buying a second, third or multiple homes become bad behavior? I read similar sentiments in the comments. How will this alleviate the housing shortage? Do you really believe many of the commentators will be able to afford these pied-a-terre homes if sold? Do wealthy pied-a-terre owners not pay property taxes that supposedly help all New Yorkers despite not living in the city full time? Politicians in NY are arrogant just like CA. They think that can continue to fleece and tax the rich and the rich will just take it. The income flight to states like Florida and Texas is real. Hochul knows this. The end result of this pied-a-terre tax is that more wealthy will sell their luxury properties and say good bye to NYC. I am sure many who voted for Mamdani will love this but I don’t see how this opens up more affordable housing and I’m sure they will miss those property taxes. And any short lived revenue will almost be certainly be wasted and squandered on cushy union contracts and benefits

Then this would be policy that would encourage that, if done as a revenue-neutral move. It’s myopic to think that NY resident lack the wherewithal to soak up supply of even all 100K pied-a-terres that exist (at all price points) over time, or that substitution cannot happen. A 3000 sq ft is pretty fungible against 3 1000 sq ft apts, as the combo craze and new supply direction of the past 20 years demonstrated relative to the prior 20 years. I’m also entertained by the number of townhouses that got chopped into apartments and the reassembled as townhouses across the span of ~100 years to meet shifting demand.

>>>When did buying a second, third or multiple homes become bad behavior?

Sure, buy a second home in FL or upstate or elsewhere where people vacation. If that home stands empty most of the year, it is a little wasteful, but at least it does not increase other people's commute.

The land near great job opportunities, like the land in NYC, gets more and more expensive over time - a phenomenon well documented by economists. As industry participants co-locate (agglomeration), per worker productivity increases, but the benefit of this increased productivity goes mostly to the people that owned land in the region prior to the start of agglomeration trend (think those families that own all of the rental buildings in the city, or the lucky New Yorkers that bought homes in the nineties for a fraction of the cost today) in the form of rising RE prices.

Simultaneously, growing wealth inequality and globalization means the very expensive land / apartments gets gobbled up by the super rich. A lot of these apartments sit empty while the workers that help create the value are spending hours commuting from the suburbs, Staten Island, etc. Obviously this is not an optimal use of land and air rights.

Wealthy pied-a-terre owners do not pay NYC income tax, so one could argue that by some metrics they are not chipping in equitably to help maintain the city they enjoy for up to half a year minus one day.

>>>A 3000 sq ft is pretty fungible against 3 1000 sq ft apts

10 NYU students would room together in a large apartment, as they do today in 2 and 3 bedrooms.

>>>I think a good law would be that if NYC is not your primary residence as evidenced by your tax return, than the property tax on the house, condo or co-op should be 50 percent higher.

I like it!

I think many of you have a distorted perception as to how "rich people," at least a large swath of current high income, non-W-2 tax payers, pay state income taxes. I live nowhere but NY, and never have lived anywhere else in my 60 years. I file and pay state income taxes in numerous states and many foreign countries, many of which I have never stepped foot in. You can be sure that Ken Griffin has a fat New York income tax bill whether or not he lives in Florida, at least while he is still drawing significant income from his firm.

The argument that a periodically used NYC home is worthy of extra tax while some suburban or rural (or Florida) property may not due to ever escalating NYC real estate prices is interesting given the incessant chatter here about the stagnating (or deflating) NYC real estate market. The Miami real estate market is up over 50% in five years, and houses in many NYC suburbs are met with multiple above-ask offers in a day. With limited exceptions, NYC properties are trading at 2018 prices, or worse.

But the proffered logic of this makes no sense. If the idea is to drive down the cost of real estate, current NYC real estate owners ought to be up in arms, and the revenue generation goals will be self-defeating because the broader tax base will deflate, and that $6 million tax generating apartment will be sold for $4.75 million to a non-tax paying Irish carpenter. If we all admit that this is just a money grab, then its only impact will be to make it modestly harder to sell properties with a low $5MM price tag. Of course, "worth $5 million" is in the eye of the beholder, and NYC has never been very good at valuing real estate. This seems ill-conceived to raise $500MM, and it never will net that much. Maybe it will build three NYC-owned supermarkets.

I’ll repeat my major bone of contention: we always hear of new taxes and tax increases to address revenue shortfalls. We never hear about the other side of the equation, reducing spending, rooting out corruption and waste in government. I get it, it’s much easier and more popular to do the first. And if they increased property taxes 50% for non-residents, I would definitely sell my property and leave nyc permanently. I do shop and spend money in my hood of Hells Kitchen and I already pay $10k per year in property taxes. It’s a minuscule contribution to the local economy but I’m betting I’m not the only who is fed up by this, and the loss of income to other states is real regardless of what people want to claim

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/progressive-states-taxes-jobs-business-8e3d507b?st=hRSeQg

Half of what I had written got lost… sorry for the incoherence.

I was trying to say that one can separate the issue of overall tax & spending levels and where tax is coming from. To the extent one is interested in having residents own NYC homes rather than “transient” non-residents, then increasing tax burden on non-residents relative to residents pushes in that direction. One may think such a goal is preferable—for reasons Krolik states, for instance. Or you want residents that add to the community. Or ones that add more to the economy, whether via income tax or via full-time spending. You may think such goals worthwhile. Or you may not, which taken to the extreme means ghost cities like they have in China.

Personally, I am not necessarily celebrating more taxes. One of the reasons NY is unaffordable is due to too high property taxes (think in absolute dollars relative to incomes, not as % of property values). That is also the reason property values have been stagnant.

I was just saying that between raising property taxes across the board, raising corporate taxes, raising estate taxes, or taxing high value pied-a-terres, I like the last idea better than the rest. Sure the proposal could depress property values above 5mm, but whatever. NYC does not even base apartment property values and taxes on actual market values. And I agree with the poetic justice in taxing a wasteful activity.

Between the fraud and the unions, NYC is wasteful. However, as how much was spent on the Iran war TODAY? At least NYC is trying to provide a free 3k for kids and the sin is that it is apparently paying experienced teachers a bit too well. While the federal government is using multimillion dollar rockets to take down 30k drones. There is no comparison.

>>>I would definitely sell my property and leave nyc permanently. I do shop and spend money in my hood of Hells Kitchen and I already pay $10k per year in property taxes. It’s a minuscule contribution to the local economy but I’m betting I’m not the only who is fed up by this, and the loss of income to other states is real regardless of what people want to claim

But if you leave, someone else will move in. Maybe relocate from Queens and have a shorter commute, or maybe from out of state. The place won't be empty. And if the new resident is a full time resident, they will spend even more money in the neighborhood, and maybe work few extra hours now that they have a shorter commute.

Nada, I hear you wanting to discuss this in isolation from runaway spending but many of us just can’t separate spending from taxation as we didn’t have runaway spending it wouldn’t even be a point of discussion.

That said I understand the desire to charge more property tax to non residents as they don’t pay income tax.

But how do you tax non resident rentals beyond a certain $?

I hear the argument that non resident don’t use services as in police and schools but many income tax paying residents don’t use them either. In fact, lower income people tend to use more policing as the crime is higher in lower income hoods in NYC. And many rich people may not have children or use private schools.

So if the tax under discuss were to combined with some spending controls, I would support. But this is just a way to divert attention from run-away spending.

By reason the NYC tax code, high end residential Coops/Condos are tremendously under taxed valorem wise. It's one thing to - a la Bloomberg - encourage billionaires to make NYC home. But when they aren't doing that, why should they still reap the tax benefits. And in the case of Griffen, he owns 5 apartments North of $50 million in under a mile radius and spends basically no time in any of them.

Russian oligarchs and other bad actors own "pied-a-terres" which are actually parked I'll gotten gains and not for actual use. These also receive the tax breaks afforded high end residential. Generally speaking, the higher the value of the unit, the larger the tax breaks.

I have little issue charging the owners of a $300,000 Coop studio which the actually use often next to nothing in excess taxes, so long as those receiving the biggest breaks with little or no actual use get "unfairly" raked over the coals in an amount equivalent to a rounding error of the income/net worth

@30 Agree to agree on this
And it's not just high-end apartments, don't forget the Brooklyn townhouses too

(still agree to disagree on "affordable housing" topic)

300>> But how do you tax non resident rentals beyond a certain $?

Tax policy is a combination of “should” and “can”. If you’ve decided that taxing non-resident is something you “should” do, then you “can” tax non-resident owners. “Want lower property taxes? Show me your NYC tax return.’ But “Show me your tenant’s tax return” doesn’t quite work. So you skip it.

nyc_sport>> This seems ill-conceived to raise $500MM, and it never will net that much.

Yeah, I agree. Seems like a drop in the bucket, even if it raises that much. On the other hand, I personally would be in favor of discouraging pied-a-terres as a quality-of-life matter. I prefer a vibrant NYC populated by people who like living here, who like socializing here, etc. This vibrancy is what allows businesses in the city to prosper, which in turn attracts people to the city. This is the long-term competitive advantage of NYC over every other place in the US, city/suburban/rural. I imagine it’s what keeps people like 911 here, who by his own account, basically hates all other aspects of NYC more or less.

“I imagine it’s what keeps people like 911 here, who by his own account, basically hates all other aspects of NYC more or less.“

Hah, hah, I think you are mostly correct. What really keeps me in NYC is my partner, who loves the city all 12 months, all the time. I can only “tolerate” with the city for 6 months or so. I really don’t like cold weather and am not a fan of hot, humid weather either but that’s not the fault of the city of course. Spring and fall are delightful in the Northeast. I also detest sharing the streets with hordes of tourists. I guess that’s due to my anti-social nature. But I also realize the tourists bring in tremendous revenue that benefits the city and I do feel a little “proud” to live in a city that so many people have on their bucket list to visit in their lifetime. But I don’t disagree with you that NYC is uniquely vibrant and there is no other city like it in the US. It’s just for my personal lifestyle, hobbies and preferences, other cities are a better fit. And that is BEFORE taking into account cost of living. If it was just me, I would prefer living in Los Angeles EVEN if Los Angeles was a more expensive city to live in. I will say this…there is absolutely no better city to walk a dog in than NYC. All the different sights, sounds and smells that one experiences even in a very short walk. It’s my daily walks with my beloved Pug Wesley that keeps my sane and probably saves me a ton of money that I would otherwise spend on therapists or pharmaceuticals! And I have also come to the conclusion, that Inonada came to a long time ago, this is a city which is much better suited to renting in than owning. That is a regret, I do think my condo is great and I like my neighborhood, but I do fantasize about living in different neighborhoods and it’s just a non-starter for me. The transaction costs of selling and buying make no sense unless I could get an absolutely fantastic price for a different one bedroom condo. As I’ve told my partner, our Hells Kitchen condo is almost certainly the last piece of Manhattan real estate I will buy. But as long as she loves it and the city, I’m happy. You make compromises for the people you love.

Yeah, Hell’s Kitchen is particularly bad if you don’t like crowds and tourists. I think you’d be happier in one of the more “suburban” neighborhoods. I think some would fit the bill of being priced attractively. But of course, your wife may not like the more “suburban” neighborhoods.

Here’s a thought for the housing shortage: how about we make it illegal for coops to forbid owners from renting? A huge percentage of units sit empty because of outdated snoot.

Here’s a thought for the housing shortage: how about we make it illegal for coops to forbid owners from renting? A huge percentage of units sit empty because of outdated snoot.

I’ve said before I have a new found appreciation for the Upper East side. I always thought it was “boring” and “stodgy”, where all the old people live and not hip and trendy. So we rejected it when looking where to buy many years ago. Well I’m getting older and I don’t care about hip and trendy. There are less tourists, and many blocks feel more like a real neighborhood. And it seems there are a reasonable number of options for true one bedroom condos under $800k, which you really can’t say for lower east side (which we also like) or downtown. The only downside to me would be a more difficult commute to New Jersey as I like to drive to New Jersey fairly often on weekends for running races and it helps being close to the Lincoln tunnel. But if I were inclined to move, I would focus on UES.

@Yentle

And/or make it illegal to have board turn down a buyer without a clear written explanation!

I am no fan of coops, but I think for many the appeal of coops is that they discourage rentals. I don’t like vacancy taxes but if the concern is apartments sitting empty, I would favor a vacancy tax over a pied-a-terre tax, such as has been implemented in other cities such as Toronto or Vancouver. In Toronto, the “tax” kicks in if the property is vacant 50% of the time. I do believe there is a difference between a pied-a-terre owner who uses their unit for 6 months out of the year vs. one who uses it for a couple of weeks out of the year. Like many new laws and taxes, I think it would be difficult to enforce so it’s mostly a way for the politicians to claim they are doing some good for working class New Yorkers with nebulous benefits.

@Yentle 100% but I'm sure heads would explode. Part of the fun of living in NYC is indiscriminate, uncommitted, highly casual mingling and association with a variety of people. The exact opposite of a gated community. Liberate the coops! :D

>> I would favor a vacancy tax over a pied-a-terre tax, such as has been implemented in other cities such as Toronto or Vancouver. In Toronto, the “tax” kicks in if the property is vacant 50% of the time

Wait, why do you think that’s any different? If you spend more than 50% of your time in your NYC home, then you’re a statutory NYC resident. And if you are a NYC resident, you wouldn’t pay a non-resident property tax. Just like the vacancy tax you’re talking about, except more easily enforceable, no?

Yes the more I think about you’re right, it’s basically the same thing, different name. Not sure why I thought otherwise

The vacancy tax would be more punitive, if it were literally that. In particular, you can still be considered a NYC resident if you spend less than 50% of your time here. So a vacancy tax would have such people paying both resident income tax and a vacancy property tax. It’d be weird policy-wise, because it’d be saying “NYC is so much your home that we’re going to tax you as a resident even though you’re not here… but we’re also going to tax you for leaving your home empty for no good reason”.

Maybe if they called this a “vacancy tax”, it’d land better in your ears. But the fact that they’re targeting $5M+ rather than all price points indicates they’re more interested in showing their “tax the rich, never tax the everyman” bona fides than addressing the vacancy issue as a way to increase housing supply.

don't even think they are not framing this as a housing supply solution, mostly as a revenue raising measure with a small side benefit of discouraging holding empty properties

unlike congestion tax which they kept referring to as an air quality and congestion measure when it was clearly a cash grab

>>>Here’s a thought for the housing shortage: how about we make it illegal for coops to forbid owners from renting? A huge percentage of units sit empty because of outdated snoot.<<<

Most co-ops allow owners to sublet with approval of the subletter. This is desirable because it prevents the building from becoming a transient rental hub. If you want to be able to rent out your unit whenever and without need for approval, buy a traditional condo.

>>>@Yentle 100% but I'm sure heads would explode. Part of the fun of living in NYC is indiscriminate, uncommitted, highly casual mingling and association with a variety of people. The exact opposite of a gated community. Liberate the coops! :D<<<

Yeah, sure, maybe it's fun when you're out and about. Once home, not everyone wants 'highly casual mingling with a variety of people'. Most people want stable neighbors who have a vested interest in the building and its community.

>> This is desirable because it prevents the building from becoming a transient rental hub.

This is a complete crock of shit in my reality. I am the only renter in my building, yet I am the only one here anywhere near 100% of the time. So when I see the association of ownership with stability and an association of tenancy with transience, I roll my eyes. Show me a non-resident income tax return, and I’ll show you the transient.

I am on the board of my small 16 unit condo in San Francisco so I am always aware of “problems “. One fellow board member absolutely detests tenants and he is convinced I and others are illegally Airbnb-ing our units (there is no illegal Airbnb in our building). I pointed out to him that in the 3 years I have been doing monthly rentals, there has not been a single issue or complaint with one of my “transient” tenants. In fact, the major problems in the building are two OWNERS who are months behind in paying their HOA dues and in one previous case we had to pursue legal action to get another owner to pay their outstanding balance. It’s derelict owners who are causing us the most angst. Most condos are not free-for-alls when it comes to rentals or Airbnb, it just depends on the rules and how strictly they are enforced. Some condos allow monthly rentals and some only allow one year leases. If high turnover of residents is an issue, pick a condo that has a much stricter rental policy. I, for one, would never choose to live in a coop with all their rules, Board interview and the financial proctology exam that I would need to go through to get approved, but I certainly understand their appeal to some and to each his own.

"I am the only renter in my building, yet I am the only one here anywhere near 100% of the time."

This seems to me to be addressing a different "transience" question. Renters come and go, and those that own with a view to renting have a different financial math. Franky, I would expect renters to be present more than owners, because they have made a short term commitment to be somewhere for some short period of a lease. By that logic, a VRBO rental will be occupied more than any housing unit.

I owned in a 9 unit, fairly expensive, condo until recently, only one of which was not owner occupied. I lived there for 22 years; when I sold four other units had a longer ownership tenure than me. No unit was owned less than 8 years. The rental unit tended to be some out-of-state or ex-pat finance person that turned over every year or two. The rental unit owner had a very different perspective on spending money (except when the lease was on the market), but those views fell on deaf ears.

If we are going to "force" all housing units into the rental markets, I presume we should force NYU and Columbia to rent their massive housing stock to the general public, and prohibit them from being vacant 5 months of the year. But since everyone vents their version of housing utopia here, we should ban artificially driving up housing costs by forcing owners and renters to pay for amenities they do not use, which have nothing to do with housing.

Here is WSJ chiming in.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kathy-hochul-pied-a-terre-tax-new-york-city-zohran-mamdani-7808a650?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Here is WSJ chiming in.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kathy-hochul-pied-a-terre-tax-new-york-city-zohran-mamdani-7808a650?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Here is WSJ chiming in.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kathy-hochul-pied-a-terre-tax-new-york-city-zohran-mamdani-7808a650?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

I believed in part time residents using less services before NADA explained that $10mm apartment is not really using more services than $2mm apartment. And then $10mm apartment resident pays a lot in income taxes which aren’t proportionate to the services use either. It is just redistribution. Then there is state city tax non payment by non residents which are used to fund every expanding city govt and union overtime/inflated pensions due to overtime in some cases.

The only issue is new proposed taxes are just being wasted on some crazy ideas not reduction in property taxes for any one else. And it is class warfare which doesn’t set the right tone for wealthy individuals to contribute to the city.

Rising govt spending is just a fact of life. It’s what voters want: more spending, and someone else to pay for it.

Look at Federal spending as a fraction of GDP in the cato.org link I sent. It was a few percent 100 years ago. It’s now bloated to 22%. But that’s not enough for farcically “fiscally conservative” Republican Party, which got voted into both houses of Congress and the Presidency and instead of reigning it in, they summarily have put us on a trajectory toward 27%.

Nada, A big chunk of federal increase in spending is from social security and Medicare which one may say are somewhat equality distributed. Not much anyone can or should do on social security but as a nation politician should really focus on the cost medical benefits. Unfortunately that involves some benefits reduction

Nada, A big chunk of federal increase in spending is from social security and Medicare which one may say are somewhat equality distributed. Not much anyone can or should do on social security but as a nation politician should really focus on the cost medical benefits. Unfortunately that involves some benefits reduction

Also federal employees pensions benefits are not goosed up with over time etc. But city and state are have rampant abuse of union pension benefits. Then there is run away education spending without commensurate results.

As I wrote earlier:

>> people now demands $45K/yr (!!!) of federal spending per senior citizens in the way of SS and Medicare. Not just for the needy, just as a rule for every senior citizen.

Think about that. GDP per capita is $90K/yr. By the simple qualification of being over 65, you are afforded the equivalent of the average productivity of half a person in the country.

The term “fiscal conservative” means limiting the role of govt in the finances of the citizenry. You’re qualifying and expressing preferences on differing degrees and forms of govt roles in people’s financial affairs. I’m not making a judgement or expressing an opinion about what it should be, just what it is and where it’s heading. No one cares about my opinion, it’s not going to change anyone’s mind. I can tell members of my extended family to do X in subject matters I outwardly have a large degree of expertise in, and they’ll still do Y. If I can’t even do that, do you think the hive mind cares what I think? No. All I can do is observe the hive mind, consider where it’s heading, and react accordingly.

Quality journalism, from a 20-year professional of the written word, unironically fluidly transitioning from people with “second homes” to “residents”.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new-york-city/trump-mamdani-comment-taxrich-pied-a-terre/6491359/?amp=1

>> On Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul formally announced her and Mamdani's proposal to tax people who have second homes in New York City worth more than $5 million.

>> It marked a surprising shift for the Democrat, who initially pledged not to add to New York residents' tax burden -- and a major win for Mamdani, for whom taxing the rich was a cornerstone of his mayoral campaign.

Ha. I had to read it a couple of times to see the difference.

What is very interesting is how the valuation will be done. No one seems to have said anything about it. If they use assessed value on which you pay 12/13 percent currently, for $5mm market value property that will be less than $1mm. If so, this whole tax is just a publicity scam about which politician wants to screw the rich the most.

Ken’s 220 CPS DOF Estimated market value is $14mm vs real purchase price of $239mm.

City is better off fixing the taxation system but it wouldn’t generate soak the rich publicity.

But who knows how they will actually determine market value to tax on. As a minimum, they can use last purchase price if they really want to screw the non-resident rich.

A whopper $900k annual taxes. 12.5 percent of 45 percent of $15mm. That is the system they need to fix for residents and non-residents asap.

Interesting stats from a Bloomberg article, although it might be flawed:

>> The measure targets a visible slice of the market: Almost a third of New York’s residential stock was owned by non-residents in 2021. That share climbs to 56% for homes worth at least $5 million, according to a Bloomberg analysis of data from the Department of Finance.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-16/what-s-a-pied-a-terre-tax-hochul-s-proposal-rattles-nyc-brokers-buyers?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTc3NjY4MjM0MSwiZXhwIjoxNzc3Mjg3MTQxLCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJURExBU0lLR1pBT1QwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJGMkY0RUZBM0JCOUY0MDBFQjU0NTZFMzM1QzdDMEIyOCJ9.lF_y__c2DHswRf9j3fIhwhq6eqkN30xh-yOn5rbEc9s

Don't forget the interest we're paying on the national debt.

I get surprised that even Bloomberg doesn’t talk about whether $5mm real market value or DOF made up market value based on rental equivalent basic. May be politicians don’t want to talk about it on purpose.

It's just grandstanding - and, short term, politically astute. A lot of Mamdani voters will feel great for having voted for him, esp recent university grads and academic types who think of themselves as social justice warriors.
I place a lot of the blame on higher education. Young people spend formative years imbibing and then parroting the thought of left-wing writers like Foucault. It's how you get by in college. Give the professor what he wants. Schooled isn't educated.

>> I get surprised that even Bloomberg doesn’t talk about whether $5mm real market value or DOF made up market value based on rental equivalent basic. May be politicians don’t want to talk about it on purpose.

Some of the articles I’ve seen refer to “full market value”, so I imagine it is real market value. But no mention of how that will be established. And of course, unless implemented in a progressive manner (i.e., tax on each dollar in excess of $5M rather than the whole thing if greater than $5M), it’ll be illogical & chaotic. My expectation is on “illogical & chaotic”.

Are people aware of the income band whereby NYers pay >100% of marginal income in income tax? Fun stuff.

If they do it, I hope it is some small percentage - say 1-2 percent of real market value. The politicians will get kudos and it wouldn’t upset or impact Kens. And overtime I am sure it will be go up.

On discontinuities in tax brackets, we all hate them but politicians don’t care. So I agree it will be illogical and chaotic.

>>Are people aware of the income band whereby NYers pay >100% of marginal income in income tax?

More detail please - I am not aware.

>>>Almost a third of New York’s residential stock was owned by non-residents in 2021. That share climbs to 56% for homes worth at least $5 million, according to a Bloomberg analysis of data from the Department of Finance.

This is interesting. I wonder how it compares to everywhere else, and how undesirable this is. I imagine the more important metric is what percent of real estate is unoccupied.

>> If they do it, I hope it is some small percentage - say 1-2 percent of real market value.

$500M/yr from 13K homes is (numbers attributed to Hochul) is $38K/yr on average. So it sounds like less than 1% from that math. Who knows, maybe they’re making it progressive starting at 1% at $5M.

>> More detail please - I am not aware.

Starting around $100K, the brackets transition from being the bracket’s marginal rate (6%) on marginal dollars to becoming a flat rate on (6%) all dollars. This transition happens quickly on spans of $50K.

As illustration, the tax rate at $25M is a flat 10.3%. So $2.575M of tax. By $25.05M, it has transitioned to a flat 10.9%. So $2.730M. That’s $50K of incremental income, but $155K of incremental tax. So a 311% marginal tax rate!

Same fun at other transition levels, but with smaller dollar amounts. But worse marginal tax rates at some, i believe.

The system is laced with perverse incentives. Each rate should apply only to the slice of income within that bracket, not to the whole income.