Interesting article…Ken Griffin is definitely one of the targets of the new proposed pied-a-terre tax and didn’t like his trophy property at Central Park South being the backdrop for Mamdani’s latest tax-the-rich video. What would NYC potentially lose if Griffin moved his hedge fund Citadel from NYC to Miami? Citadel principals and team members, INCLUDING non-residents paid nearly $2.3 billion in... [more]
Interesting article…Ken Griffin is definitely one of the targets of the new proposed pied-a-terre tax and didn’t like his trophy property at Central Park South being the backdrop for Mamdani’s latest tax-the-rich video. What would NYC potentially lose if Griffin moved his hedge fund Citadel from NYC to Miami? Citadel principals and team members, INCLUDING non-residents paid nearly $2.3 billion in city and state taxes over the past five years. Griffin himself has personally donated $650 million in charitable gifts to support NYC. He already left Chicago. I’ll be laughing my a$$ off if he leaves NYC
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/ken-griffin-pushes-back-after-mamdani-features-his-238-million-penthouse-in-tax-the-rich-video-8a78afd3?st=UyA3pm[less]
Response by 300_mercer
5 days ago
Posts: 10712
Member since: Feb 2007
It was a brand building exercise by Mamdani.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
5 days ago
Posts: 10712
Member since: Feb 2007
I bet he likes the reaction. That is exactly what he wanted. While Nada has convinced me on this pages that a little extra fine but vilification??
Also I agree that a little extra is fine as NYC is funded by a combo of property and income taxes. And top end property taxes are too low as a percentage. What Mamadani and Hochul should really have been doing is have a “true value surcharge” where top x percent by value are taxed on a real value basis at the same tax rate as 1-3 family. But that wouldn’t get votes and publicity.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by inonada
5 days ago
Posts: 8078
Member since: Oct 2008
In a city where land and housing is severely restricted, I think taxes discouraging encouraging occupancy and discouraging vacancy are reasonable policy. At all price levels.
Mamdani is playing to an audience who delude themselves, like Trump does, as evidenced by name-checking Ken. An larger-than-typical portion of the country is in a self-deluding binge from all sorts of angles, political, economic, financial, and health. Unfortunately, they only tend to set themselves back for the most part.
A couple of years ago, my housekeeper was telling my wife & I about her (immigrant) relatives who supported Trump. The reason was he was going to “fix the economy.” Her response: “What are you talking about? No politician is going to fix the economy for you. You gotta fix your own economy.”
If you look at GDP per capita in the US, it goes up steady no matter who’s in the White House. IMO, you are somewhat deluded if you think there’s a meaningful link between who’s in the White House and the US economy, to say nothing of your economy.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by MTH
4 days ago
Posts: 629
Member since: Apr 2012
I own a small pied-à-terre—my beloved little matchbox—which I use for now but plan to make my primary residence when I retire in a few years. I bought it simply to have a place to land. Paid in the low 3 figures for it.
I can see the rationale for taxing it at a higher rate when it’s unoccupied, but it really depends on how high that rate is. I’m a middle-income wage earner in the NYC economic ecosystem.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by inonada
3 days ago
Posts: 8078
Member since: Oct 2008
Low 3-figures is usually interpreted as $999 or less. That’s a great price!
>> I can see the rationale for taxing it at a higher rate when it’s unoccupied, but it really depends on how high that rate is.
We’re talking about a policy question, and Mamdani is interested in political theater. As a matter of policy to discourage vacancy, one should probably introduce such a tax at all price levels. And as a matter of fairness and continuity, one should ramp up the tax rate gradually over a decade or more. A sudden tax jump may not fit into certain budgets (even $5M+ owners), and it’s not cool to give the shaft to sellers (an increased number due to the tax) and developments already under way under the presumption of demand with no such tax being in place. A gradual form of the tax would have the same effects directionally but be less disruptive.
But if you’re more interested in political theater than policy, you don’t think in such terms.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by MTH
3 days ago
Posts: 629
Member since: Apr 2012
@inonada - I'll fess up: I didn't weigh the place at checkout.
Seriously: I meant low 6 figures...was thinking in K.
The market rent on my place would be much more accessible to the vast majority of renters than anything in Ken Griffin's portfolio. In fact, this law has it exactly backward. He should have started with the least expensive pieds a terre if the idea was housing affordability for workers. Phasing it in would be a nice concession, though. One of my biggest considerations when house hunting was maintenance. I'm still doing what I can to save for (semi) retirement.
You're right - I'm sure the intent is pandering to his left-populist base.
And AI says: Property taxes in London vs NYC - higher or lower?
→ NYC is much higher
More progressive?
→ Neither is cleanly progressive
→ But:
London is more clearly regressive at the top
NYC is uneven but closer to value-based taxation
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by inonada
2 days ago
Posts: 8078
Member since: Oct 2008
NYC has been losing non-resident “high rollers” since at least 2020. And RE has been taking into the chin since 2006, thought the non-resident high rollers only finally caught on a few years ago. The new taxes won’t help, but this has been a sinking ship for quite some time.
FWIW, I imagine this had a lot more to do with the “high rollers” non-residents leaving than property taxes:
>> That same month, the government abolished the special tax status of nonresidents, instituting new rules that tax them on their global income.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by MTH
about 16 hours ago
Posts: 629
Member since: Apr 2012
Why the scare quotes? Isn't 'high roller' just a euphemism for the rich?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by inonada
about 9 hours ago
Posts: 8078
Member since: Oct 2008
I always associated “high roller” with high stakes gamblers, not rich. So I just put quotes around in acknowledgment of your funny usage (funny as in haha). What up, high rolla?
It was a brand building exercise by Mamdani.
I bet he likes the reaction. That is exactly what he wanted. While Nada has convinced me on this pages that a little extra fine but vilification??
Also I agree that a little extra is fine as NYC is funded by a combo of property and income taxes. And top end property taxes are too low as a percentage. What Mamadani and Hochul should really have been doing is have a “true value surcharge” where top x percent by value are taxed on a real value basis at the same tax rate as 1-3 family. But that wouldn’t get votes and publicity.
In a city where land and housing is severely restricted, I think taxes discouraging encouraging occupancy and discouraging vacancy are reasonable policy. At all price levels.
Mamdani is playing to an audience who delude themselves, like Trump does, as evidenced by name-checking Ken. An larger-than-typical portion of the country is in a self-deluding binge from all sorts of angles, political, economic, financial, and health. Unfortunately, they only tend to set themselves back for the most part.
A couple of years ago, my housekeeper was telling my wife & I about her (immigrant) relatives who supported Trump. The reason was he was going to “fix the economy.” Her response: “What are you talking about? No politician is going to fix the economy for you. You gotta fix your own economy.”
If you look at GDP per capita in the US, it goes up steady no matter who’s in the White House. IMO, you are somewhat deluded if you think there’s a meaningful link between who’s in the White House and the US economy, to say nothing of your economy.
I own a small pied-à-terre—my beloved little matchbox—which I use for now but plan to make my primary residence when I retire in a few years. I bought it simply to have a place to land. Paid in the low 3 figures for it.
I can see the rationale for taxing it at a higher rate when it’s unoccupied, but it really depends on how high that rate is. I’m a middle-income wage earner in the NYC economic ecosystem.
Low 3-figures is usually interpreted as $999 or less. That’s a great price!
>> I can see the rationale for taxing it at a higher rate when it’s unoccupied, but it really depends on how high that rate is.
We’re talking about a policy question, and Mamdani is interested in political theater. As a matter of policy to discourage vacancy, one should probably introduce such a tax at all price levels. And as a matter of fairness and continuity, one should ramp up the tax rate gradually over a decade or more. A sudden tax jump may not fit into certain budgets (even $5M+ owners), and it’s not cool to give the shaft to sellers (an increased number due to the tax) and developments already under way under the presumption of demand with no such tax being in place. A gradual form of the tax would have the same effects directionally but be less disruptive.
But if you’re more interested in political theater than policy, you don’t think in such terms.
@inonada - I'll fess up: I didn't weigh the place at checkout.
Seriously: I meant low 6 figures...was thinking in K.
The market rent on my place would be much more accessible to the vast majority of renters than anything in Ken Griffin's portfolio. In fact, this law has it exactly backward. He should have started with the least expensive pieds a terre if the idea was housing affordability for workers. Phasing it in would be a nice concession, though. One of my biggest considerations when house hunting was maintenance. I'm still doing what I can to save for (semi) retirement.
You're right - I'm sure the intent is pandering to his left-populist base.
Cautionary tale: London lost a bunch of high rollers due to property tax hikes: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/25/nyregion/second-home-tax-london-ny.html?unlocked_article_code=1.d1A.EgPo.dV87mKKsKpY_&smid=url-share
And AI says: Property taxes in London vs NYC - higher or lower?
→ NYC is much higher
More progressive?
→ Neither is cleanly progressive
→ But:
London is more clearly regressive at the top
NYC is uneven but closer to value-based taxation
NYC has been losing non-resident “high rollers” since at least 2020. And RE has been taking into the chin since 2006, thought the non-resident high rollers only finally caught on a few years ago. The new taxes won’t help, but this has been a sinking ship for quite some time.
FWIW, I imagine this had a lot more to do with the “high rollers” non-residents leaving than property taxes:
>> That same month, the government abolished the special tax status of nonresidents, instituting new rules that tax them on their global income.
Why the scare quotes? Isn't 'high roller' just a euphemism for the rich?
I always associated “high roller” with high stakes gamblers, not rich. So I just put quotes around in acknowledgment of your funny usage (funny as in haha). What up, high rolla?