7 ms·

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

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 out the uber-rich don't mind paying and this becomes a cash cow for the city, that creates incentives for the city to cater to them and try and get more uber-rich people to have second homes in the city.

dirtikiti 4mo ago
Property tax is not a workable wealth tax. It's a barrier for low income people to buy homes. Sales tax is a workable wealth tax.
elevation 4mo ago
[flagged]
- blitzar 4mo ago
  The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. I wont hold my breath though.
  - cakealert 4mo ago
    > 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?
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - skybrian 4mo ago
      Currently it seems to be funding frenzied investment in data centers.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - EliRivers 4mo ago
      To what degree do they really invest it? A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.
      - cakealert 4mo ago
        > move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? What exactly is it you are claiming? Sounds like something a populist youtuber would say.
        swiftcoder 4mo ago
        > So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? The claim is that wealthy folks aren't typically interested in generating more wealth for other, non-rich folks
        cakealert 4mo ago
        That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else. Capturing 100% of the value is all but impossible. Also you didn't address what he said, possibly because it's complete nonsense? > A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.
        swiftcoder 4mo ago
        > That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else I mean, there are a bunch of direct mechanisms for that, from the legal (preferred stock classes), through the grey (letting your buddies invest pre-IPO), to the less-legal (insider trading) Sitting on a bunch of real estate in a desirable location like NYC isn't a bad mechanism either.
    - swiftcoder 4mo ago
      > what do you think investment does? Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?
      - cakealert 4mo ago
        When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        And if you're investing in, say, a Fabergé egg, that's a (potential) problem. If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
        cakealert 4mo ago
        > If you invest in $AMZN, much less so. But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        It's not really that "out of my control" if I can convert it back to cash with a few clicks of a button.
        cakealert 4mo ago
        The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Liquidity doesn't matter? Huh. That's a Nobel Prize in Economics waiting to be awarded, if true.
    - somewhereoutth 4mo ago
      Push up asset prices mainly - so locking poorer people out of (e.g.) home ownership. Money is not a tangible thing, you can't eat or drink it. Instead it is a signalling protocol for resource allocation. If the very wealthy have many empty homes, when many people are homeless or inadequately housed, then that signalling protocol has failed (from a social justice point of view), and 'trickle down' is not working.
  - zthrowaway 4mo ago
    Trickle down economics is a political label to criticize Reagan era policies, it’s not an actual thing.
    - wsve 4mo ago
      It's a label for a very real tax policy and the advertised reason behind it, it's definitely a thing (or was, at least, the argument is less common today)
      - Maxatar 4mo ago
        It is a label, but it has always been used by those expressing opposition to a policy that they label "trickle down". It has never been used by proponents of a policy to describe or advocate for their own policy. The original comment, and many other comments spread across the Internet including yours, are written as if the elites themselves are the ones "advertising" the label of "trickle down economics" as if it's some kind of economic theory they are advocating for. But it's always been a label used by opponents, particularly Democrats to derogate Reagan era policies.
  - harmmonica 4mo ago
    I think this is sarcasm, but in case it's not isn't this the opposite of trickle down? Trickle down means lower taxes for the wealthy so they'll then have access to those extra funds to create jobs (through direct and indirect actions (investing in their companies, buying more stuff, etc.)). This is actually taking money away from the wealthy. If this works (meaning NYC gets the revenue without kneecapping those extra property taxes in the long run because the wealthy bail on their second homes, which would drive down prices and therefore property taxes), it would be an anti-trickle-down win. edit: grammar
    - wsve 4mo ago
      Yes it's definitely the opposite of trickle down. Higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce income inequality and provide more funding for social programs
      - harmmonica 4mo ago
        I'd slightly adjust what you're saying because I think in this NYC case, and oftentimes generally-speaking, those funds are not reserved solely for what would conventionally be considered social programs. Only adding this because I think it's important to point out that tax increases that solely target the rich are not always a transfer of wealth from rich(er) to poor(er), but sometimes fund things that those rich taxpayers also benefit from (in the NYC case those funds could easily be paying part of the police, parks, sanitation, etc. budget).
- vardalab 4mo ago
  Because it's a tax I think on second properties.
  - Maxatar 4mo ago
    Yes and the second property must be mostly vacant, ie. not rented out as the primary residence of some other occupant.
- thatmf 4mo ago
  ...of property taxes on second homes valued > $1M?
- skybrian 4mo ago
  What do you mean? It's not a tax on commercial property. One effect might be that wealthy non-residents prefer to stay in a hotel when they visit New York? The amount of money being collected as property tax would pay for a very fancy suite. I imagine there will be luxury hotel conversions.
  - elevation 4mo ago
    > It's not a tax on commercial property. This makes more sense; I had engaged with just the phrase "property tax" without this qualification.
- malfist 4mo ago
  Who is the "consumer" in this case?
- hiddencost 4mo ago
  Separate commercial and residential rates? The first $X dollars are not taxed? We can and have done this.
- newaccountman2 4mo ago
  You sound like you feel the need to criticize this tax because you want to reflexively attack any idea whereby the rich have to pay their fair share of anything, and thus have strung together a bunch of tokens that seem relevant to you, but actually don't constitute a logical response at all to the issue being discussed.
  - castlecrasher2 4mo ago
    What a needlessly aggressive post, and guilty of what you're accusing them of.
- arbitrary_name 4mo ago
  what does this even mean?
MyHonestOpinon 4mo ago
Property taxes have the added benefit to lower property prices, and the money can go on improving the city. (Which make properties prices go higher)
Aurornis 4mo ago
> If it turns out the uber-rich don't mind paying and this becomes a cash cow for the city, that creates incentives for the city to cater to them and try and get more uber-rich people to have second homes in the city. 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.
- jamiequint 4mo ago
  "If you make the tax too high it starts discouraging the behavior you're taxing, which can paradoxically reduce overall tax revenue." I am generally against more taxes, but the structure of this one is quite good in terms of the incentives. If wealthy people who only live in the city part-time stay in hotels instead of buying second homes, the net effect should be to increase the cost of hotel rooms and reduce the cost of owned-housing. NYC charges nearly 10% tax on hotel stays, so recoups some of the cost there. Having property in your city mostly being occupied by people who live their full time, particularly when property is already very expensive, seems like a good thing overall.
  - apparent 4mo ago
    > increase the cost of hotel rooms and reduce the cost of owned-housing Reducing the cost of $5M+ homes will slightly help some wealthy people who live in NYC, and there will be a modest trickle-down effect into less expensive properties. But I thought the goal was to generate tax revenue from the taxes, which wouldn't happen to the extent they end up in the hands of NYC residents. EDIT: apparently it hits all homes over $1M, which means it will hit more homes but also won't generate revenue to the extent the homes end up being owned by New Yorkers.
arw0n 4mo ago
The fairest and easiest to realize wealth tax is on inheritance. It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world, it is terrible for them and the people around them to set them up for life.
- Terr_ 4mo ago
  > wealth tax is on inheritance As a point on terminology: That's not a really a wealth tax on the accumulated assets at-rest own by the (now eternally-resting) owner, but an income tax on the wealth as it moves to the recipients who didn't have it and are getting a massive gift. It just happens to be a kind of gift/transfer we've decided because of tradition to consider as a special case, where (A) it happens right after a given dies and (B) the giver is frequently but not necessarily related to the recipient.
- SoftTalker 4mo ago
  I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed. Passing the fruits of a lifetime of work to ones heirs so they can continue do productive work instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed.
  - lazide 4mo ago
    First one makes sense, second one I’m quizzical about. Inheritance taxes tend to only kick in at the 8+ digit range. If anything, taxing that should encourage descendents to do productive work, eh? Since not taxing it, but taxing other things actually discourages it? I can’t imagine how it would result in anyone relying on public largesse either unless they are really terrible with money. In which case a few extra zeros is unlikely to help any?
    - SoftTalker 4mo ago
      I suppose like with many things it's a question of scale. A little is good, more is better, but at some point it may start to have negative consequences.
steveBK123 4mo ago
This also closes some loopholes/arbitrages around declaration of primary residence for purposes of NYC income tax. There are C-suite execs who declare residence in CT/NJ while spending < 180 nights/year in NYC in their huge apartment, allowing them to avoid NYC income tax. Anyway, NYC real estate taxes are a mess and in some cases regressive. For example, taxes are based on values set by the city which for the ultra high end, the are understated by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.. See: > Griffin purchased his 24,000-square-foot penthouse at 220 Central Park South in 2019 for $238 million. ..t he city values the apartment at just $15.5 million .. property tax bill for the 2026-2027 tax year is $858,332 .. Griffin’s property tax bill would more than double to $1.87 million .. in the 2028-2029 tax year, it would increase to just under $4 million I don't feel terribly about someone paying $4M on property probably worth close to $400M at the moment. Normal high income NYers already pay $10-20k/year on properties worth $1.5M by comparison. Another regressive aspect there was a proposal to change was a purchase tax for cash purchases. Currently one of the closing costs in NYC/NYS is a mortgage recording tax of nearly 2% of mortgage amount. This means if you are rich enough to buy in cash, you can avoid this tax. And if you are a rich cash buyer you are probably buying a higher end property so.. doubly regressive in a sense.
csomar 4mo ago
No, a tax will always reduce demand \saying otherwise basically ignores decades of established economics. > that creates incentives for the city to cater to them What does that even mean? If catering to the wealthy was profitable, everyone would do it. Just look at Dubai, it's built entirely around that model, and it's a brutally competitive space. NYC attracts the mega-wealthy for a different reason: network effects. Meta-wealthy come to be around other mega-wealthy people.
postflopclarity 4mo ago
> I'll be interested to see if it helps create some liquidity in the housing market lol. why would it? if you tax something, you get less of it. there is not even close to any kind of shortage of demand for housing in NYC. there is an enormous shortage of supply; it is in fact _illegal_ in most places to build more supply.
- eli 4mo ago
  The tax is only on non-primary residences - one person owning multiple homes. I don't expect it to have a significant effect on housing supply, but I think it logically could.
  - postflopclarity 4mo ago
    I also don't expect it to have a significant effect. but any effect it does have will be in the direction of less supply.
    - eli 4mo ago
      How does a tax on SECOND homes decrease supply? Wouldn't it incentivize sales of mostly vacant properties to someone looking for buy a first home?
      - postflopclarity 4mo ago
        when you tax things you get less of it. when you tax supply, you get less supply many of these second homes are currently on the rental market. if there is less supply of these coming into the rental market, rent prices rise. I don't know why everybody's brains are so broken when it comes to housing policy. let's say you own an uninhabitable 2 family home in Brooklyn that was built in 1910 but would require serious renovation to be able to rent it out (not at all a strawman; this is incredibly common). now imagine your incentives as the property owner: * without the pied-a-terre tax: some risk & upfront cost to renovate, but future cash flows from rental income make this incentivized * with the tax: same risk & upfront cost, but now the future cash flows are decreased by the amount of the tax (since the assessed value will have increased) anywhere that difference tips the scales from "renovating" to "not renovating," there is one fewer home on the market.
pkulak 4mo ago
Yup, very "Georgist", which I'm a huge fan of. You can move your money to another country, or hide it entirely in stocks that you borrow against until you die. But, you gotta live somewhere. Land is the only thing the state really has, and it's limited; it's the best thing to tax.
- robocat 4mo ago
  You might enjoy: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2026/05/the-appreciation-constituency-land-credit-and-the-politics-of-protected-assets https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2026/05/the-appreciation-... A book review, but contains enough information to be an interesting read.
throw0101c 4mo ago
> Property tax is the workable wealth tax. There is a difference between property-as-primary-residence and property-as-secondary/tertiary-residence or property-as-proxy-for-parking-money. Property taxes handle the first scenario, wealth taxes handle the latter.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4mo ago
  In San Diego we're voting on a new property tax that only applies to nonprimary residences. The landed gentry want you to believe that they can't be touched unless you're willing to kick your grandmother to the street, but we can absolutely write taxes that apply more narrowly, and sensible tax policy leads to better outcomes and fewer market distortions than hamfisted regulation.
  - throw0101c 4mo ago
    Toronto has had a vacancy tax for a couple of years now: * https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/property-taxes-utilities/vacant-home-tax/ https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/property-taxes-util...
apparent 4mo ago
> helps create some liquidity in the housing market (the goal) Is that the stated goal? I thought the goal was to generate revenue from the tax. It's true that triggering sales will create a one-time boost in sales-related taxes, but that's just temporary.
- eli 4mo ago
  Seems like disincentivizing people from owning mostly vacant homes should free them up for someone who does intend to live there
carlosjobim 4mo ago
Who benefits most of a city being improved by tax dollar spending? Property owners. They benefit in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars each. Thus it makes sense they contribute the most tax dollars. Or show me a worker who benefits the same amount of money from the city being improved.
- apparent 4mo ago
  It depends on how the $ is spent. If it's spent on "free preschool" then it benefits parents who use the free preschool. These are by definition not the people paying this non-resident-only tax.

dirtikiti 4mo ago

Property tax is not a workable wealth tax. It's a barrier for low income people to buy homes. Sales tax is a workable wealth tax.

elevation 4mo ago

[flagged]

blitzar 4mo ago
The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. I wont hold my breath though.
- cakealert 4mo ago
  > 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?
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - skybrian 4mo ago
    Currently it seems to be funding frenzied investment in data centers.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - EliRivers 4mo ago
    To what degree do they really invest it? A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.
    - cakealert 4mo ago
      > move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? What exactly is it you are claiming? Sounds like something a populist youtuber would say.
      - swiftcoder 4mo ago
        > So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? The claim is that wealthy folks aren't typically interested in generating more wealth for other, non-rich folks
        cakealert 4mo ago
        That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else. Capturing 100% of the value is all but impossible. Also you didn't address what he said, possibly because it's complete nonsense? > A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.
        swiftcoder 4mo ago
        > That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else I mean, there are a bunch of direct mechanisms for that, from the legal (preferred stock classes), through the grey (letting your buddies invest pre-IPO), to the less-legal (insider trading) Sitting on a bunch of real estate in a desirable location like NYC isn't a bad mechanism either.
  - swiftcoder 4mo ago
    > what do you think investment does? Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?
    - cakealert 4mo ago
      When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        And if you're investing in, say, a Fabergé egg, that's a (potential) problem. If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
        cakealert 4mo ago
        > If you invest in $AMZN, much less so. But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        It's not really that "out of my control" if I can convert it back to cash with a few clicks of a button.
        cakealert 4mo ago
        The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Liquidity doesn't matter? Huh. That's a Nobel Prize in Economics waiting to be awarded, if true.
  - somewhereoutth 4mo ago
    Push up asset prices mainly - so locking poorer people out of (e.g.) home ownership. Money is not a tangible thing, you can't eat or drink it. Instead it is a signalling protocol for resource allocation. If the very wealthy have many empty homes, when many people are homeless or inadequately housed, then that signalling protocol has failed (from a social justice point of view), and 'trickle down' is not working.
- zthrowaway 4mo ago
  Trickle down economics is a political label to criticize Reagan era policies, it’s not an actual thing.
  - wsve 4mo ago
    It's a label for a very real tax policy and the advertised reason behind it, it's definitely a thing (or was, at least, the argument is less common today)
    - Maxatar 4mo ago
      It is a label, but it has always been used by those expressing opposition to a policy that they label "trickle down". It has never been used by proponents of a policy to describe or advocate for their own policy. The original comment, and many other comments spread across the Internet including yours, are written as if the elites themselves are the ones "advertising" the label of "trickle down economics" as if it's some kind of economic theory they are advocating for. But it's always been a label used by opponents, particularly Democrats to derogate Reagan era policies.
- harmmonica 4mo ago
  I think this is sarcasm, but in case it's not isn't this the opposite of trickle down? Trickle down means lower taxes for the wealthy so they'll then have access to those extra funds to create jobs (through direct and indirect actions (investing in their companies, buying more stuff, etc.)). This is actually taking money away from the wealthy. If this works (meaning NYC gets the revenue without kneecapping those extra property taxes in the long run because the wealthy bail on their second homes, which would drive down prices and therefore property taxes), it would be an anti-trickle-down win. edit: grammar
  - wsve 4mo ago
    Yes it's definitely the opposite of trickle down. Higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce income inequality and provide more funding for social programs
    - harmmonica 4mo ago
      I'd slightly adjust what you're saying because I think in this NYC case, and oftentimes generally-speaking, those funds are not reserved solely for what would conventionally be considered social programs. Only adding this because I think it's important to point out that tax increases that solely target the rich are not always a transfer of wealth from rich(er) to poor(er), but sometimes fund things that those rich taxpayers also benefit from (in the NYC case those funds could easily be paying part of the police, parks, sanitation, etc. budget).
vardalab 4mo ago
Because it's a tax I think on second properties.
- Maxatar 4mo ago
  Yes and the second property must be mostly vacant, ie. not rented out as the primary residence of some other occupant.
thatmf 4mo ago
...of property taxes on second homes valued > $1M?
skybrian 4mo ago
What do you mean? It's not a tax on commercial property. One effect might be that wealthy non-residents prefer to stay in a hotel when they visit New York? The amount of money being collected as property tax would pay for a very fancy suite. I imagine there will be luxury hotel conversions.
- elevation 4mo ago
  > It's not a tax on commercial property. This makes more sense; I had engaged with just the phrase "property tax" without this qualification.
malfist 4mo ago
Who is the "consumer" in this case?
hiddencost 4mo ago
Separate commercial and residential rates? The first $X dollars are not taxed? We can and have done this.
newaccountman2 4mo ago
You sound like you feel the need to criticize this tax because you want to reflexively attack any idea whereby the rich have to pay their fair share of anything, and thus have strung together a bunch of tokens that seem relevant to you, but actually don't constitute a logical response at all to the issue being discussed.
- castlecrasher2 4mo ago
  What a needlessly aggressive post, and guilty of what you're accusing them of.
arbitrary_name 4mo ago
what does this even mean?

MyHonestOpinon 4mo ago

Property taxes have the added benefit to lower property prices, and the money can go on improving the city. (Which make properties prices go higher)

Aurornis 4mo ago

> If it turns out the uber-rich don't mind paying and this becomes a cash cow for the city, that creates incentives for the city to cater to them and try and get more uber-rich people to have second homes in the city. 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.

jamiequint 4mo ago
"If you make the tax too high it starts discouraging the behavior you're taxing, which can paradoxically reduce overall tax revenue." I am generally against more taxes, but the structure of this one is quite good in terms of the incentives. If wealthy people who only live in the city part-time stay in hotels instead of buying second homes, the net effect should be to increase the cost of hotel rooms and reduce the cost of owned-housing. NYC charges nearly 10% tax on hotel stays, so recoups some of the cost there. Having property in your city mostly being occupied by people who live their full time, particularly when property is already very expensive, seems like a good thing overall.
- apparent 4mo ago
  > increase the cost of hotel rooms and reduce the cost of owned-housing Reducing the cost of $5M+ homes will slightly help some wealthy people who live in NYC, and there will be a modest trickle-down effect into less expensive properties. But I thought the goal was to generate tax revenue from the taxes, which wouldn't happen to the extent they end up in the hands of NYC residents. EDIT: apparently it hits all homes over $1M, which means it will hit more homes but also won't generate revenue to the extent the homes end up being owned by New Yorkers.

arw0n 4mo ago

The fairest and easiest to realize wealth tax is on inheritance. It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world, it is terrible for them and the people around them to set them up for life.

Terr_ 4mo ago
> wealth tax is on inheritance As a point on terminology: That's not a really a wealth tax on the accumulated assets at-rest own by the (now eternally-resting) owner, but an income tax on the wealth as it moves to the recipients who didn't have it and are getting a massive gift. It just happens to be a kind of gift/transfer we've decided because of tradition to consider as a special case, where (A) it happens right after a given dies and (B) the giver is frequently but not necessarily related to the recipient.
SoftTalker 4mo ago
I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed. Passing the fruits of a lifetime of work to ones heirs so they can continue do productive work instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed.
- lazide 4mo ago
  First one makes sense, second one I’m quizzical about. Inheritance taxes tend to only kick in at the 8+ digit range. If anything, taxing that should encourage descendents to do productive work, eh? Since not taxing it, but taxing other things actually discourages it? I can’t imagine how it would result in anyone relying on public largesse either unless they are really terrible with money. In which case a few extra zeros is unlikely to help any?
  - SoftTalker 4mo ago
    I suppose like with many things it's a question of scale. A little is good, more is better, but at some point it may start to have negative consequences.

steveBK123 4mo ago

This also closes some loopholes/arbitrages around declaration of primary residence for purposes of NYC income tax. There are C-suite execs who declare residence in CT/NJ while spending < 180 nights/year in NYC in their huge apartment, allowing them to avoid NYC income tax. Anyway, NYC real estate taxes are a mess and in some cases regressive. For example, taxes are based on values set by the city which for the ultra high end, the are understated by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.. See: > Griffin purchased his 24,000-square-foot penthouse at 220 Central Park South in 2019 for $238 million. ..t he city values the apartment at just $15.5 million .. property tax bill for the 2026-2027 tax year is $858,332 .. Griffin’s property tax bill would more than double to $1.87 million .. in the 2028-2029 tax year, it would increase to just under $4 million I don't feel terribly about someone paying $4M on property probably worth close to $400M at the moment. Normal high income NYers already pay $10-20k/year on properties worth $1.5M by comparison. Another regressive aspect there was a proposal to change was a purchase tax for cash purchases. Currently one of the closing costs in NYC/NYS is a mortgage recording tax of nearly 2% of mortgage amount. This means if you are rich enough to buy in cash, you can avoid this tax. And if you are a rich cash buyer you are probably buying a higher end property so.. doubly regressive in a sense.

csomar 4mo ago

No, a tax will always reduce demand \saying otherwise basically ignores decades of established economics. > that creates incentives for the city to cater to them What does that even mean? If catering to the wealthy was profitable, everyone would do it. Just look at Dubai, it's built entirely around that model, and it's a brutally competitive space. NYC attracts the mega-wealthy for a different reason: network effects. Meta-wealthy come to be around other mega-wealthy people.

postflopclarity 4mo ago

> I'll be interested to see if it helps create some liquidity in the housing market lol. why would it? if you tax something, you get less of it. there is not even close to any kind of shortage of demand for housing in NYC. there is an enormous shortage of supply; it is in fact _illegal_ in most places to build more supply.

eli 4mo ago
The tax is only on non-primary residences - one person owning multiple homes. I don't expect it to have a significant effect on housing supply, but I think it logically could.
- postflopclarity 4mo ago
  I also don't expect it to have a significant effect. but any effect it does have will be in the direction of less supply.
  - eli 4mo ago
    How does a tax on SECOND homes decrease supply? Wouldn't it incentivize sales of mostly vacant properties to someone looking for buy a first home?
    - postflopclarity 4mo ago
      when you tax things you get less of it. when you tax supply, you get less supply many of these second homes are currently on the rental market. if there is less supply of these coming into the rental market, rent prices rise. I don't know why everybody's brains are so broken when it comes to housing policy. let's say you own an uninhabitable 2 family home in Brooklyn that was built in 1910 but would require serious renovation to be able to rent it out (not at all a strawman; this is incredibly common). now imagine your incentives as the property owner: * without the pied-a-terre tax: some risk & upfront cost to renovate, but future cash flows from rental income make this incentivized * with the tax: same risk & upfront cost, but now the future cash flows are decreased by the amount of the tax (since the assessed value will have increased) anywhere that difference tips the scales from "renovating" to "not renovating," there is one fewer home on the market.

pkulak 4mo ago

Yup, very "Georgist", which I'm a huge fan of. You can move your money to another country, or hide it entirely in stocks that you borrow against until you die. But, you gotta live somewhere. Land is the only thing the state really has, and it's limited; it's the best thing to tax.

robocat 4mo ago
You might enjoy: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2026/05/the-appreciation-constituency-land-credit-and-the-politics-of-protected-assets https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2026/05/the-appreciation-... A book review, but contains enough information to be an interesting read.

throw0101c 4mo ago

> Property tax is the workable wealth tax. There is a difference between property-as-primary-residence and property-as-secondary/tertiary-residence or property-as-proxy-for-parking-money. Property taxes handle the first scenario, wealth taxes handle the latter.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4mo ago
In San Diego we're voting on a new property tax that only applies to nonprimary residences. The landed gentry want you to believe that they can't be touched unless you're willing to kick your grandmother to the street, but we can absolutely write taxes that apply more narrowly, and sensible tax policy leads to better outcomes and fewer market distortions than hamfisted regulation.
- throw0101c 4mo ago
  Toronto has had a vacancy tax for a couple of years now: * https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/property-taxes-utilities/vacant-home-tax/ https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/property-taxes-util...

apparent 4mo ago

> helps create some liquidity in the housing market (the goal) Is that the stated goal? I thought the goal was to generate revenue from the tax. It's true that triggering sales will create a one-time boost in sales-related taxes, but that's just temporary.

eli 4mo ago
Seems like disincentivizing people from owning mostly vacant homes should free them up for someone who does intend to live there

carlosjobim 4mo ago

Who benefits most of a city being improved by tax dollar spending? Property owners. They benefit in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars each. Thus it makes sense they contribute the most tax dollars. Or show me a worker who benefits the same amount of money from the city being improved.

apparent 4mo ago
It depends on how the $ is spent. If it's spent on "free preschool" then it benefits parents who use the free preschool. These are by definition not the people paying this non-resident-only tax.