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.
> 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.
"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.
I think its a good idea in general to tax the second property for any country where housing is a struggle. Its usage based taxation so fair in some sense. Housing is somewhat of a critical asset for a normal safe life. Commercialization of housing properties creates a circular effect on the pricing, thereby increasing the cost of almost everything else.
I'm not sure why if you or I were to expatriate and let go of our US citizenship, we'd still be on the hook for taxes for (iirc) 15 years, but the ultra wealthy can get away with tax havens while remaining citizenship and reaping the benefits of protection by X state.
What prevents the tax following the offshoring attempts? Is it simply that the IRS doesn't have the manpower? or is there a legal loophole for avoiding paying your share that only works for the ultra wealthy?
> we'd still be on the hook for taxes for (iirc) 15 years
This is defintely not true. I did some light Google searches and I cannot anything. There is an exit tax, but only applies if your net worth exceeds 2million USD.
The goal of this isn't simply to raise revenue, it's also to discourage parking money in empty properties when it's one of the most expensive cities to live in and doesn't have enough housing
>Land value taxes don't discourage desirable behavior
Are you serious? LVTs expressly incentivizes landlords to kick out "grandfathered in" developments and uses in favor of redevelopment and sale for that purpose.
But those grandfathered in developments and uses are exactly what made the place valuable in the first place and you need some amount of them to remain.
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.
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.
And I think that inheritance, while a natural desire, is morally wrong. It's an example that desires aren't always congruent with morality. People will go to great lengths to justify their conclusion.
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?
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.
The problems with inheritance tax is that they can be avoided through trust structures and insurance schemes. In theory it's a good tax, but in practice many wealthy people figured out how not to pay it.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.
>Rather than overhaul the system immediately, the city will gradually update valuations – and the tax – according to the budget documents. Starting in the 2028-2029 tax year, the property values will be based on comparable sales. Since valuations will skyrocket, the tax rates will fall to compensate.
Hold on a second. Reading between the lines, this means everyone's property taxes are going up, right? Because the valuation system is being revised to more accurately reflect value.
Obviously this would affect more expensive properties more. But I havent seen anyone acknowledge that everyone's taxes will increase. Is that because I have the details wrong or because it's just flying under the radar?
> New York City’s new tax on second homes will more than double property taxes owed by many wealthy luxury apartment owners, according to tax experts.
> State lawmakers on Wednesday passed the tax on nonprimary residences in order to help close the city’s budget gap. The so-called pied-a-terre tax will be imposed on second homes valued at $1 million or more. It’s expected to raise $500 million in revenue.
> Details on the tax obtained by CNBC show that the property tax would take effect in two different phases. In the first two years – the tax years 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 – condos and co-ops valued at more than $1 million by the city’s Department of Finance will be subject to the tax. Properties worth between $1 million and $3 million will face a 4% annual tax; properties valued at $3 million to $5 million will face a 5.25% tax; and those above $5 million will face a 6.5% tax.
The rates sound a bit steep (although I'm not familiar with the baseline tax rates on properties of that value) but the principle is sound. In the UK, the equivalent tax on housing is council tax, and local councils in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) are empowered to double the rates of council tax on second homes.
"While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said."
It also mentions they plan to adjust property valuations in coming years, and when the valuations go up the rates will go down:
"After the valuation adjustments ... properties over $25 million will be taxed at 1.3%"
I dunno, 1.3% of the actual value seems.. not at all unreasonable? I live in TX and that's about what my property taxes are, for a property valued at several orders of magnitude less than any of Ken Griffin's NYC properties.
EDIT: As mil22 pointed out, this 1.3% tax is on top of the existing ~1.8% NYC property tax rate, so it's more like ~3.1% total.
> I dunno, 1.3% seems.. not at all unreasonable? I live in TX and that's about what my property taxes are, for a property valued at several orders of magnitude less than any of Ken Griffin's NYC properties.
Bear in mind, it's 1.3% on top of the existing ~1.8% average NYC property tax rate, so it may still be comparatively expensive relative to TX property taxes.
This policy appears to target ultra-wealthy investors who are just parking their assets in NYC real estate and don't reside in NY to begin with, and thus aren't paying NY state income tax.
> In the UK, the equivalent tax on housing is council tax, and local councils in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) are empowered to double the rates of council tax on second homes.
Very interesting to know. Many readers may not be aware that council tax in the UK is quite regressive and tops out at ~£4-5K / year on properties valued higher than ~£1M. So you can own a £5M GBP house and still pay only £5K / year for an annual effective property tax rate of just 0.1%.
This is one of the reasons buying a luxury house in the UK is comparatively quite cheap in terms of total cost of ownership compared to many states in the US where you have to pay much higher property tax rates, insurance, and so on.
So even if the council tax is doubled on a second home, you still might be paying only 0.2%. Compare that to an average property tax rate of ~1.8% in NYC (before pied-a-terre).
Yeah thanks for nothing for comparing a single kind of tax to your country, whilst your country/states don't have the excessive overall tax regimes as are present in Europe.
Nothing, absolutely nothing do we have to adjust to America, neither up or downwards.
That being said, and as much as I think Mamdani is an Ideologue, taxing second, unoccupied homes sounds absolutely reasonable (at least if they aren't rented out). Expect all kinds of shenanigans to circumvent this, but still.
> In the UK, the equivalent tax on housing is council tax
Council tax is difficult to compare to a percentage based property tax - the band based system means people in super valuable homes pay virtually nothing, at least relative to the value of the property, and each of the ~8 bands pays a fixed fee - once in the max band the tax stays the same no matter how valuable the home.
This is especially acute in places like Scotland, where the top band kicks in at anything over 212,000 and hasn't been adjusted since 1991... Essentially any new build starter home in many places will automatically be in the top band and taxed the same as some dude who bought a castle for millions.
Personally I've never thought of council tax as a property tax, even if the bands superficially are linked to it- the link to underlying property values is so broken now.
My first rented flat outta college was taxed at the highest band, and I sure wasn't rich then. It's widely argued to be a very regressive form of taxation - its opponents indeed argue it should be replaced with an actual property tax.
You missed a key detail: the NYC valuation system undervalues properties to the tune of around 10% of their actual market value. So your 6.5% tax is effectively aroubd a 0.65% tax against actual market value. That’s not bad (it’s a lot better than what I pay for my regular middle class home. Not in NYC, but I pay a bit shy of 2% annually)
Second homes (and beyond) should be taxed out of existence while people are still trying to find their first. This tax is not steep enough, but it's a start.
Taxing a pied-a-terre $40K/yr or more per year provides more resources for developing housing than simply evicting the owner and reclaiming the space. There aren't enough pied-a-terres to house the people who need housing. We need expensive premium housing to fund affordable housing at scale.
> While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.
I heard about a system for this that struck me as brilliant. Make someone declare the value of their property. Then the government has the choice of taxing them at the scheduled rate, or buying the property from them, for that cost.
TADA.
And if someone wants to artificially inflate the value of their home, to reflect the difficulty of moving out, finding a new secondary residence, etc, then that's their business. No worries. We'll tax that additional value, no problem.
I think this system goes back thousands of years. Why not use it?
It isn't done because it has overt pathological economic characteristics. This forces the owner to write a long-term call option on a non-commodity asset without even collecting the offsetting risk premium expected for such a call option. This puts the asset permanently underwater by construction, which would crater asset values. The maths don't math. You can't just pick one side of a balanced equation and pretend the other side doesn't exist.
At least as important, this scheme is trivially exploitable for corruption and weaponization by government officials in countless ways that don't currently exist. This is not something that anyone should want to enable.
They attempt to sell it at market-rate which, assuming the previous owner intentionally under-valued the house, would earn them money that they can use to continue the program.
What if they have a backlog of inventory that they can't sell at "market rate"? Are the taxpayers just supposed to take a loss because of this brilliant tax assessment scheme?
The government would only buy your house if you underestimated the value of your property. You wouldn’t be able to buy a comparable house with the proceeds because it got sold for much less than it was worth.
The option to buy the asset is discretionary. The government can buy it for any reason at any price. Furthermore, many of these assets are not commodities. What is the value of a thing for which only one exists?
>The government would only buy your house if you underestimated the value of your property.
Nope, that's not in the rules. It's up to their discretion.
It seems like you agree it would be bad for the government to be able to buy your house when you give an accurate assessment. So why not design it out of the rules?
It's a luxury tax that only affects people wealthy enough to have a second home in NYC. These people, by virtue of not living there, aren't paying income tax and thus don't contribute as much as someone who is.
It's a revenue policy. It's effectively a wealth tax, cleverly implemented largely within the existing tax regime.
Ken Griffin spend 183 days a year in Florida, so he pays no NY state or NYC income tax. He does pay ~1.8% income tax on his $238 million home though. Now he will pay significantly more. (His property is also assessed at a far lower number.)
Real estate cannot move. If you are wealthy enough to own a second home worth at least $1M or more, you are likely very wealthy (top 2% of US households by net worth threshold is ~$5.5 million). It is a wealth tax implemented on a real estate asset component of a high net worth human's total portfolio.
It affects wealth, but the owner can also sell the property to someone who'll live in it and then they won't be taxed despite owning expensive property. So it's more targeted than a general wealth tax would be and I think the intent is to free up housing supply a bit.
Yeah not really. It generates money for the city to run their programs without raising taxes on residents. Those properties aren't being purchased by anyone who can't already get a home.
I think the revenue is probably overstated in the long run as people will find a way to offload the properties except for a select few who will consider a cost of doing business.
Also a great marketing move by Mamdami in terms of walking his talk.
I think it is unlikely anyone with a second home at these price levels is going to sell to avoid this (immaterial to them) tax. But certainly, if they do sell to someone who will occupy as primary residence, that's also a win, regardless of the coin flip (heads, wealth tax, tails, more housing for those who actively live in the city).
Edit: You start somewhere and keep tightening the policy ratchet as loopholes or other policy leakage are detected. You've found a clever hack? Congrats! The law is updated accordingly.
In reality, they will now just create a company in Singapore or Mongolia or another such place, which will then own the second home - while itself being owned by the original owner. Problem solved significantly cheaper than this new tax. In fact, I would not be surprised if they have already done that four months ago, when the law was being discussed.
The ones who will be hit are those who do not have the legal frameworks in place to erect such structures - Joe Homeowner who inherits grandmas city house, both worth slightly above the magic 7 figures.
Isn't that a good thing? It would encourage Joe Homeowner to sell the house to someone who could use it as a primary residence rather than leaving it empty and speculating on the real estate value.
> they will now just create a company in Singapore or Mongolia or another such place, which will then own the second home
How will that help to avoid a tax on secondary residences? Are they somehow going to claim that these properties are the primary residence of a company? Seems nonsensical.
>Edit: You start somewhere and keep tightening the policy ratchet as loopholes or other policy leakage are detected. You've found a clever hack? Congrats! The law is updated accordingly.
God I hate this sort of armchair despot type thinking.
People are not stupid. They're only ok with the absurd attitude given to the government to tax and regulate insofar as it's mostly kept it out of the grubby mitts of those who'll abuse it.
Like yeah, you absolutely could strictly enforce the speed limit and use the clean water act to regulate people's lawns but if you did that someone would get elected on promises to depose you and change the law to prevent that in the future.
This is the same reason the NSA doesn't go around using zero days on movie pirates and the FBI doesn't go around bringing RICO charges on everyone who ever ran a scummy business. The power is more useful to have on hand to use surgically. If you abuse it you'll lose it.
The scope of my comment you cite is the usual "extremely wealthy people using loopholes to avoid taxes while burdening your average joe with them instead".
This is not "your math is slightly off and we're going to be punitive." This is defending against tax evasion strategies by those with the wealth and power to attempt them. If you don't believe in taxes, or don't believe the wealthy should have the majority of the burden, certainly, we will not find common ground. My mental model is "You are very wealthy because you are very lucky. The cost to you for the societal socioeconomic system enabling this wealth is higher tax rates than those who work. Please pay your taxes due for a system that enabled your accumulation of wealth, and permission to keep it during your lifetime."
Or they can move to NY "full time", if I'm understanding correctly, which will likely also improve the city's tax revenue from more of that person's expenses incurring city taxes.
> While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.
You have described an investment property, not an unoccupied second home exposed to the pied-a-terre tax, if you rent it out (whether mortgaged or free and clear).
Sure yeah, all those middle class families with second homes in New York City. Right.
Nobody affected by this is middle class. Nobody that will be affected by this in the next 20 years would be considered middle class by any rational measure.
So the numbers will need adjusted for inflation. Eventually. Like any other tax. If you're making an argument it is entirely unclear what your position is.
That really depends on how you define middle class. I can easily see how someone with a net worth of 100m being considered middle class compared to billionaires.
Probably the least complicated tax law. Increase taxes to increase revenue. Makes sense. Align valuations with reality while maintaining relatively constant absolute tax dollar amounts. Also makes sense. It's really not that hard.
>Probably the least complicated tax law. Increase taxes to increase revenue. Makes sense.
Not so fast.
1) It is complicated. It has progressives rates that start out higher for 2 years then decreases but coincides with how the base is calculated.
2) The budget projections assumes no behavioral changes from the taxed residents. This doesn't seem like a safe assumption. You should at least assume some amount of the tax base leaves since it disincentives 2nd properties.
This doesnt mean its a bad plan. But it's definitely not the least complicated tax law. I'd say thats more like sales tax or something.
That's a great point. I'm guessing the politicians knew the rich would find a work around, but they're obligated to go through the outward motions so they can claim to keep their promises.
> It is unclear how DOF will treat properties owned by LLCs and trusts. In general, these owners are not considered residents. However, this does not mean that the properties are not used as primary residences. For instance, based on publicly available information, Mayor Bloomberg established his primary residence in two adjacent buildings on the Upper East Side, one owned by an LLC, and the other a cooperative apartment corporation. It may be possible for some LLC owners to rent to themselves and avoid the tax.
Now remember they are changing how property values are assessed. So everyone's base rises and the rich with 2nd homes dont pay the extra tax because they move it into an LLC.
I'm really curious about this. Wont, as a rule, any super-rich 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes in New York be completely unaffordable for almost everyone? It feels a bit like you're potentially spreading around the super-luxury homes across a wider breadth of the super-rich, but not much else.
If you can afford to pay $238 million for an apartment (the Ken Griffin example from the story) you can afford the annual $1.87 million in tax. That's about 0.785% tax rate.
By comparison, I have an investment property that's worth about $285k, and I pay 1.97% (about $5,800) on that in annual property tax, so esp. considering he's in Manhattan, that rate looks like a bargain.
Well it's two-pronged right? They either keep their extra houses and pay the tax, which increases tax revenue which can be used to fund things like constructing housing in NY, or they sell them off. The people potentially buying these houses will be more hesitant themselves to buy, so they're forced to lower the sell prices, making the houses more available to the general public.
I guess three-pronged, cause it says if they turn it into a rental that it's exempt from the taxes, which means someone is still at least living in it rather than just being used as a speculative asset.
> Wont, as a rule, any super-rich 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes in New York be completely unaffordable for almost everyone?
??
The point is to raise revenue.
In some sense, City is calling the bluff of these deeply immoral rich fucks; the tax is incredibly affordable for them, and almost all of them will simply complain and pay it, and thus generate revenue for the City.
Yes. A tax on the ultra-wealthy, rather than a measure aimed at increasing housing.
Its very roundabout as NYC can only make taxes for NYC, but the net aim is to increase the effective tax rate for the ultra-wealthy, using secondary property as a proxy for that.
Edit: AND WE (I) LIKE THIS because progressive taxation is the core play of fixing income/wealth inequality
Thanks, I feel sort of stupid for failing to notice that it would if nothing else just increase tax revenue. I was stuck in a perspective that this was about increasing housing stock.
Economics always applies at the margins. If this means that no one can afford $500 million homes anymore, then builders will stop building them, and start building slightly cheaper homes. That will increase the supply of the slightly cheaper homes, so they will have to become cheaper, thus putting pressure on the even cheaper homes. Eventually, if other friction isn't too great (which is not given) the downward price pressure and increased supply should reach the regular person market.
If this has a problem, it's the difficulty of application: 2nd homes, and only if you have X amount of money, instead of just a flat increase. Property taxes (or really, in NYC land taxes, as most of the property tax is really the value of the land) are just very efficient, and make much less of a difference on the price of rents than you'd think.
Unfortunately, doing that is very unpopular. Unpopular enough that we see states trying to get rid of property taxes, and those providing limits to increases, which basically guarantee misallocation and rising prices. But what is economically reasonable and what the voters like have very little to do with each other.
They would probably be better off fixing how they asses the value of condos. Which, AIUI (and one have a good explanation?) is based on imputed rent, capped at the rent of the closest example they can find. So no condos get taxed more then the most expensive rental (I could have this wrong).
For all the fear-mongering the media-zeitgeist tried to stir up about Mamdani's NYC mayoral campaign, I find his policies measured and fiscally responsible. A second mansion in NYC does seem excessive, and the tax could free up supply. The tax rate isn't outrageously high, if I'm wealthy enough, I'll just pay it, otherwise if I'm on the cusp, maybe it's better to sell and liquidate. Feels like a Keynesian policy at its finest.
Miami? Have you checked home insurance rates lately? The thought of these NYC second home owners getting gutted by the next hurricane is rather amusing though.
The rich don't really care about insurance rates down here because they can a) pay them, b) tend to gravitate towards newer buildings that have better protection and c) have the money to retrofit older buildings with the necessary protection to lower insurance rates. Miami has the strictest hurricane codes in the country, so while there's a possibility that they may get gutted, it's probably going to be less than people expect.
I live in FL so if you have questions about insurance feel free to ask.
But the people who can easily afford the insurance in Florida can afford the new tax as well. And as an added bonus, they don't have to live in Florida!
But in all seriousness, they all already own homes in Florida.
So they can pay the higher insurance without a thought, they can pay for the relocation across the country, but they're unwilling to finance public services for the city they live in.
I think this is in the right direction, but the cut off at $1M is interesting.
Why's there an obsession with the $1m cutoff?
The dollar has been turned to dust. $1M is not that much money, especially in housing, especially in NYC.
Why tax $1m second homes and not second homes generally? Effectively, you're going to tax almost all second homes.
So why the arbitrary cutoff?
Chicago wanted to add a "millionaire's tax" on $1m+ home sales. At least in Chicago, that isn't effectively taxing the vast majority of housing (and total value) - so there's some distinction worth having.
As TFA states, in NYC the assessed value of a home and the market value of a home are wildly different, with the assessed value being much, much lower.
This is $1mil in assessed value which would translate to roughly $5mil in market value.
In NYC $1mil market value is pretty much the starting price for a 1-bedroom condo in a gentrified area. $5mil market value, on the other hand, is a pretty luxurious place.
> While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.
Below 1M in NYC it becomes unclear why you have a second home. Maybe you're not quite "wealthy" and it's really helping your family out in some way. No reason to complicate things, the cutoff actually simplifies it while sacrificing almost nothing in terms of what the tax is trying to accomplish.
NYC is filled with apartments dedicated to the wealthy with token poor-doors for access to a few mandatory low income units in each building. All housing has to be subject to taxation for this to work.
1 million remains the hallmark of 'wealthy' (as in: not us), to the point where pop culture has started mocking the concept decades ago (See: That Austin Powers movie...)
Hardly everyone understands 'owning a house' as millionaire-level wealth. Which is why people cheer the policy on until they realize it is them who is being shaken down.
Sure, but it's only a shakedown if it's an unoccupied second home, which is hard to have sympathy for. It can easily be an occupied second home (family, renters) or a first home for those in the upper middle class paying for $1mm+ apartments in NYC. I'm not really worried about Jeff Bezos or some Hollywood actor's crash pad when they have business in nyc.
Almost nobody casually owns a second home in New York worth $1m or more. What a dumb comment (like pretty much every comment criticizing this tax--just stupid and immoral).
I disagree with the comment and entire existence of the person to whom you are replying, but they aren't wrong about $1m actually not being as big or watershed a number as it used to be.
A basic middle-class house in just about any part of the country that's worth living in is going to be $1m, plus or minus 200k.
"that's worth living" is doing some Herculean lifting there. I'm sorry to inform you that only the wealthy can live in the places you deem "worth living". You are not using the phrase "middle-class" correctly.
I'm not coming at this from a rural perspective. I live in the greater NYC area. I have friends in NYC. They make a lot of money and live very close to Grand Central, and even they don't live in $1M properties.
I have lived in both NYC and Southern California, and I was mostly thinking about SoCal, where in general one assumes a basic middle-class house in a reasonably decent area is going to cost $1m. Do they always? Not necessarily, but even fairly modest houses like my parents house now exceed $1m in value easily.
Out of curiosity, do your friends own condos? Doesn't even a studio condo on the UES cost at least like $600k base (i.e. not counting any fees related to the sale, nor any ongoing HOA)?
> Owning a house where your equity in it is over a million is absolutely wealthy.
Only ~30% of home owners own their outright.
~60% own 40% of the house or less.
I'd argue that you can't own more than ~92% of a home, because it costs a lot to sell a house...
The "average" homeowner moves every ~7 years in the US, and this is heavily skewed to people with less equity - the people who outright own typically have stayed put 20+ years.
So "owning" a million dollar home means anything from: you put 3.5% down, and you're currently underwater cause prices went down in a lot of the US (i.e. you are literally own NEGATIVE equity)... to you actually have $1m in equity.
I "own" a $1.2m home. I really only own about $425k of it. If I had to sell it, that typically costs close to 9% - so I'd be lucky to get $300k.
The person underwater who put 3.5% down on a home could easily have -$250k if they had to sell... So the idea that everyone who "owns" a $1m house is "rich" is a bit strange...
I mean, in general, people who "own" $1m houses are not destitutely poor, but that's about as far as you can extrapolate.
I agree that owning an expensive house where you have negative equity is not wealthy (at least based on that data point itself; maybe you have a 401k or something else that makes you wealthy)
You are confusing owning a house with having paid off a mortgage. I can go get a mortgage for $1 million tomorrow, but that does not make me a millionaire. It makes me an debtor with a house I can't afford.
I'd agree with you if this applied to primary residences, but it seems like this only applies to secondary residences? I find it hard to reconcile "middle class" with "has a second home in NYC"
the amount of people who are middle class with a second home is rare. if you can afford another dwelling, you can pay more tax on it. lets not be this disconnected.
As I understand it many of the very wealthy do not "own" properties directly but control LLCs that do. The chain of trust/LLC ownership can be complex. Also as I understand it, this legislation does not really answer that call effectively -- though I have, of course, not read the full legal text myself.
I suppose in Ken Griffin's case, even if his residence is owned by an LLC he controls, he is known to reside in it. But how effective is this legislation when the purpose of LLC ownership is expressly anonymity and accounting convenience?
Dumb question - what about corporations (or charities?) that own homes? Are they automatically "second homes", since a corporation has no primary residence?
Are we going to see things classified as not-residences, but then people can vacation there anyway, much like Mar-a-Lago supposedly cannot be a residence, but apparently President Trump lives there and votes there, anyway?
If you want to tax the ultra-wealthy, prevent Securities-Based Loan (SBL) or a Securities-Based Line of Credit (SBLOC). Honestly this is how EVERY SINGLE wealthy person gets around paying taxes.
Stocks should be bought and sold, period the end. That is how the market is supported to work.
If you closed this simple loophole, you would see a massive amount of tax revenue.
This argument is used again and again and I wonder: Why do "people with money" stay where they are when there are countries, islands, even just states where there is less taxes to pay?
I ran a company in NYC for six years before the taxes and onerous regulatory environment convinced me to bail.
The final straw was when we had to hire a fixer to clear up a state regulatory error that would’ve destroyed our business. No amount of calls or letters over months — by me — fixed the issue. The guy we hired got it cleared up in a week.
That’s how I learned firsthand that the more involved the state tries to be in protecting everyone from everything, the more opportunity there is for bad actors and gross inefficiency, and the worse things get.
It's not the "people with money" leaving. There's equal evidence of people with money staying and people with money leaving.
It's people who use their money to generate more value and employ lots of people that are, consistently, leaving. That means that thousands of jobs for the lower middle class are leaving and going to somewhere with a more favorable business environment.
And that's not good (well, it's good for the other city).
It's easy for people in tech hub cities to think that's never going to change but history shows boom towns going bust repeatedly. Sometimes they come back (Seattle). Sometimes they don't (the whole Rust Belt + Upstate NY).
And once the talent pool from a few large companies moves to another metro, whole industries relocate their offices to chase it.
I think there is a real argument here that everyone will love to yell at you. Same thing happened with California. Its always a balance -- if the tax is too much people will leave, if they get the number just right in that its a nuisance and not material they will stay.
Though when you start engaging with the bots they can't handle the nuance.
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.
> 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.
"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.
I think its a good idea in general to tax the second property for any country where housing is a struggle. Its usage based taxation so fair in some sense. Housing is somewhat of a critical asset for a normal safe life. Commercialization of housing properties creates a circular effect on the pricing, thereby increasing the cost of almost everything else.
I'm not sure why if you or I were to expatriate and let go of our US citizenship, we'd still be on the hook for taxes for (iirc) 15 years, but the ultra wealthy can get away with tax havens while remaining citizenship and reaping the benefits of protection by X state.
What prevents the tax following the offshoring attempts? Is it simply that the IRS doesn't have the manpower? or is there a legal loophole for avoiding paying your share that only works for the ultra wealthy?
The goal of this isn't simply to raise revenue, it's also to discourage parking money in empty properties when it's one of the most expensive cities to live in and doesn't have enough housing
>it's also to discourage parking money in empty properties when it's one of the most expensive cities to live in and doesn't have enough housing
Is that really needed when the homeowner vacancy rate is 1.3% in the New York-Newark-Jersey City MSA?
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/rates.html
> If you make the tax too high it starts discouraging the behavior you're taxing, which can paradoxically reduce overall tax revenue.
The Law of Supply and Demand is not a paradox.
Land value taxes don't discourage desirable behavior when raised.
Property taxes might discourage construction but if land values are high enough then property taxes approximate land value taxes.
Raising income tax on the other hand discourages working even when it is set very low. This is one which ought to be lowered if anything.
tl;dr it doesnt work the same way for every tax.
>Land value taxes don't discourage desirable behavior
Are you serious? LVTs expressly incentivizes landlords to kick out "grandfathered in" developments and uses in favor of redevelopment and sale for that purpose.
But those grandfathered in developments and uses are exactly what made the place valuable in the first place and you need some amount of them to remain.
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.
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.
> Earning…
Inheritance is, notably, not earning it.
> continue do productive work
That's a pretty bald assertion. Useless nepo babies abound.
> relying on public largesse
Any chance the existence of a stable, well-educated, high-trust society benefits the children of wealthy people at all?
>I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong.
So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"?
> So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"?
Taxes on somebody else.
And I think that inheritance, while a natural desire, is morally wrong. It's an example that desires aren't always congruent with morality. People will go to great lengths to justify their conclusion.
Consider the history of monarchies and titles of nobility.
Long ago the direct inheritance of political power was common, but today most countries and residents agree it is immoral and and deeply illegal.
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?
> 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.
The problems with inheritance tax is that they can be avoided through trust structures and insurance schemes. In theory it's a good tax, but in practice many wealthy people figured out how not to pay it.
> It is great to want to give your kids a headstart in the world
I might live till 72, my kids will be my age right now when they hit inheritance instead.
That's not a headstart.
The federal estate tax is 40%. NYC adds in another 16%.
> 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.
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.
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.
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)
How will consumers not bear the brunt of property taxes?
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.
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.
> It's not a tax on commercial property.
This makes more sense; I had engaged with just the phrase "property tax" without this qualification.
Because it's a tax I think on second properties.
Yes and the second property must be mostly vacant, ie. not rented out as the primary residence of some other occupant.
Who is the "consumer" in this case?
Separate commercial and residential rates? The first $X dollars are not taxed?
We can and have done this.
...of property taxes on second homes valued > $1M?
The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. I wont hold my breath though.
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
Trickle down economics is a political label to criticize Reagan era policies, it’s not an actual thing.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
Currently it seems to be funding frenzied investment in data centers.
> what do you think investment does?
Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?
When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.
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.
>While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.
>Rather than overhaul the system immediately, the city will gradually update valuations – and the tax – according to the budget documents. Starting in the 2028-2029 tax year, the property values will be based on comparable sales. Since valuations will skyrocket, the tax rates will fall to compensate.
Hold on a second. Reading between the lines, this means everyone's property taxes are going up, right? Because the valuation system is being revised to more accurately reflect value.
Obviously this would affect more expensive properties more. But I havent seen anyone acknowledge that everyone's taxes will increase. Is that because I have the details wrong or because it's just flying under the radar?
Actual title from the article:
> New York passes Mamdani’s pied-a-terre tax. Here’s who pays and how much
(The submitted title at time of commenting is "New York Passes Tax on the Ultra-Wealthy)
It's a tax on second homes. If you thought it was a wealth tax from the editorialized title, like I did, that's not correct.
Tax on wealthy vs. wealth tax.
> New York City’s new tax on second homes will more than double property taxes owed by many wealthy luxury apartment owners, according to tax experts.
> State lawmakers on Wednesday passed the tax on nonprimary residences in order to help close the city’s budget gap. The so-called pied-a-terre tax will be imposed on second homes valued at $1 million or more. It’s expected to raise $500 million in revenue.
> Details on the tax obtained by CNBC show that the property tax would take effect in two different phases. In the first two years – the tax years 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 – condos and co-ops valued at more than $1 million by the city’s Department of Finance will be subject to the tax. Properties worth between $1 million and $3 million will face a 4% annual tax; properties valued at $3 million to $5 million will face a 5.25% tax; and those above $5 million will face a 6.5% tax.
The rates sound a bit steep (although I'm not familiar with the baseline tax rates on properties of that value) but the principle is sound. In the UK, the equivalent tax on housing is council tax, and local councils in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) are empowered to double the rates of council tax on second homes.
Well, you need to read the rest too:
"While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said."
It also mentions they plan to adjust property valuations in coming years, and when the valuations go up the rates will go down:
"After the valuation adjustments ... properties over $25 million will be taxed at 1.3%"
I dunno, 1.3% of the actual value seems.. not at all unreasonable? I live in TX and that's about what my property taxes are, for a property valued at several orders of magnitude less than any of Ken Griffin's NYC properties.
EDIT: As mil22 pointed out, this 1.3% tax is on top of the existing ~1.8% NYC property tax rate, so it's more like ~3.1% total.
> I dunno, 1.3% seems.. not at all unreasonable? I live in TX and that's about what my property taxes are, for a property valued at several orders of magnitude less than any of Ken Griffin's NYC properties.
Bear in mind, it's 1.3% on top of the existing ~1.8% average NYC property tax rate, so it may still be comparatively expensive relative to TX property taxes.
Good point, I missed that.
Taxes has no income tax. NYC plus ny state has income tax at close to 10%.
This policy appears to target ultra-wealthy investors who are just parking their assets in NYC real estate and don't reside in NY to begin with, and thus aren't paying NY state income tax.
> In the UK, the equivalent tax on housing is council tax, and local councils in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) are empowered to double the rates of council tax on second homes.
Very interesting to know. Many readers may not be aware that council tax in the UK is quite regressive and tops out at ~£4-5K / year on properties valued higher than ~£1M. So you can own a £5M GBP house and still pay only £5K / year for an annual effective property tax rate of just 0.1%.
This is one of the reasons buying a luxury house in the UK is comparatively quite cheap in terms of total cost of ownership compared to many states in the US where you have to pay much higher property tax rates, insurance, and so on.
So even if the council tax is doubled on a second home, you still might be paying only 0.2%. Compare that to an average property tax rate of ~1.8% in NYC (before pied-a-terre).
Yeah thanks for nothing for comparing a single kind of tax to your country, whilst your country/states don't have the excessive overall tax regimes as are present in Europe.
Nothing, absolutely nothing do we have to adjust to America, neither up or downwards.
That being said, and as much as I think Mamdani is an Ideologue, taxing second, unoccupied homes sounds absolutely reasonable (at least if they aren't rented out). Expect all kinds of shenanigans to circumvent this, but still.
> In the UK, the equivalent tax on housing is council tax
Council tax is difficult to compare to a percentage based property tax - the band based system means people in super valuable homes pay virtually nothing, at least relative to the value of the property, and each of the ~8 bands pays a fixed fee - once in the max band the tax stays the same no matter how valuable the home.
This is especially acute in places like Scotland, where the top band kicks in at anything over 212,000 and hasn't been adjusted since 1991... Essentially any new build starter home in many places will automatically be in the top band and taxed the same as some dude who bought a castle for millions.
Personally I've never thought of council tax as a property tax, even if the bands superficially are linked to it- the link to underlying property values is so broken now.
My first rented flat outta college was taxed at the highest band, and I sure wasn't rich then. It's widely argued to be a very regressive form of taxation - its opponents indeed argue it should be replaced with an actual property tax.
> The rates sound a bit steep.
Agreed, but you also have to keep in mind that those people don't pay NYC income tax.
You missed a key detail: the NYC valuation system undervalues properties to the tune of around 10% of their actual market value. So your 6.5% tax is effectively aroubd a 0.65% tax against actual market value. That’s not bad (it’s a lot better than what I pay for my regular middle class home. Not in NYC, but I pay a bit shy of 2% annually)
Second homes (and beyond) should be taxed out of existence while people are still trying to find their first. This tax is not steep enough, but it's a start.
Taxing a pied-a-terre $40K/yr or more per year provides more resources for developing housing than simply evicting the owner and reclaiming the space. There aren't enough pied-a-terres to house the people who need housing. We need expensive premium housing to fund affordable housing at scale.
> While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.
I heard about a system for this that struck me as brilliant. Make someone declare the value of their property. Then the government has the choice of taxing them at the scheduled rate, or buying the property from them, for that cost.
TADA.
And if someone wants to artificially inflate the value of their home, to reflect the difficulty of moving out, finding a new secondary residence, etc, then that's their business. No worries. We'll tax that additional value, no problem.
I think this system goes back thousands of years. Why not use it?
It isn't done because it has overt pathological economic characteristics. This forces the owner to write a long-term call option on a non-commodity asset without even collecting the offsetting risk premium expected for such a call option. This puts the asset permanently underwater by construction, which would crater asset values. The maths don't math. You can't just pick one side of a balanced equation and pretend the other side doesn't exist.
At least as important, this scheme is trivially exploitable for corruption and weaponization by government officials in countless ways that don't currently exist. This is not something that anyone should want to enable.
What happens after the city buys it?
Also, most municipalities do not have the funds on hand to buy up people's houses just to call their bluff on taxes.
They attempt to sell it at market-rate which, assuming the previous owner intentionally under-valued the house, would earn them money that they can use to continue the program.
What if they have a backlog of inventory that they can't sell at "market rate"? Are the taxpayers just supposed to take a loss because of this brilliant tax assessment scheme?
I assure you, unloading property in NYC purchased below actual market value will not be a huge challenge.
conservatorship
> Then the government has the choice of taxing them at the scheduled rate, or buying the property from them, for that cost.
Uhh... what? How is this not an insane system?
1. You give an accurate, good faith projection.
2. Government taxes you.
Government buys your house. Weird. You buy a comparable house with the proceeds.3. Repeat.
The government would only buy your house if you underestimated the value of your property. You wouldn’t be able to buy a comparable house with the proceeds because it got sold for much less than it was worth.
The option to buy the asset is discretionary. The government can buy it for any reason at any price. Furthermore, many of these assets are not commodities. What is the value of a thing for which only one exists?
>The government would only buy your house if you underestimated the value of your property.
Nope, that's not in the rules. It's up to their discretion.
It seems like you agree it would be bad for the government to be able to buy your house when you give an accurate assessment. So why not design it out of the rules?
For the tax authority (and the public) it's a win/win:
1. Property is taxed at correct rate (win)
2. City buys property at low cost (win)
Thats not the scenario I detailed. Read it again.
On unoccupied or secondary residences specifically, not on wealth overall. This is more of a housing policy?
It's a luxury tax that only affects people wealthy enough to have a second home in NYC. These people, by virtue of not living there, aren't paying income tax and thus don't contribute as much as someone who is.
It's a revenue policy. It's effectively a wealth tax, cleverly implemented largely within the existing tax regime.
Ken Griffin spend 183 days a year in Florida, so he pays no NY state or NYC income tax. He does pay ~1.8% income tax on his $238 million home though. Now he will pay significantly more. (His property is also assessed at a far lower number.)
Real estate cannot move. If you are wealthy enough to own a second home worth at least $1M or more, you are likely very wealthy (top 2% of US households by net worth threshold is ~$5.5 million). It is a wealth tax implemented on a real estate asset component of a high net worth human's total portfolio.
It affects wealth, but the owner can also sell the property to someone who'll live in it and then they won't be taxed despite owning expensive property. So it's more targeted than a general wealth tax would be and I think the intent is to free up housing supply a bit.
Yeah not really. It generates money for the city to run their programs without raising taxes on residents. Those properties aren't being purchased by anyone who can't already get a home.
I think the revenue is probably overstated in the long run as people will find a way to offload the properties except for a select few who will consider a cost of doing business.
Also a great marketing move by Mamdami in terms of walking his talk.
I think it is unlikely anyone with a second home at these price levels is going to sell to avoid this (immaterial to them) tax. But certainly, if they do sell to someone who will occupy as primary residence, that's also a win, regardless of the coin flip (heads, wealth tax, tails, more housing for those who actively live in the city).
Edit: You start somewhere and keep tightening the policy ratchet as loopholes or other policy leakage are detected. You've found a clever hack? Congrats! The law is updated accordingly.
In reality, they will now just create a company in Singapore or Mongolia or another such place, which will then own the second home - while itself being owned by the original owner. Problem solved significantly cheaper than this new tax. In fact, I would not be surprised if they have already done that four months ago, when the law was being discussed.
The ones who will be hit are those who do not have the legal frameworks in place to erect such structures - Joe Homeowner who inherits grandmas city house, both worth slightly above the magic 7 figures.
Isn't that a good thing? It would encourage Joe Homeowner to sell the house to someone who could use it as a primary residence rather than leaving it empty and speculating on the real estate value.
> they will now just create a company in Singapore or Mongolia or another such place, which will then own the second home
How will that help to avoid a tax on secondary residences? Are they somehow going to claim that these properties are the primary residence of a company? Seems nonsensical.
>Edit: You start somewhere and keep tightening the policy ratchet as loopholes or other policy leakage are detected. You've found a clever hack? Congrats! The law is updated accordingly.
God I hate this sort of armchair despot type thinking.
People are not stupid. They're only ok with the absurd attitude given to the government to tax and regulate insofar as it's mostly kept it out of the grubby mitts of those who'll abuse it.
Like yeah, you absolutely could strictly enforce the speed limit and use the clean water act to regulate people's lawns but if you did that someone would get elected on promises to depose you and change the law to prevent that in the future.
This is the same reason the NSA doesn't go around using zero days on movie pirates and the FBI doesn't go around bringing RICO charges on everyone who ever ran a scummy business. The power is more useful to have on hand to use surgically. If you abuse it you'll lose it.
The scope of my comment you cite is the usual "extremely wealthy people using loopholes to avoid taxes while burdening your average joe with them instead".
This is not "your math is slightly off and we're going to be punitive." This is defending against tax evasion strategies by those with the wealth and power to attempt them. If you don't believe in taxes, or don't believe the wealthy should have the majority of the burden, certainly, we will not find common ground. My mental model is "You are very wealthy because you are very lucky. The cost to you for the societal socioeconomic system enabling this wealth is higher tax rates than those who work. Please pay your taxes due for a system that enabled your accumulation of wealth, and permission to keep it during your lifetime."
Tax evasion by millionaires and billionaires tops $150 billion a year, says IRS chief - https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/22/tax-evasion-by-wealthiest-am... - February 22nd, 2024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Or they can move to NY "full time", if I'm understanding correctly, which will likely also improve the city's tax revenue from more of that person's expenses incurring city taxes.
Not just on their expenses - if they become resident in NYC, they'll own 4% NYC income tax (on top of the 10% NY state income tax).
Wouldn't that mean that they would then also pay NY income tax?
-
Read the fine article?
> While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.
You have described an investment property, not an unoccupied second home exposed to the pied-a-terre tax, if you rent it out (whether mortgaged or free and clear).
What they also have described is a dacha.
Can't wait to see the middle-class families now moving into Billionaire's Row.
Considering inflation - the middle class will be the ones being taxed by this in a few years.
Sure yeah, all those middle class families with second homes in New York City. Right.
Nobody affected by this is middle class. Nobody that will be affected by this in the next 20 years would be considered middle class by any rational measure.
Just like the federal income tax was only targeted at the top 5% of the population when implemented.
Inflation is cumulative.
So the numbers will need adjusted for inflation. Eventually. Like any other tax. If you're making an argument it is entirely unclear what your position is.
That really depends on how you define middle class. I can easily see how someone with a net worth of 100m being considered middle class compared to billionaires.
Thanks, I needed a laugh. Only on HN...
And here people gave Mitt Romney shit for saying $250k was middle class...
You didn’t read the article. This tax is for 2 years then as assessments are fixed it changes calculation.
Probably the least complicated tax law. Increase taxes to increase revenue. Makes sense. Align valuations with reality while maintaining relatively constant absolute tax dollar amounts. Also makes sense. It's really not that hard.
>Probably the least complicated tax law. Increase taxes to increase revenue. Makes sense.
Not so fast.
1) It is complicated. It has progressives rates that start out higher for 2 years then decreases but coincides with how the base is calculated.
2) The budget projections assumes no behavioral changes from the taxed residents. This doesn't seem like a safe assumption. You should at least assume some amount of the tax base leaves since it disincentives 2nd properties.
This doesnt mean its a bad plan. But it's definitely not the least complicated tax law. I'd say thats more like sales tax or something.
Interesting. A $3m house is often valued at $300k so this is actually narrower than one would think. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/62-Beach-St-APT-2F-New-Yo...
Wild that there are so many rich people in NYC. Truly an engine of wealth creation.
What's to stop them from selling to a holding company so that it's not literally his own second house?
That's a great point. I'm guessing the politicians knew the rich would find a work around, but they're obligated to go through the outward motions so they can claim to keep their promises.
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-pied-a-terre-tax-and...
> It is unclear how DOF will treat properties owned by LLCs and trusts. In general, these owners are not considered residents. However, this does not mean that the properties are not used as primary residences. For instance, based on publicly available information, Mayor Bloomberg established his primary residence in two adjacent buildings on the Upper East Side, one owned by an LLC, and the other a cooperative apartment corporation. It may be possible for some LLC owners to rent to themselves and avoid the tax.
Now remember they are changing how property values are assessed. So everyone's base rises and the rich with 2nd homes dont pay the extra tax because they move it into an LLC.
> the rich with 2nd homes dont pay the extra tax because they move it into an LLC
Sounds like something worth addressing as a second phase!
I'm really curious about this. Wont, as a rule, any super-rich 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes in New York be completely unaffordable for almost everyone? It feels a bit like you're potentially spreading around the super-luxury homes across a wider breadth of the super-rich, but not much else.
Is there a better way to think about this?
If you can afford to pay $238 million for an apartment (the Ken Griffin example from the story) you can afford the annual $1.87 million in tax. That's about 0.785% tax rate.
By comparison, I have an investment property that's worth about $285k, and I pay 1.97% (about $5,800) on that in annual property tax, so esp. considering he's in Manhattan, that rate looks like a bargain.
Well it's two-pronged right? They either keep their extra houses and pay the tax, which increases tax revenue which can be used to fund things like constructing housing in NY, or they sell them off. The people potentially buying these houses will be more hesitant themselves to buy, so they're forced to lower the sell prices, making the houses more available to the general public.
I guess three-pronged, cause it says if they turn it into a rental that it's exempt from the taxes, which means someone is still at least living in it rather than just being used as a speculative asset.
> Wont, as a rule, any super-rich 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes in New York be completely unaffordable for almost everyone?
??
The point is to raise revenue.
In some sense, City is calling the bluff of these deeply immoral rich fucks; the tax is incredibly affordable for them, and almost all of them will simply complain and pay it, and thus generate revenue for the City.
> these deeply immoral rich fucks
If that is your starting point, I don't think you're going to approach tax policy rationally.
Ken Griffin may be deeply immoral -- I don't know -- but it's not a condition of being rich.
>?? >The point is to raise revenue.
Yep, I'm sorry -- I was very confused here, sorry for the not-very-useful initial post.
Yes. A tax on the ultra-wealthy, rather than a measure aimed at increasing housing.
Its very roundabout as NYC can only make taxes for NYC, but the net aim is to increase the effective tax rate for the ultra-wealthy, using secondary property as a proxy for that.
Edit: AND WE (I) LIKE THIS because progressive taxation is the core play of fixing income/wealth inequality
For startets, the revenue raised makes NYC as a city more sustainable by funding social programs for the normal people who keep the lights on.
Thanks, I feel sort of stupid for failing to notice that it would if nothing else just increase tax revenue. I was stuck in a perspective that this was about increasing housing stock.
This is really more about raising revenue for the city than increasing the housing supply.
It's for generating more tax revenue.
Economics always applies at the margins. If this means that no one can afford $500 million homes anymore, then builders will stop building them, and start building slightly cheaper homes. That will increase the supply of the slightly cheaper homes, so they will have to become cheaper, thus putting pressure on the even cheaper homes. Eventually, if other friction isn't too great (which is not given) the downward price pressure and increased supply should reach the regular person market.
If this has a problem, it's the difficulty of application: 2nd homes, and only if you have X amount of money, instead of just a flat increase. Property taxes (or really, in NYC land taxes, as most of the property tax is really the value of the land) are just very efficient, and make much less of a difference on the price of rents than you'd think.
Unfortunately, doing that is very unpopular. Unpopular enough that we see states trying to get rid of property taxes, and those providing limits to increases, which basically guarantee misallocation and rising prices. But what is economically reasonable and what the voters like have very little to do with each other.
They would probably be better off fixing how they asses the value of condos. Which, AIUI (and one have a good explanation?) is based on imputed rent, capped at the rent of the closest example they can find. So no condos get taxed more then the most expensive rental (I could have this wrong).
TFA makes clear that addressing this is part of the phased implementation.
I can’t tell if it will apply generally or just vacation homes. It says “gradually”, but that seem to be about the rates, it the scope.
And it does not explain how the current system arrives at such low valuations.
For all the fear-mongering the media-zeitgeist tried to stir up about Mamdani's NYC mayoral campaign, I find his policies measured and fiscally responsible. A second mansion in NYC does seem excessive, and the tax could free up supply. The tax rate isn't outrageously high, if I'm wealthy enough, I'll just pay it, otherwise if I'm on the cusp, maybe it's better to sell and liquidate. Feels like a Keynesian policy at its finest.
This is fantastic news for the Miami real estate market. Does anybody has stats as to how many homes this would actually affect?
The targets of this tax already live in Miami, which they declare as their "primary" residence to avoid paying NYC taxes
Boston hasn't seen the doomers' hypothesized capital flight from their wealth tax. The opposite, in fact.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/05/25/metro/millionaires-ta...
Miami? Have you checked home insurance rates lately? The thought of these NYC second home owners getting gutted by the next hurricane is rather amusing though.
The rich don't really care about insurance rates down here because they can a) pay them, b) tend to gravitate towards newer buildings that have better protection and c) have the money to retrofit older buildings with the necessary protection to lower insurance rates. Miami has the strictest hurricane codes in the country, so while there's a possibility that they may get gutted, it's probably going to be less than people expect.
I live in FL so if you have questions about insurance feel free to ask.
But the people who can easily afford the insurance in Florida can afford the new tax as well. And as an added bonus, they don't have to live in Florida!
But in all seriousness, they all already own homes in Florida.
So they can pay the higher insurance without a thought, they can pay for the relocation across the country, but they're unwilling to finance public services for the city they live in.
>“All my clients already feel like they pay too much,” Pollack said. “These numbers are significant. I don’t care how wealthy you are.”
If that argument holds up in court, we are all screwed.
This seems like a no-brainer. Tax 10-15k ultra wealthy people who park their cash in second homes in exchange for ~$500M/year in revenue.
I think this is in the right direction, but the cut off at $1M is interesting.
Why's there an obsession with the $1m cutoff?
The dollar has been turned to dust. $1M is not that much money, especially in housing, especially in NYC.
Why tax $1m second homes and not second homes generally? Effectively, you're going to tax almost all second homes.
So why the arbitrary cutoff?
Chicago wanted to add a "millionaire's tax" on $1m+ home sales. At least in Chicago, that isn't effectively taxing the vast majority of housing (and total value) - so there's some distinction worth having.
As TFA states, in NYC the assessed value of a home and the market value of a home are wildly different, with the assessed value being much, much lower.
This is $1mil in assessed value which would translate to roughly $5mil in market value.
In NYC $1mil market value is pretty much the starting price for a 1-bedroom condo in a gentrified area. $5mil market value, on the other hand, is a pretty luxurious place.
Read the fine article?
> While the tax seems large, experts say the city’s antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.
Below 1M in NYC it becomes unclear why you have a second home. Maybe you're not quite "wealthy" and it's really helping your family out in some way. No reason to complicate things, the cutoff actually simplifies it while sacrificing almost nothing in terms of what the tax is trying to accomplish.
>Why's there an obsession with the $1m cutoff?
I think this is because the term "millionaire" is a catchy term. And that caught on in the 1800s.
I agree and I’d prefer to see apartments excluded from this. Apartments are what I want second-homeowners to own rather than hoarding valuable land.
NYC is filled with apartments dedicated to the wealthy with token poor-doors for access to a few mandatory low income units in each building. All housing has to be subject to taxation for this to work.
It's symbolic for it's demographic voters
what does it symbolize?
"going after the rich", yeah? millionaire is still generally understood as an economic class by voters.
1 million remains the hallmark of 'wealthy' (as in: not us), to the point where pop culture has started mocking the concept decades ago (See: That Austin Powers movie...)
Hardly everyone understands 'owning a house' as millionaire-level wealth. Which is why people cheer the policy on until they realize it is them who is being shaken down.
Sure, but it's only a shakedown if it's an unoccupied second home, which is hard to have sympathy for. It can easily be an occupied second home (family, renters) or a first home for those in the upper middle class paying for $1mm+ apartments in NYC. I'm not really worried about Jeff Bezos or some Hollywood actor's crash pad when they have business in nyc.
Almost nobody casually owns a second home in New York worth $1m or more. What a dumb comment (like pretty much every comment criticizing this tax--just stupid and immoral).
In what world is 1 million US not wealthy? Have tech salaries distorted people's opinions that much?
Owning a house where your equity in it is over a million is absolutely wealthy.
> In what world is 1 million US not wealthy?
In the US itself (?) lol
I disagree with the comment and entire existence of the person to whom you are replying, but they aren't wrong about $1m actually not being as big or watershed a number as it used to be.
A basic middle-class house in just about any part of the country that's worth living in is going to be $1m, plus or minus 200k.
"that's worth living" is doing some Herculean lifting there. I'm sorry to inform you that only the wealthy can live in the places you deem "worth living". You are not using the phrase "middle-class" correctly.
I'm not coming at this from a rural perspective. I live in the greater NYC area. I have friends in NYC. They make a lot of money and live very close to Grand Central, and even they don't live in $1M properties.
I will generally concede to you, sure lol
I have lived in both NYC and Southern California, and I was mostly thinking about SoCal, where in general one assumes a basic middle-class house in a reasonably decent area is going to cost $1m. Do they always? Not necessarily, but even fairly modest houses like my parents house now exceed $1m in value easily.
Out of curiosity, do your friends own condos? Doesn't even a studio condo on the UES cost at least like $600k base (i.e. not counting any fees related to the sale, nor any ongoing HOA)?
> Owning a house where your equity in it is over a million is absolutely wealthy.
Only ~30% of home owners own their outright.
~60% own 40% of the house or less.
I'd argue that you can't own more than ~92% of a home, because it costs a lot to sell a house...
The "average" homeowner moves every ~7 years in the US, and this is heavily skewed to people with less equity - the people who outright own typically have stayed put 20+ years.
So "owning" a million dollar home means anything from: you put 3.5% down, and you're currently underwater cause prices went down in a lot of the US (i.e. you are literally own NEGATIVE equity)... to you actually have $1m in equity.
I "own" a $1.2m home. I really only own about $425k of it. If I had to sell it, that typically costs close to 9% - so I'd be lucky to get $300k.
The person underwater who put 3.5% down on a home could easily have -$250k if they had to sell... So the idea that everyone who "owns" a $1m house is "rich" is a bit strange...
I mean, in general, people who "own" $1m houses are not destitutely poor, but that's about as far as you can extrapolate.
I agree that owning an expensive house where you have negative equity is not wealthy (at least based on that data point itself; maybe you have a 401k or something else that makes you wealthy)
You are confusing owning a house with having paid off a mortgage. I can go get a mortgage for $1 million tomorrow, but that does not make me a millionaire. It makes me an debtor with a house I can't afford.
The wealthy are very easy to tax. They possess a lot of assets. Really, all of them should be taxed progressively, like shooting fish in a barrel.
Why tax the middle class within $1m-$5m. The tax should only apply to upwards of $10m. This is wrong.
I'd agree with you if this applied to primary residences, but it seems like this only applies to secondary residences? I find it hard to reconcile "middle class" with "has a second home in NYC"
How many middle class folks do you know who own two homes, the unoccupied one of which is a NYC property worth >$1 million?
The middle class doesn't own second homes. This tax does not apply to primary homes.
the amount of people who are middle class with a second home is rare. if you can afford another dwelling, you can pay more tax on it. lets not be this disconnected.
As I understand it many of the very wealthy do not "own" properties directly but control LLCs that do. The chain of trust/LLC ownership can be complex. Also as I understand it, this legislation does not really answer that call effectively -- though I have, of course, not read the full legal text myself.
I suppose in Ken Griffin's case, even if his residence is owned by an LLC he controls, he is known to reside in it. But how effective is this legislation when the purpose of LLC ownership is expressly anonymity and accounting convenience?
Dumb question - what about corporations (or charities?) that own homes? Are they automatically "second homes", since a corporation has no primary residence?
Are we going to see things classified as not-residences, but then people can vacation there anyway, much like Mar-a-Lago supposedly cannot be a residence, but apparently President Trump lives there and votes there, anyway?
If you want to tax the ultra-wealthy, prevent Securities-Based Loan (SBL) or a Securities-Based Line of Credit (SBLOC). Honestly this is how EVERY SINGLE wealthy person gets around paying taxes.
Stocks should be bought and sold, period the end. That is how the market is supported to work.
If you closed this simple loophole, you would see a massive amount of tax revenue.
Flagged misleading editorialized title.
Actual title is "New York passes Mamdani’s pied-a-terre tax"
$ have to come from somewhere, with the Fed cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor every other term, time for the states to take over.
Issue is not revenue, it's spending. Florida has 2x the population, yet half the spending on NY.
Spending is not necessarily an issue and can be a net benefit for the taxpayers depending on where you spend that money.
Thinking stuff like healthcare, education, housing, public transport, cycling infrastructures or even law enforcement.
The Fed (with a capital F) refers to the Federal Reserve which explicitly does not control tax policy.
“It always seems impossible until it's done."
Surpriosingly sane idea suddenly
Curtailing spending is impossible. Just keep raising taxes!
New York desperately wants all the people with money to leave the state.
This argument is used again and again and I wonder: Why do "people with money" stay where they are when there are countries, islands, even just states where there is less taxes to pay?
Person with money and former NYC'er here. I didn't stay. I moved to a state with less taxes to pay. I haven't looked back.
I ran a company in NYC for six years before the taxes and onerous regulatory environment convinced me to bail.
The final straw was when we had to hire a fixer to clear up a state regulatory error that would’ve destroyed our business. No amount of calls or letters over months — by me — fixed the issue. The guy we hired got it cleared up in a week.
That’s how I learned firsthand that the more involved the state tries to be in protecting everyone from everything, the more opportunity there is for bad actors and gross inefficiency, and the worse things get.
It's not the "people with money" leaving. There's equal evidence of people with money staying and people with money leaving.
It's people who use their money to generate more value and employ lots of people that are, consistently, leaving. That means that thousands of jobs for the lower middle class are leaving and going to somewhere with a more favorable business environment.
And that's not good (well, it's good for the other city).
It's easy for people in tech hub cities to think that's never going to change but history shows boom towns going bust repeatedly. Sometimes they come back (Seattle). Sometimes they don't (the whole Rust Belt + Upstate NY).
And once the talent pool from a few large companies moves to another metro, whole industries relocate their offices to chase it.
This specifically targets people who don't live in New York though (and thus don't pay income tax).
If I tax you one cent would you budge? This is what this tax amounts to the ultra wealthy.
> This is what this tax amounts to the ultra wealthy.
Because you would know what the ultra wealthy think ?
Bots can't think.
Real Estate can't move out of New York. Someone else would have to buy it.
Wealth follows an extreme power law. This tax is pennies to those who will pay it.
I think there is a real argument here that everyone will love to yell at you. Same thing happened with California. Its always a balance -- if the tax is too much people will leave, if they get the number just right in that its a nuisance and not material they will stay.
Though when you start engaging with the bots they can't handle the nuance.
Sounds like a great way to lower housing costs.