9 ms·
New York passes pied-a-terre tax
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago“It always seems impossible until it's done."
- wetpaws 4mo agoSurpriosingly sane idea suddenly
- Neywiny 4mo agoProbably 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.
- nonethewiser 4mo ago>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.
- Neywiny 4mo ago1) A bit of hyperbole on my part but consider that minimum wages and other worker benefits have worked like this for a long time. They tend to ramp up. 2) good. The more people who are in the city the more actual sales tax and other revenue is generated.
- nemomarx 4mo agoOn unoccupied or secondary residences specifically, not on wealth overall. This is more of a housing policy?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 4mo agoReal 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 ~$5.5 million). It is a wealth tax implemented on a real estate asset component of a high net worth human's total portfolio.
- nemomarx 4mo agoIt affects wealth, but the owner can also sell the property to someone who'll live in it and then they won't be taxed despite owning expensive property. So it's more targeted than a general wealth tax would be and I think the intent is to free up housing supply a bit.
- toomuchtodo 4mo agoI think it is unlikely anyone with a second home at these price levels is going to sell to avoid this (immaterial to them) tax. But certainly, if they do sell to someone who will occupy as primary residence, that's also a win, regardless of the coin flip (heads, wealth tax, tails, more housing for those who actively live in the city). Edit: You start somewhere and keep tightening the policy ratchet as loopholes or other policy leakage are detected. You've found a clever hack? Congrats! The law is updated accordingly.
- DocTomoe 4mo agoIn reality, they will now just create a company in Singapore or Mongolia or another such place, which will then own the second home - while itself being owned by the original owner. Problem solved significantly cheaper than this new tax. In fact, I would not be surprised if they have already done that four months ago, when the law was being discussed. The ones who will be hit are those who do not have the legal frameworks in place to erect such structures - Joe Homeowner who inherits grandmas city house, both worth slightly above the magic 7 figures.
- jmclnx 4mo ago$ 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.
- nxm 4mo agoIssue is not revenue, it's spending. Florida has 2x the population, yet half the spending on NY.
- prmoustache 4mo agoSpending 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.
- xboxnolifes 4mo agoI cant tell if your suggesting Florida does not provide enough services or if New York over pays for theirs.
- hervature 4mo agoThe Fed (with a capital F) refers to the Federal Reserve which explicitly does not control tax policy.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4mo agoI 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.
- happytoexplain 4mo agoBelow 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.
- davidguetta 4mo agoIt's symbolic for it's demographic voters
- DocTomoe 4mo ago1 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.
- cjs_ac 4mo ago> 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.
- altruios 4mo agoSecond 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.
- gowld 4mo agoTaxing 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.
- altruios 4mo agoThe cost of a "pied-à-terre" ranges from $500k to over $1.5m. A new house costs at MINIMUM $400k to build (in New York state, not to mention the city). There are around 100k pied-à-terre in New York CITY alone. There are about 350k homeless people in New York city. Taxing all of those secondary 'homes' at 40k would and spending those taxes ONLY on new housing construction would yield at MOST 100k houses (per year). So I was incorrect in what was more efficient IF taxes only go to building new houses... which I AFAIK is not accurate to how those taxes would be distributed. (it may still be better if enough revenue is going to housing dev). So a ~10% tax rate for SECOND+ homes is still too small considering how many houses we need to build. I argue for 100% tax: pay that price every year if you want a SECOND+, that would completely offset a new house in compensation for tying one up). If you are rich enough to afford a vacation home: you pay vacation prices. You don't get to use it as an "investment vehicle" we need to dissuade that mentality completely.
- everdrive 4mo agoI'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?
- robbiewxyz 4mo agoFor startets, the revenue raised makes NYC as a city more sustainable by funding social programs for the normal people who keep the lights on.
- everdrive 4mo agoThanks, 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.
- jdappletini 4mo agoYeah Mamdani is firing on all fronts. There is plan to add to the housing stock as well: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/05/mayor-mamdani-highlights-housing-production-agenda-in-block-by-b https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/05/mayor-mamdani... He is also aggressively going after landlords withholding repairs, maintaining dilapidated units, etc. and thus tackling the quality of the housing stock problem.
- cyberax 4mo agoThat's because he's planning to fail upwards. None of his plans will result in positive outcomes but they'll look good on paper. So he'll move to a higher office and leave his messes for the next sucker.
- robbiewxyz 4mo ago
- burlesona 4mo agoProperty 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.
- elevation 4mo ago[flagged]
- blitzar 4mo agoThe elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. I wont hold my breath though.
- cakealert 4mo ago> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account? They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what do you think investment does?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- skybrian 4mo agoCurrently it seems to be funding frenzied investment in data centers.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- 4mo ago
- ExoticPearTree 4mo ago[flagged]
- robbiewxyz 4mo agoWealth follows an extreme power law. This tax is pennies to those who will pay it.
- tintor 4mo agoReal Estate can't move out of New York. Someone else would have to buy it.
- ExoticPearTree 4mo agoA company in the Bahamas maybe. I really hope this backfires on a grand scale and the NY state actually loses money because of their greed.
- tartoran 4mo agoIf I tax you one cent would you budge? This is what this tax amounts to the ultra wealthy.
- ur-whale 4mo ago> This is what this tax amounts to the ultra wealthy. Because you would know what the ultra wealthy think ?
- boringg 4mo agoBots can't think.
- hackeraccount 4mo agoNo one looks at money that way. If it were I'd find a million dollars under the seat cushions of the couch that Bill Gate's owns. No one is so flaked out they don't know that a 100 grand is a nice chunk of change or what the costs of staying vs. moving are.
- picafrost 4mo agoAs 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?
- gowld 4mo agoFlagged misleading editorialized title. Actual title is "New York passes Mamdani’s pied-a-terre tax"
- GenerWork 4mo agoThis is fantastic news for the Miami real estate market. Does anybody has stats as to how many homes this would actually affect?
- lorecore 4mo agoMiami? 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.
- GenerWork 4mo agoThe 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.
- throw4847285 4mo agoBut 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.
- unethical_ban 4mo agoSo 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.
- hnburnsy 4mo agoHomes built after 2002 in Florida are not gutted by hurricanes, they are hurricane resistant under updated building codes. The codes were even strengthened in subsequent years. Example, FEMA found no structural failure from wind in modern-code homes for Hurricane Ian.
- hibikir 4mo agoIf 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.
- richwater 4mo ago[flagged]
- alexk307 4mo agoThis 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.
- Aurornis 4mo agoActual 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.
- nonethewiser 4mo agoTax on wealthy vs. wealth tax.
- freediddy 4mo agoWhat's to stop them from selling to a holding company so that it's not literally his own second house?
- ceejayoz 4mo agohttps://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-pied-a-terre-tax-and-its-potential-revenues/ 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.
- nonethewiser 4mo agoNow 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.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago> 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!
- SoftTalker 4mo agoLLC pays the tax then. It's still a home that isn't a full-time residence.
- eli 4mo agoThey are not changing how property values are assessed for everyone
- wisemanwillhear 4mo ago
- josefritzishere 4mo agoThe 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.
- 11101010010001 4mo ago>“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.
- jedimastert 4mo agoI mean, the numbers are pretty significant, but like there really isn't a great argument when they're already talking about second non-primary homes. Like no one is forcing them to own them, it's not a necessity
- thrance 4mo agoOh, won't somebody think of the multi-millionaires???
- VikingCoder 4mo ago> 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?
- petcat 4mo agoWhat 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.
- zeeveener 4mo agoThey 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.
- petcat 4mo agoWhat 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?
- ceejayoz 4mo agoI assure you, unloading property in NYC purchased below actual market value will not be a huge challenge.
- 4mo ago
- thrownaway561 4mo agoIf 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.
- lokar 4mo agoThey 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).
- idontwantthis 4mo agoTFA makes clear that addressing this is part of the phased implementation.
- lokar 4mo agoI 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.
- VikingCoder 4mo agoDumb 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?
- omot 4mo agoFor 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.
- thomasjeff1 4mo agoWhy tax the middle class within $1m-$5m. The tax should only apply to upwards of $10m. This is wrong.
- swiftcoder 4mo agoHow many middle class folks do you know who own two homes, the unoccupied one of which is a NYC property worth >$1 million?
- rbtprograms 4mo agothe 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.
- mjamesaustin 4mo agoThe middle class doesn't own second homes. This tax does not apply to primary homes.
- jlamberts 4mo agoI'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"
- henry2023 4mo agoIt’s a pretty moderate tax on second homes and it makes the city cash flow healthier. I don’t understand what’s controversial about this.
- jdappletini 4mo agoIt's not on the primary residence. Relax.
- arjie 4mo agoInteresting. 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-York-NY-10013/55500504_zpid/ 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.
- eli 4mo agoNYC surely does generate a lot of wealth, but a lot of vacant luxury NYC condos are just a place to park cash. No particular connection to the city.
- diordiderot 4mo agoWealth cannot be created or destroyed, only distributed. /S
- nonethewiser 4mo ago>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 resale 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?
- dirtikiti 4mo agono, you're right. it's flying under the radar because people don't read these things and critically think about them. as per usual, the middle class will take the hit. the people that voted for this will become poorer, and the wealthy will go on as normal.
- jdappletini 4mo ago"everyone's taxes will increase" is not true because lot of newer apartments don't get the chance to undervalue.
- nonethewiser 4mo agoNew apartments? NYC? I jest. Im not sure you understand what Im saying though. Wouldnt normal people's taxes go up because the appraisal changes are global? Say, a primary residence bought for $750k.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago> Wouldnt normal people's taxes go up because the appraisal changes are global? No. Our town finally reassessed everyone after not doing it since before COVID. Assessments doubled and everyone freaked out, but the tax levy didn't change, so the amount of actual tax basically didn't change; $160M in taxes for 20k people is still $160M in taxes for 20k people. People just now pay less tax per $1k house value, but for higher house values.
- rdtsc 4mo agoIt's a good thing to try, we'll see what happens. It's interesting to see the CEO immediately threatened to pull jobs and move them to Miami. That's to be expected to some degree. The way it works that sometime a small hike is enough to trigger the behavior. It could be in protest or as a sign of more tax hikes to come. This is also some opportunity for intra-state and intra-city arbitrage where random cities and states lean into the controversy and start offering tax incentives for the "sad" and "offended" egos of wealthy of NYC to move there. That often happens to companies, where states, sometimes down South offer such "deals" to move company headquarters from higher tax states up North. But at the same time, this might encourage some wealthy people who "fled" to Florida to return back and make New York their primary residence. I also see slew of loopholes popping up, couples divorcing so each can claim on of the residences as "primary"
- electrondood 4mo agoI support this. The purpose of a home is for people who live in the area to live in, not to be a speculative investment. This is part of the reason we have a housing shortage in the US: 20% of available homes are purchased by investors, which squeezes the supply. Airbnb has made this worse. There are areas near me where during the COVID ZIRP, people snatched up like 70% of the homes to turn into rentals. Those places are now ghost towns, unless it's Memorial Day weekend.
- dragonwriter 4mo agoEssentially the whole problem with housing prices in the US is failure to build housing, largely forced through restrictions on building housing, including restrictive zoning. “Some of the supply of housing that is permitted to exist is used a short-term rentals rather than as actual housing” may be “part” of the problem, but its a vanishingly small part, in that if you deal with the basic building problem, there would be no actual problem, even if the short-term rental thing continued.
- comrade1234 4mo agoInteresting system to compare here in Switzerland. They've never had a property tax. However they did have a tax where they calculate the putative rent you could get for your property and tax you on that income (that you don't really have). So basically a property tax. But they just repealed that system so no more property tax but you can also no longer deduct mortgage interest from your taxes. So now the system favors people that don't have loans. That with laws against foreigners buying property (most of Switzerland - not in some economically under devised areas though) the hope is the cost of housing will go down.
- jandrewrogers 4mo agoIn the US land property taxes are essentially use taxes that pay for the maintenance of infrastructure that supports the property. This is why rural property taxes are very low -- there is no infrastructure that needs to be maintained that would justify the tax. Use taxes are broadly efficient. If land property taxes were wealth taxes then you'd be able to deduct e.g. mortgage debt when applying the tax rate. In this regard, property taxes in the US largely make sense.
- gen220 4mo agoAs a New Yorker I'm thrilled. LVT/Landlording Tax next pls :) Edit: Actually, as a property tax of nonprimary residences, is this not also effectively also a Landlording tax? Will my landlord's tax bill go up because he's not residing in my building, if my building is above the threshold assessed value of $1mm? Or are >$1mm "multi-family homes" (significant % of housing of New Yorkers in BK/Queens) exempt and this only applies to condos?
- bad_username 4mo agoWill not the landlords eventually pass the expense of the new tax on to you, the tenants? They won't like dip into their savings to pay it, will they.
- gen220 4mo agoEh, maybe for the more luxurious properties? But plenty of landlords are operating on tight margins and they’re not legally allowed to raise rent by more than some measure of inflation reported by the state each year. But you’re right, the tax would have to be much more punitive to crossover into the red. If it does make it more challenging to justify the business of being a landlord, I’m all for it though. Steps towards the end goal of more New Yorkers who want to owning their primary residence.
- mrcoreycohen 4mo ago[flagged]
- aubin 4mo ago…=
- sfmike 4mo agoAgainst all new tax. It's spent too inefficiently. Why does there need to be more New York Learing Centers. Would you keep adding buckets of water into a leaky boat or try to patch where it's leaking first?
- btmiller 4mo agoOne can find an unending supply of complaints when you simply choke the hose. Consider focusing your feedback on how best to use this new revenue stream such that you’re not left filled with anger and disappointment.
- thrance 4mo ago> It's spent too inefficiently. Source? With all the ruckus DOGE made, they just couldn't find that many inefficiencies. They ended up cutting marginal things just to look good (to their fans, who think 5M a year to keep Ebola at bay is too much). As their taxes have been steadily decreasing over the past decades, the rich kept getting richer, now owning most of the wealth in this country, and with that everything is turning to shit. There's less and less money for stuff that matters (education, health, infrastructure...) and more and more for the pedophile oligarchs to buy media companies and politicians. Redistribution is the only way out of this crisis.
- fsckboy 4mo agothe pied-a-terre tax is simply and perfectly "taxation without representation" that is how it was designed, it only applies to people who are ineligible to vote in New York City, there is no way to push back. As such, it's really quite disgusting, abuse of power motivated by pure greed, violating literally the founding democratic principle of these United States. Our tree of liberty needs watering. (I do not have to pay this tax, but I am a principled person)
- cmxch 4mo agoDr. Zhivago, eat your heart out.
- burnerRhodov3 4mo ago4% a year depreciates the entire asset in 25 years, almost the exact timeline of a loan? WTF? Who in their right mind would do this?