“I will tax the rich, even if I have to tax the poor to do it.”
This statement and the article title are disingenuous. Mamdani wants to avoid increasing property taxes and drawing down city reserves to balance the budget here.
New York City is legally required to balance its budget. This is the reality of that.
9.5%? Couldn’t go for an even 10%, just to make the math easier? Oligarchs are going to have to break out their old TIs.
Please tax the people taking us for a ride as much as possible
They’ve had it too good for too long.
It’s not just the billionaires.
Based king
It’s as if he’s right.
Here is a thought experiment:
- What happens if it’s cheaper to invest in getting individual like this (who passes this kind of tax) not elected next time (elect someone who removes this tax and helps me any my friends), than to pay the tax? My conspiracy theory brain says in a decade or two the government will be filled with rich people and friends et al.
- Search for 'McCutcheon v. FEC ’ Is there a politician, senator, congressman (congress person?), governor in the US who is not a Millionaire?
I raise that conspiracy with this one: What is an OK amount of money to be lost on taxation for the rich that will cause political divide among the plebs that rifts forms that they treat each other like different species and bicker and fight among themselves in the name of the banner they stand for, mostly on the pure hatred for other banner and people who stand for that?
My conspiracy theory brain says in a decade or two the government will be filled with rich people and friends et al.
Oh no, don’t threaten me with… the status quo! 😱😱😱
Let me try to understand if I got this. When you say this:
I raise that conspiracy with this one: What is an OK amount of money to be lost on taxation for the rich that will cause political divide among the plebs that rifts forms that they treat each other like different species and bicker and fight among themselves in the name of the banner they stand for, mostly on the pure hatred for other banner and people who stand for that?
I take it you mean that as taxation of the rich falls, living standards decrease, intra-pleb bickering increases to find a pleb target to blame for the falling standard?
You do provide an interesting scenario, but my thoughts and reasoning aren’t that coherent. I meant, as a non USian, I feel people really buy into the ‘American Dream’ that I’m gonna be rich one day. So if we start taxing the rich now then I’m gonna get taxed when I get rich. At least some people do, hence taxing the rich on itself is going to cause a divide. Not just that taxing or not taxing the rich usually comes with package deal with other issues which some one might be inclined to.
If rich people control the government, then rich people would never be taxed. Unless there is an amount that can be allowed to tax, and for the reason above people will divide themselves into two clubs and fight between each other worse than British football fans to the point that one club’s fan won’t recognize fan of other club as equals. Neither intellectually, nor as a member of the same species. This will ensure that nothing will ever happen to the status quo as in a decade or two, each club’s identity will be solely about hating the other club and their fans or whoever is even slightly pleasant to member of the rival club, and that is what all the fans from both sides will spend all their time doing. The only time both fans seem merely united will be when someone says the game sucks or it’s called soccer, but only for a fleeting moment.
“Threatens.” Oh, they mean “proposes as an alternative.”
Fuckin’ NYT.
Threatened makes him sound way coolerI
Honestly, it does.
yeah. status quo bias
Scale the property tax exponentially based on the valuation of the property. Make sure the wealthy land owners pay more. Much, much more.
thats a good idea. A progressive property tax. I sorta can’t believe it never occured to me and I never saw it mentioned previously. Would encourage affordable housing building I think to.
There’d likely be a lot of ways around it. Large plots would be broken up into smaller legal boundaries, parts would be owned by shell companies, parts would be loaned out and rented back at low rates, etc. etc. They’d find a way to take advantage of it to pay less than anyone else.
A straight-up land tax with no frills does the job. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Again this happens with all taxes and yeah you would need to deal with shananigans. shell companies in general are a problem. I feel we should actually not allow companies to own companies and im not sure we should allow companies to be in multiple markets.
Not with a regular property/land tax. There’s essentially no way to game that.
My point is that adding frills to a tax (like making it progressive) usually just enables the people with the means to do so to take advantage of provisions protecting the poor. A property tax is effective because it is inherently progressive and doesn’t need to be tweaked much.
It’s not “inherently progressive”. The rate is flat and therefore not progressive in the technical sense, though the result can appear that way. People tend to self-select into the highest tier housing they can afford. So, the tax can feel progressive even though structurally it isn’t.
To see that it isn’t truly progressive, consider someone buying property with accumulated wealth. The tax only increases proportionally with the property’s value; the rate itself never rises.
property tax is not inherently progressive any more than any other tax. Taxes are either flat or progressive. Not having provisions to protect the poor just fucks the poor. Of course what really protects the poor is to just have a large enough standard deduciton to not be pulling income when people are at a level where none of their income is disposable or going further and having a citizens income. Can’t be gamed because it applies equally to all. Of course part of graduated system is not to make such a jarring increase that its avoided at all cost. If each stair goes up only one percent then its hard to point to a particular step below as being better than the step above.
It’s inherently progressive because it counteracts the inherently regressive distribution of property in a capitalist economy.
Taxes are not either flat or progressive. They are flat, proportional, or progressive. This is a proportional tax which targets unequal distribution to achieve progressive results.
If you mess with the rate, the system will be more easily exploited by the ultra-rich.
Taxes are either regressive, proportional, or progressive; flat and progressive are the same thing. While some (many?) consider proportional to be a separate category, I would argue that it’s inherently regressive, as any fixed percentage is going to come disproportionately from non-disposable income for any lower income individuals. Sales taxes are considered regressive because of this and they are a flat rate for most purchases.
You can make the argument that people have to buy stuff to exist, but they don’t have to purchase a home, but given the alternative is renting which impacts lower income people even worse, this seems like a specious argument.
Even with property tax, insurance, repairs, and mortgage, I’m paying less per month than people renting much smaller apartments in my area. Thats neither fair nor right.
wait wait wait. are you saying a flat tax is like a fee because that is not how its used. a flat tax proposal is for one percentage. Like sales tax is flat. But it still various by amount being taxed. Im not quite getting what you mean by flat proportional and progressive.
Companies definitely should not be allowed to own companies.
yeah there is far to much companies owning other companies owning other companies. the whole point of stock was individuals investing in a company that did something
A large building with a lot of rentals would be taxed at a high total value, and this increased cost would be passed on to renters, thereby defeating the purpose. It should o ly apply to unrented properties.
Side note, I know nothing about rent control though.
and this increased cost would be passed on to renters
Wrong. Renters are already paying the most the market will bear.
In many places residential is already taxed less but you are right it would likely have a negative effect at high density. My guts says it would push more toward the 4 over 2’s that are already prevelent due to their cost vs return. Possibly rentals would get assesed like condos and then added together. I could see that.
No, it wouldn’t. It would discourage development and would encourage people to let their properties languish to lower their assessed values.
The current system works because generally you do not pay more for more expensive property, you pay a flat rate based on the assessed value. And there are abatement for certain identity and income groups already that serve as a progressive measure. Low income and senior residents most typically get the biggest tax breaks already.
this is the argument about all taxes. rich people will leave. corporations will leave or people won’t invest. companies won’t look to make money because they more they make the greater the rate of tax even though they will still get return. people won’t want to get paid more becuase that more is taxed higher. you already pay more for more expesive property this would just slowly graduate the rate as it goes up just like income taxes.
The current system works
It does?
for the vast majority of people and situations, yes.
Well I’m convinced.
I don’t get any abatements or lower rates. I think the wealthy should pay a higher rate in some circumstances. If they aren’t paying federal taxes we should make them pay more for local taxes. Every time they are taxed they threaten to leave, or not invest, and it’s all bullshit.
If they do leave, that’s the best case scenario, nothing good comes from billionaires. Nothing good comes from half billionaires either, 100 millionaires, they are all a drain on society. Both in making their money, and in not paying taxes and contributing to the society they live in, then in perverting our governments, and actually getting tax dollars. We end up paying them, in tax breaks for their business, to say nothing of the bail outs both the last times we had a recession.
properties languish to lower their assessed values.
you do not pay more for more expensive property, you pay a flat rate based on the assessed value
How is that possible for assessed value to be one way but not the other? Assessed properties have to do with the value of the property. It’s not 1:1 but it is definitely correlated.
because people are not rational. they are emotional.
and they are VERY emotional about taxes to the point they do stupid crap. a lot of people are very fearful of taxes to the point they make really crazy choices based on that fear.
my own sister is going to move to some rural shitty state, because she is so afraid of paying taxes once she retires. especially property taxes. and when i point out the irony of that when she gets sick there will be zero medical services… she tells me to go fuck myself.
I don’t like people like your sister. She benefited for her entire lives by people of all ages paying taxes for social local services she consumed growing up, going to public school, driving on maintained city roads, being protected by fire/police services, and using local libraries. The moment its her turn to pay for the younger generation then suddenly that spending she considers wasteful and ducks out of that society.
You correctly pointed out many of the difficulties about old age in rural environments. I hope she doesn’t die because she has a health event, and the closest hospital is an hour away in the closest big city, and the ambulance service may take an additional 45 minutes to arrive.
I don’t like her either, she is classic greedy rich person. She thinks all of those things are evil that she is forced to pay for by lazy poor people. She is not very grounded or educated, she went to business school and worked for a corporation her entire life and basically thinks anyone who isn’t rich like her is a pathetic loser.
But I’m sure she will move to this rural place, and vote to defund the schools and hospitals because it’s for poor people.
Your argument is based on the likely false premise that she can pay and is choosing not to, that she will always have money to pay. It’s the attitude of society to the poor in this country. It’s not that they don’t have the money, they are choosing not to pay. It’s not all that true.
Nevermind they lose the property if they can’t pay property tax, that costs are going up, and fixed incomes are not. Real inflation is higher than stated inflation increases are based on, thanks to a half century of cpi changes to understate it, 5-8% to 2-3%. They might need a car in the country, with it’s many costs, you certainly need one for dignity in almost all of the country. Food, bills. Medicine, co-pays for medical. All of those go up more than her pay, but you “don’t like” people like her because she’s loath to live in an area that has a tax that will seize her property if she can’t pay it, leaving her to die penniless on the street.
Society having nothing but contempt for her, and everyone victim blaming, courtesy of fox news and their war on poverty.Your attitude is wrong-headed here.
My sister has about 50 million dollars.
Yes, she very much believes she is poor and can’t afford to pay taxes. She is poor just like Jeff Bezos is. Bezos also believes taxes are unfair and cruel and he can’t afford them.
But Texas often has higher property tax because they have relatively low sales tax and no state income tax.
Yeah that’s what happens in every state with low sales or no income taxes. That or they have usage fees.
The point I’m making is that you said people will tank their property value to lower their assessment, but in the same breath said that assessment has nothing to do with property value if it’s expensive.
That’s not at all what I said.
If you don’t have money to pay property taxes they seize your property and auction it off. All while costs are skyrocketing, and people on fixed incomes aren’t getting more money. To dismiss your sister’s fear is wrongheaded, she’s right on this unless she has a lot saved up, social security is worth less in real value every year, as real inflation averaged 5-8%/year under the old, and more honest, standard, just by 2008 for the 50 years prior, and stated inflation in the cpi that it’s all based on had it’s formula changed several times to keep it around 2-3%. The difference is 1,300 dollars a month social security recipients are now denied from those changes to the cpi, on average.
So costs can go up so they can’t afford to eat and pay bills and keep a car, and pay property taxes. Plus the county/township can come in and change the valuation of the property, raise the millages, etc.
Losing your property as a retiree is catastrophic, I would say you are way off base scorning your sister’s very real concerns here.
Yeah, none of that is true. My sister is objectively an idiot, she has millions of dollars and her fear is founded by ‘taxes are theft’ beliefs. Her SS benefit will be like 5-6 grand a month no top of all her already crazy money. she is a millionaire.
I worked in tax policy. It takes years of willful neglect to get your property seized. Like 10 years of not paying your taxes, and even then most municipalities have programs to make payments on tax debts.
It takes 3 years here to get your property seized and auctioned.
And not making enough money might seem like “willful neglect” to you, reared on fox news campaigns blaming the poor for getting cheated by society out of a dignified life, one they had before the 80s.
But the jokes on you, and all of us, because they are coming for all of our money, you just didn’t see through or care when they manipulated you into supporting it.
Even as they cheat you every day in the understated inflation, unless you have investment income. It’s your own fault I’m sure. Stupid others, not having enough money, it’s clearly a choice and a personal failing they are getting cheated by a society seized by big business and run by nihilistic lawyers working for billionaires.
Please forgive tubulartittyfrog, as you can plainly see, they are emotional and get angry when math doesn’t match their stupid crap feelings
Its so funny the NYT has like half a dozen quotes about people opposed to the tax hikes but not a single one has presented a real idea for alternatives.
“Why can’t we just continue as normal and keep pushing the problems down the road for someone else to figure out?” - New York’s comfortable masses who are already older than dirt and have no stake in the future, and basically all of America’s financial policy for the last hundred years.
The alternative is deficit spending which is the goal. That way poor people get penalized.
Everything is overpriced so that the people making more money than us can make even more money. It has nothing to do with keeping the lights on and only useful idiots think otherwise.
Everything is overpriced so that the people making more money than us can make even more money.
NYC has some of the highest taxes in the country. The alternative is less taxes.
The alternative is less taxes for most, and more taxes for few.
The problem is that all those services that people like and rely on? They cost money. Inflation and dipshit tariffs are eating into everything, so new revenue is required.
It’s always acceptable to raise taxes on those who have too much when there are those who have too little.
How are you gonna do less taxes when your guy left office with a 12b shortfall? My understanding is that NYC services are already running pretty lean as it is. What are you gonna cut?
New York in general has pretty moderate property taxes, ranked 10-20th depending on exactly how it’s calculated, and well behind Texas, NJ, most of New England, Illinois, Nebraska and Ohio.
In NY county and Queens they are well below the average for NY and slightly below the national average.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county/
New York is No. 2 behind Hawaii for the overall tax burden. Texas is 40th. Source is wallethub.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494
This thread however is about property taxes specifically. If you want to argue that NY should reduce income taxes and increase property taxes, I’m here for it, it’s a better way to collect money. But having a high level of taxation in general is good if those taxes go to services. What’s the average gas bill in Texas compared to NY? Also, with a progressive tax system it shouldn’t be surprising that the place with incredibly high salaries is also paying more taxes.
New York has some of the highest wealth in the country, but woe and damnation if we suggest that maybe they should consider helping us out with shit like roads and garbage and sewers. Nah, let’s let the people working two jobs pay for all that.
Too bad Billionaires’ Row is already cutting out a big portion of that tax revenue with a loophole.
Solution is to tax the land instead
This is how you do it when you’re serious about achieving what you promise for your constituents. Use your tools as needed, demand cooperation, when you don’t get it, use your tools as leverage. Even if you fail, people see you did what you could and then they’re ready to punish whoever stood in your way at the ballot box. This is why the oligarch class is so afraid of Mamdani who’s just a mayor.
I’m a NYC resident, and I pay property taxes. If this is the stick that will (hopefully) get us the carrot of a wealth tax, I’m all for it. If property taxes end up going up, and we can use it to make the city better with the services Mamdani wants to get going, well then let’s go. I will figure out how to pay the additional taxes somehow. With that said, let this be a bargaining chip. Working with the rest of NYC’s political class is like a bunch of toddlers. The best thing you can do is give them two options, one you want (which they won’t like) and one you don’t want (which they really won’t like). And make them pick. So they feel like they have agency, it’s their decision, don’tchaknow?
Don tchak now
Don Tchak never! The dude is completely corrupt, and I hear he has some very nasty sexual proclivities.
It’s a little bit misleading to refer to as any mayor of New York City as “just a mayor“.
It’s just a tiny little financial capitol of the world with a measley population of only 8.4 million people.
Barely as large as Austria
And what did Austria ever achieve???
If NYC was a state it would be between the 11th and 12th most populous state.
And California is the world’s 4th largest economy, behind only the entire rest of the United States, China, and Germany. New York State would be 8th.
The Democratic states and cities are economic and sociopolitical leaders for a reason. Don’t listen to the bullshit calling them socialist hellholes. The evidence suggests that taking care of your people (and maybe even having illegal immigrants too gasp or better yet legal immigrants) is actually an economically sound, and maybe even economically preferable strategy overall.
Illegal immigrants are one of the strongest boosters of the economy, since they are a source of cheap skilled labor. You’d have to be totally stupid to intentionally throw away that advantage.
I agree that it would be better to make them legal however. I believe in free movement and commerce.
I agree that it would be better to make them legal however. I believe in free movement and commerce.
100% Nobody wants to be in this situation.
The system simply doesn’t allow for people to enter ‘in the right way’, as far as the vast majority of non-rich people around the world are concerned the US Border is closed unless you win a literal lottery.
We clearly need these people and benefit from their presence both economically and culturally. Instead of creating an immigration system that reflects that reality, we have one that makes them live in the shadows and deal with exploitation because they cannot access normal public services, including the police, for fear of being arrested (possibly violently) and thrown in detention for an unspecified amount of time.
It has to be different, and not in the ways that these white nationalists cosplaying as law enforcement are envisioning.
I love when people say the us should get rid of CA. Yeah let’s just throw away the worlds 4th largest economy because you’re anti woke 🙄
You can also casually remind people that more Republicans live in California than Texas, which usually makes their head explode. It’s an enormous state, with a huge economy, with tons and tons of people.
People like that are willing to do or say anything in order to get validation for their shitty beliefs
The population of NYC is larger than the combined population of the smallest 28 countries in the world.
Second largest city in north america?
Uh doesn’t this just inflict pain on the middle class if it ends up passing?
Removed by mod
Does the middle class own property in New York at all? I thought most just rent apartments.
NYC is 5 boroughs a lot of it is single family or 2 family housing.
And you think land lords won’t pass increased property taxes on to their tenants?
I don’t live in NYC so I won’t give an opinion on this but landlords won’t just eat increased taxes.
No, in a market like NYC rents are already the maximum that the market can bear, and a lower percentage of property prices than elsewhere. Landlords in fact will eat at least part of the increased taxes because the only other option is to not rent the property. That’s exactly why they’re so upset about it.
Property taxes are paid by the renters. Landlords don’t have any money other than rent. This is a tax on tenants with extra steps
Landlords don’t have any money other than rent. This is a tax on tenants with extra steps
The landlords that this is targeted against are not the slightly rich guy who owns an apartment building, it’s people like Citadel LLC who has nearly $70 Billion dollars of assets under management, a large portion of which are rental properties.
Those landlords have the money to pay the taxes. They own much more expensive properties, many of which are held empty and are limited in how much they can raise their prices indirectly, due to them already charging as much as the market will bear and also directly by Mamdani freezing rents.
In addition, many wealthy people in NYC own expensive housing (including Trump) that they use and do not rent.
Most people dont make over 1,000,000 a year. A millionaires tax, like the one passed in Washington state, only taxes 9.9% of every dollar OVER ONE MILLION. The first million has the same tax rate as everyone else.
They still keep 90.1% of every dollar over one million. It is not as if it is forfeit. They will still be making a shit ton of money.
Talking about the property tax, not the wealth tax. And even though it’s lower than other parts of the country, a third of NYC denizens own their homes, so a property tax increase seems like it’d have a lot of collateral effects on the not-so-wealthy.
I feel you there. Washington state has no income tax, so there are so many levers we can pull to raise revenue. Property tax is one of the big ones. Every time I get a ballot to vote on, there is some new levy they want to add. I generally vote yes, because I want schools to be funded and parks taken care of, but it does get to a point where our tax system is regressive.
Wealth taxes make sense. Those who can afford to pay a small amount more should step up. Mamdani’s plan of raising taxes on wealthy New Yorkers by -2%- is even less than what was passed in Washington state.
“We are either going to get the money from the fat cats or from you. Your choice.”. I’m waiting on pins and needles to see where the money comes from.
Both of those hit the fat cats
I mean property taxes and wealth taxes are essentially the same thing.
Except they’re not.
Only if the wealthy have their money invested in real estate, right? If they’re invested in stocks and hedge funds and such, then a property tax increase isn’t going to cost them as much as a straight up wealth tax.
Someone owns the property where the factories are built.
in NYC?
Why not both?
You use the carrot or the stick. Using both at the same time makes no sense.
Don’t use a carrot and stick.
Name anything that’s not either one or the other… 🤷🏽♀️
Pizza riding a rat
I know you are trolling but let me get on the same pedantic level.
A pizza riding a rat could be either a stick or a carrot. It’s a stick to those who hate rats and are lactose intolerant. It’s a carrot to the plebs that think a pizza party is a bonus. Hell is coming with entertainment. It’s riding a rat.
Try again.
These people have nothing, left reactionaries are just as clueless as the right.
Ya, i didn’t notice the age of the account. Possably a bad faith actor but likely i just fed the troll. Live and learn.
Because a property tax hike only hurts the middle class
Are there middle class property owners in New York city?
I feel like middle class would all be renters there and upper class wealthy the only actual owners.
Staten Island?
Remember, NYC is five boroughs and not just Manhattan.
^ this. This is the NYC situation
Just like every other cost related to owning and maintaining a rental: property taxes get passed down to renters.
Wrong. Renters already pay what the market is able to bear.
Landlords aren’t like “we’ll leave money on the table just because our renters were suckers and didn’t vote for people that will raise our taxes.”
Do you suppose a wealth tax wouldn’t also be passed on to renters? Should we just not tax the rich at all since they’ll just pass the cost on to their tenants?
There is one way a wealth tax probably wouldn’t be passed down to renters.
If everything over a certain point is taxed at 100%.
Including stocks and all that stuff that rich people typically store their money.
That way it doesn’t matter if they increase the rent they still won’t get more money out of it so there’s no point in increasing it.
They may be incentivized to sell properties in that case to bring property values down and therefore rent.
I know a couple people here who own apartments. Median income here I think is like $115k. None of them are much more than that.
You have fallen for propaganda, this simply isn’t true.
Please enlighten me how a property tax increase doesn’t hurt the middle and lower class disproportionately. I’d love to hear this.
It really sucks having so many useful idiots looking out for the people taking advantage of them.
You don’t understand basic economics. You are poor and blame everyone else and want others to needlessly suffer. There are several 100k homeowners in NYC that will have their mortgages raised by 9% and will be forced to sell their homes and displace their families. Rich people do not pay these taxes. They write them off under business expenses because all their homes are under LLC.
These types of taxes disproportionately hurt middle class. It’s doesn’t hurt lower class because y’all don’t own homes anyway but it increases the threshold for the buy-in so that some of yall can start building wealth with your first home but you ask for property tax increases so it keeps you poor. But ya blame the middle class some more.
Someone replied fifty minutes ago with an answer. You have no interest in learning why you’re wrong, stop pretending to give a shit.
For everyone else, in NYC the middle class disproportionately rents. It is the wealthy who own.
the middle class disproportionately rents. It is the wealthy who own.
Just like every other cost related to owning and maintaining a rental: property taxes get passed down to renters.
This tax hike disproportionately affects middle and lower class individuals.
If the landlords could charge more, they’d already be doing it.
Not if paired with a rent freeze. Obviously. But you knew that already. You’re just here to agitate for the bourgeoise.
Economists of all stripes agree rent control doesn’t work. A mere 2% think it has positive effects, according to a 2012 survey by the IGM Forum.
The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and – among economists anyway – one of the least controversial. In 1992, a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that 'a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.
NYC renters have suffered enough. Why would you subject them to failed policies like rent control?
No, this is just what the landlords say, like how they say raising wages would impact jobs. It’s just not true. Landlords already charge the maximum people are willing and able to pay, they can’t really pass those costs on. Just like how in fact companies hire based on how many employees they need to fulfil their contracts, and it’s only affected marginally by the wages.
When a cost goes up for all owners at once, this leads to everyone raising rent prices at the same time. There is no opportunity for a renter to jump ship to a cheaper property, they all went up. The maximum changed.
Yes, this will price out many people from being able to afford housing.
Property tax is based on property values. Rich people have more valuable properties. Of the taxes we actually have, it’s one of the most progressive as it actually hits wealthy people more.
Middle Class isn’t real. You are either a renter or an owner, property tax increase along with a rent ceiling and a vacancy tax only affects the owners.
Like most taxes it’s possible to do a progressive property tax, where the more your properties are collectively worth the higher rate of tax you pay. This doesn’t sound like what is being proposed here, but it is very-much possible and hopefully it gets changed before it’s passed.
Done right this will leave owner/occupiers in the same state they are in now, mildly reduce the profitability of small time landlords and make large scale landlords financial nonsense viable forcing them to sell.
The actual risk is that because it lowers house prices by artificially reducing the demand it won’t encourage housebuilding which is the only real solution when more people want or need to live in a place than there is housing.
That said, I am optimistic this increases supply enough by forcing sales of under occupied properties to offset the reduction in built supply.
I’m pretty sure property taxes aren’t progressive and I’m baffled as to why.
Make it so like the first 100k is taxed low, and then ramp up so people with millions of property pay through the nose.
I’m considered middle class despite being something like in the top 10% of earners in the US and I don’t own any property. I don’t know if I could afford to own property with their current prices. I’m not certain property taxes hit the middle class as much as they might have back when my parents were in their prime. Of course it still hits a percentage of the middle class, but I’m suggesting that percentage is shrinking and smaller than the revenue it would generate from the rich.
What the fuck is a “middle class?” We don’t have one of those anymore.
I’m increasingly of the belief that we never had a middle class, just a fiction of one
It depends who you ask, but I tend to hold that the middle class is somewhere between plumbers with a sole proprietorship and petit-bourgeois family businesses up to a point. They do still exist, but it’s such a vanishingly small class I’m not exactly sure why I as a worker should be expected to defend their interests when they so rarely defend mine.
Better pass a rent freeze first or that property tax increase will just get passed on to the people who can afford it least.
Wrong. Renters already pay what the market is able to bear.
He’s working on it. Link
Better pass a rent freeze first
Renters are already fucked in NYC. Stop making their lives worse with proven failures like rent control.
How is rent control a failure?
Rent control works in specific applications. First, it must be short term as a response to market shocks (like a sudden tax increase). It also must have a graduated taper off period where prices are allowed to gradually increase to meet the market rate. With the dramatic increase in work-from-home, office spaces are going empty. This creates an opportunity to counteract the usual reduction in the quantity of rental units that comes with rent freeze. Reductions of red tape and streamlining conversion of office spaces into apartments would stabilize or even increase the number of rental units.
The entire point is that there needs to be a comprehensive strategy, not just a simple tax.
it must be short term as a response to market shocks
NYC has had rent control for decades. If we are talking about short-term rent control working, we are necessarily talking about removing rent control from NYC.
Talking about adding more rent control in NYC is doubling down on failure, doubling down on fucking over NYC renters.
I’m not necessarily saying rent control is the best response. It’s just that raising property taxes is going to raise rents which is exactly what the city doesn’t need.
Rent freezes make landlords only do the bare minimum maintenance required by the law since they can’t increase rents when doing any remodelling.
Ahh, so what you’re actually saying is rent freezes discourage landlords from renovating their property (with their tenant’s money) and charging more rent afterwards?
Most people struggling to pay rent want a place that’s functional, not one that’s lavish. Once everyone has a functional place to live for a fair price, then we can focus on frivolities.
Yes, of course, we’re comparing spending more money to improve the property and charging more for it to doing nothing.
Who would improve the property out of just good will? They have a business to run
Honey landlords already do the bare minimum.
Only in rent-controlled markets. In other markets they remodel to jack up the prices, but you would complain about that too
You need more life experience if you think landlords only do the bare minimum in rent controlled markets.
I guarantee you, you are getting taking advantage of left and right without even realizing it.
Landlords will do more if they can charge a higher rent later. It’s simple economics
Anyone with a brainstem would complain about that i think. Though I don’t grant your premise in the absolute least.
So if landlords put more money into renovation it’s bad, if they don’t it’s also bad
He’s doing whatever he can to avoid admitting that he bought into rhetoric that only exists to make people richer than him even richer.
Yah you’re right, all these poor, hard-working Landlords who serve the people must be protected at all costs, they do so much for the average renter, we can’t dare touch their clockwork perfect system that SOOOO many people love.
Jesus christ, grow a clue.
Another way of looking at this is landlords won’t be able to fancy up units and jack up prices which push out low income renters. Also, if landlords can’t make a profit, they will sell which will allow more people to buy rather than be forced to rent. This does decrease the number of rental units in the future which could drive up prices, but it could be combined with a plan to renovate office spaces into apartments to counteract this.
We want landlords to do this to serve the renters that want to pay more. Office spaces will be renovated to make apartments when rents are high enough to pay for this expense. You don’t need a plan when market forces cause people to make sound business decisions.
The only thing you need to fix is zoning
That assumes market forces are doing what you want. There are always levers that can encourage the market to move where you want it to go. For example raising property taxes but giving a 10 year tax break to converted office spaces (and changes to zoning of course).
That makes markets less efficient in the long run. It might cost less in rent, but your office is far away and you pay for it in commute time. You didn’t even know that in a parallel universe your company moved to a better office space that’s in your city
Efficiency and resilience are opposing forces. Think of the spare tire on a car. Is it efficient to carry around a fifth wheel all the time? No. But it is resilient because it will make it possible to quickly recover from a disruption (i.e. a flat tire).
The housing system needs a certain degree of resilience or people end up homeless. If that costs landlords money, too damn bad. It’s the job of government to force them.
Lmao how many properties do you own?
Exactly 0
While I wholeheartedly agree with the goal, we should keep in mind that this is still executive overreach and that one single person shouldn’t get to decide. Of course, the whole system needs a better approach to really implement the constituents’ wishes, but no kings goes at all levels, not just the presidency.
He’s required by law to balance the budget and has legal authority to do so by raising taxes.
If anything most his critics are proposing he simply disobey the laws by slashing lawful services or by operating at a shortfall.
I’m not criticizing his goals, not even the action itself, I am just pointing the approach to it.
No, oddly enough a mayor does in fact have the authority to increase or decrease property taxes.
He can also implement “special assessments” or “mansion taxes” o properties.
He does have limits on who he can tax, it looks like the state controls the taxation for homesteads. Im not certain he can raise taxes on people with one home that they are currently living in (that may require state approval).
I never said he doesn’t have the authority, I said that if what he wants is not in his power, the state legislature in this case, this approach is something people would decry if the opposite side of the spectrum did it (the approach itself, the content would anyways).
Do you mean if the right did something?
I’m being completely serious: who the fuck cares about them?
and that one single person shouldn’t get to decide
I doubt that he is bypassing any legislative process here. Hes just doing things that are legally within his power.
Oh, I’m not saying he is doing anything outside of his powers, I’m just saying that legislating by executive order is not tactic that should be encouraged.
Yeah executive orders are a stupid concept, but is it even the case here. I dont see anything about it in the article, it just says “Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday proposed to raise property tax rates in New York City by nearly 10 percent”. It just sounds like a proposal that is still undergoing evaluation, not an order.
I would push back and say that he’s trying to implement the mandate he got elected on using the levers he has. In an ideal system the legislature should set the boundaries but that isn’t the US right now.
