Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

W_HAMILTON

(10,377 posts)

16. Yes, that's what the article explicitly said.

Reply to MichMan (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 19, 2026, 10:25 AM

6 hrs ago

The two officials instituted a “pied-à-terre tax” on second homes worth over $5 million, a fee that would apply to the ultra-wealthy who “store their wealth in New York City real estate but who don’t actually live here,”

- If things stay the way they are, it's more money the city takes in from taxes that it can use to make up its existing budget shortfall from providing services already.

- If the rich leave because of the tax, it's more units available for people to live in, which will ultimately drive down housing costs.

- If the rich start renting out their units because of the tax, it's more units available for people to live in, which will ultimately drive down housing costs.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On Tax Day, Mamdani Taxed the Rich [View all] Celerity 22 hrs ago OP

People talk about rich people leaving a town if they're taxed as if that's a bad thing. Scrivener7 21 hrs ago #1

I'm glad she got out of Mamdani's way on this issue. It IS worth doing. The ultra-rich need to pay their way. ...n/t CaliforniaPeggy 21 hrs ago #2

glad to see you are feeling better my dear Peggy! Celerity 21 hrs ago #3

Thanks so much, my dear Celerity! My recovery is pretty sluggish, but it's happening. CaliforniaPeggy 21 hrs ago #5

Why specifically target those that don't live there full time? MichMan 21 hrs ago #4

I believe the intention was to get property tax dollars out of those who were leaving the city... PeaceWave 21 hrs ago #6

That makes some sense MichMan 20 hrs ago #7

Presumably, property tax revenue would stay at least where it currently is... PeaceWave 19 hrs ago #8

Also, NYC has become the land of money laundering absentee owners. Saudis and billionaires and Scrivener7 18 hrs ago #9

Why not just double or triple their property taxes? MichMan 7 hrs ago #10

They could do that. Or they could do this. They chose this. Scrivener7 7 hrs ago #11

They would get a lot more revenue this way, because it would apply to all owners, whether they lived there or not. MichMan 7 hrs ago #12

Again, they could have chosen that, but they seem to want to go after the absentee owners with this. Scrivener7 7 hrs ago #13

Do you think housing prices are a problem in New York City? W_HAMILTON 7 hrs ago #14

I only visited once about 20 years ago while in NJ for work, so can't say MichMan 7 hrs ago #15

Yes, that's what the article explicitly said. W_HAMILTON 6 hrs ago #16