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

MichMan

(17,253 posts)

20. You may be right; the extra 0.35% might just be enough to make a difference.

Reply to JI7 (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 19, 2026, 10:57 PM

5 hrs ago

I looked at the numbers. The number of residences worth over $5 million in NYC is pretty low.13,000 estimated compared to a total of 3.7 million. Only a percentage of the 13,000 are owned by non residents, so the number affected by the tax is much less than that.

Assuming they were all owned by non residents (which they aren't) and all of them were sold, (which is very unlikely) that means that available housing stocks would be increased a whopping 0.35%.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On Tax Day, Mamdani Taxed the Rich [View all] Celerity Saturday OP

People talk about rich people leaving a town if they're taxed as if that's a bad thing. Scrivener7 Saturday #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 Saturday #2

glad to see you are feeling better my dear Peggy! Celerity Saturday #3

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

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

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

That makes some sense MichMan Saturday #7

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

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

Why not just double or triple their property taxes? MichMan 19 hrs ago #10

They could do that. Or they could do this. They chose this. Scrivener7 19 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 19 hrs ago #12

Again, they could have chosen that, but they seem to want to go after the absentee owners with this. Scrivener7 18 hrs ago #13

Do you think housing prices are a problem in New York City? W_HAMILTON 18 hrs ago #14

I only visited once about 20 years ago while in NJ for work, so can't say MichMan 18 hrs ago #15

Yes, that's what the article explicitly said. W_HAMILTON 18 hrs ago #16

I don't see where the Mayor says anything about intent of the tax being about affordable housing. MichMan 7 hrs ago #17

Why does he need to say it ? More houses available for sale JI7 6 hrs ago #19

You may be right; the extra 0.35% might just be enough to make a difference. MichMan 5 hrs ago #20

Why are they buying up houses which increase the cost of all housing ? JI7 6 hrs ago #18

Their apartments are empty most of the time, while others go homeless. thought crime 5 hrs ago #21

Hopefully, all of them will sell and leave for good MichMan 4 hrs ago #22