New York passes pied-a-terre tax
cnbc.com195 points by proofofcontempt 3 hours ago
195 points by proofofcontempt 3 hours ago
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'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
Turns out it's an old law, if you expatriated between 2004 and 2008, and spent 30+ days in the US within 10 years of expatriation.
> Further, expatriated individuals will be subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income for any of the 10 years following expatriation in which they are present in the U.S. for more than 30 days, or 60 days in the case of individuals working in the U.S. for an unrelated employer.
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.
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?
No, the goal is to overhaul the property tax system.
This is going to raise property taxes for everyone.
The ultra wealthy can just pack up and move. It doesn't affect them in the slightest.
But in two years when the property tax overhaul is complete, the middle class will foot the bill. As per usual.
Can you explain how that would happen? This tax is limited to second homes only.
> 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.
Redevelopment often mitigates housing scarcity in general, including for existing residents. They may have to move to a slightly smaller apartment within a generally much improved area, which usually leaves them better off. This is especially true for LVT, which amounts to a decrease in property tax for the improvements to land.
Yup, very "Georgist", which I'm a huge fan of. You can move your money to another country, or hide it entirely in stocks that you borrow against until you die. But, you gotta live somewhere. Land is the only thing the state really has, and it's limited; it's the best thing to tax.
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.
> 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.
Just curious what you think the correct solution is? You're rich, you have a kid, you die when the kid is 2yrs old. So they get nothing? 12? 22? 32?. Is there some "correct" number? If you're raising them in some $100m home do they get booted out and put in a tenement?
On the other hand, most people die closer to 75-80 and their kids are 50+. Leaving inheritance to them isn't really spoiling them as they are alread adults with established lives.
In the US, the inheritance taxes don't kick in until $15M ($30M for married couples). Even at 2 years old, a child can inherit more money than most people will make in their lifetime before a dime is paid to the IRS.
Federal inheritance taxes. There are also state inheritance taxes in many states. NY, for example, kicks in at ~$7M. MA kicks in at $2M.
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?
Yes.. spend enough time amongst the inheritocracy and you'll see the wealth is as often as not wasted on them.
There's just too much fun to be had with 0.1% wealth that you didn't have to sacrifice your 20s, 30s (and maybe 40s) to build. Coast at some job with a top 25-50% income and 0.1% inheritance in NYC and live the life.
So if you're spending your inheritance living the high life, that economic activity benefits a lot of other people. Still a net positive in my view.
I get the political power concern, and money = power at a certain point. But I'd rather work on getting money out of politics than putting limits on what people can decide will happen to their assets after they die.
The problem is that theres a lot of stuff in the tax code that allows those at the higher end to also defer taxes indefinitely. So not taxing estates/inheritance, and allowing these deferrals leaves assets untaxed at the high end forever.
For example, step up basis allows inherited assets to have their cost basis re-struck at the value at time of inheritance. So if there is no inheritance tax, the assets transfer to a new owner and a large chunk of value is forever untaxed, even when/if they eventually sell.
Similarly all sorts of interesting stuff that can be done with trusts. Again stuff that's only accessible / worth the hassle to 1%.
In a world with extreme outcomes due to scaling, we might accidentally be re-inventing the hereditary aristocracy if the assets can accumulate outside the tax system.
>I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong.
So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"?
Consumption taxes and sin taxes.
Consumption tax is sales/VAT tax excluding some necessities and capital goods. Yes, there are some awkward edge cases: in the UK the exclusions were food and children's clothes, which leads to battles over prepared cold food (e.g. sandwich), takeaway and restaurant dining.
Sin taxes are obviously things society might want to discourage, mainly for health reasons, like alcohol and smoking, but also gambling and externalities, like pollution. Some might stretch that to all carbon emissions to moderate climate change.
Don't tax things you want: working / income and investment / capital gains.
Inheritance tax is doubly wrong because the wealth is already taxed, and death is unavoidable (but emigration is possible, which might help in some countries).
Property taxes on real property or possibly land value tax (it's a limited resource, at least in places where people want to live, and requires a lot of public infrastructure to support its value there).
Tariffs, various usage taxes and fees.
Need a mechanism to address the regressiveness of some of this but that's an implementation detail.
Their take on inheritance taxes is insane, but I tend to agree that income taxes are immoral. Corporations get taxed on profits: If OkayPhysicist, Inc. spends $200 to make $300, it would be taxed some fraction of $100. Individuals, on the other hand, get taxed on revenue. It doesn't matter if it costs me $4000 in rent, groceries, transportation, etc., to make $6000, I'm getting taxed on that full $6000.
Capital gains taxes, on the other hand, are completely moral, and should be much, much higher. Capital investment benefits enormously from the State protecting their property "rights" (you don't need to hire a private army to prevent the workers from just deciding to run your factory for their own benefit, that's what the cops are for), and at a minimum the state would be justified in collecting that dividend for itself. Bootlickers and profession bootlickers (i.e., economists) would complain that a high capital gains tax disincentives investment, but as long as the value of investment is positive, that is, outpacing inflation, it makes zero sense to let your money languish in a Scrooge McDuck pile rather than get some value out of it.
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.
> while a natural desire
Or look at monarchies and titles of nobility. In the past direct inheritance of political assets was common, and acting on that natural desire, the people involve claimed that parents deserved to direct what they (and their ancestors) had accumulated on to the next generation of their own family.
Yet nowadays most countries and people have decided it is immoral, and they also took steps to make common forms of it extremely illegal.
My point is that economic inheritance today is just as much a social-construct as political inheritance was then. It exists because we permit it to exist, don't be fooled by anyone claiming it's an intrinsic law of the universe or a divine mandate by god that must be obeyed.
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?
I suppose like with many things it's a question of scale. A little is good, more is better, but at some point it may start to have negative consequences.
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.
Those schemes are also human-created though, and can be human-fixed. I've never really understood the arguments that go like: "This regulation won't work because the people it targets will avoid it through loopholes and other schemes." Well, get rid of the loopholes and schemes, then!
Granted, this requires lawmakers to explore more of the "exploit space" around their proposed regulations, but I don't think that's really asking a lot of them.
> 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%.
> The federal estate tax is 40%
It's misleading to cite that since it basically never happens.
The tax doesn't even come into the picture for fortunes below $30 million dollars (for two parents), and the rest of the time it averages ~14%.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-federal-estate...
So you want to tax something that has already been taxed throughout the course of someone's life, just because they want to give it to their kids?
The only tax that is fair to everyone is a sales tax.
I live in South Africa where we have 15% VAT.
When I was little and playing SimCity 2000 I looked at the tax rates for the city and noticed that the sales tax rate was like 2%, and based on our 14% VAT at the time, it seemed super low to me so I upped it to 12% and was surprised at how unhappy the citizens were.
This gave me the impression that Americans wouldn’t be happy with a significant sales tax, or perhaps this was a city sales tax on an existing state sales tax, which yes, would be outrageous, or maybe Americans get taxed in some other way which makes up for our VAT.
Anyway, I look back and chuckle at my own lack of knowledge at the time.
> Property tax is the workable wealth tax.
There is a difference between property-as-primary-residence and property-as-secondary/tertiary-residence or property-as-proxy-for-parking-money.
Property taxes handle the first scenario, wealth taxes handle the latter.
In San Diego we're voting on a new property tax that only applies to nonprimary residences.
The landed gentry want you to believe that they can't be touched unless you're willing to kick your grandmother to the street, but we can absolutely write taxes that apply more narrowly, and sensible tax policy leads to better outcomes and fewer market distortions than hamfisted regulation.
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.
> 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.
The tax is only on non-primary residences - one person owning multiple homes. I don't expect it to have a significant effect on housing supply, but I think it logically could.
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)
Property tax is not a workable wealth tax.
It's a barrier for low income people to buy homes.
Sales tax is a workable wealth tax.
How will consumers not bear the brunt of property taxes?
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.
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 a needlessly aggressive post, and guilty of what you're accusing them of.
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.
Separate commercial and residential rates? The first $X dollars are not taxed?
We can and have done this.
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
Yes it's definitely the opposite of trickle down. Higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce income inequality and provide more funding for social programs
Trickle down economics is a political label to criticize Reagan era policies, it’s not an actual thing.
It's a label for a very real tax policy and the advertised reason behind it, it's definitely a thing (or was, at least, the argument is less common today)
> 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.
> 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.
And if you're investing in, say, a Fabergé egg, that's a (potential) problem.
If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
> If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.
It's not really that "out of my control" if I can convert it back to cash with a few clicks of a button.