New York to tax luxury second homes in NYC
apnews.com
apnews.com
My point here is that I'd start with trying to build enough housing before spending political capital on marginal things that neither unlock supply nor generate much revenue.
So that 2.5x square footage is more like 1.5x when it comes to the number of units of like quality/liveability you can pack in.
As a result, Midtown is now one of the few places in New York's metropolitan that can reach the millions of people in the five boroughs and the suburbs all at once, which means the labor market is substantially larger than what it is in Lower Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn, and makes it massively more attractive for employers.
In 1961, NYC adopted a zoning plan that saw zoned capacity reduced by 80%. These sort of changes to zoning happened around the country in the 1960s and 70s in response to red lining being made illegal. If you can't prevent black people from living near you by law, maybe you could instead prevent anyone from living near you and guarantee a supply side crisis such that the wealthiest individuals in the economy are who can afford to be your neighbors, and in 1961 surely they won't be black. You should look up the median income differences between a white nycer and a black nycer today, it is shocking. Median household wealth for whites just within the scope of new york state, not even at city resolution, is nearly 15x higher (1).
Today, 80 years later, we have kept the racist-by-transitive-property laws on the books all over the country. And as such, cities remain highly segregated by both race and class. Civil right era in terms of housing was essentially a failure to achieve any change from this status quo.
1. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-racial-wealth-gap-in...
He is right.
There is an unbelievable shortage of housing that is solvable only by increasing supply and building upwards. It’s not even single-family homes; why are there any one-story buildings in the lower east side?
Yes. I feel like Americans and New Yorkers have been very clear about what they want in housing: more of it, and cheaper.
As a moderately wealthy former New Yorker? I say no. If we put it to a referendum? I’d give it even odds. If the referendum were for developing part of Central Park into public housing? I’d guess it would pass.
Tourists don't vote or show up to community-board meetings. The top of the park is closer to Harlem. That is why it would be easier to bulldoze.
I currently live in Manhattan, have lived here for years, and I support relaxing zoning at least to the point where most Manhattan neighborhoods can ~double their building heights. YIMBYs are everywhere. Not everyone can be fortunate enough to get a stabilized unit (like me) or to have bought decades ago when prices were low.
> add massive housing blocs carte blanche
IMO this is dichotomous thinking that is actually brought on by zoning rules.
It is very difficult and very expensive to get construction approved, so the only projects that make sense to fund are towers full of units, which can attract more rent and therefore higher returns per lot, justifying the risk and expense of permitting.
If you just deleted zoning restrictions carte blanche and made it much easier to build (an automatic "Yes" if you meet basic criteria), then a lot of sagging and old 1-3 story buildings which are everywhere in Manhattan would get naturally replaced with six- to eight-story buildings. This is the natural evolution of a built environment.
The amount of additional housing and commercial space that comes online from this is huge, and there's no need to dot the city itself or even Brooklyn/Queens with commie blocks
Tokio, Singapore, Amsterdam- all ghost towns.
It just does not scale like people think. And that is why the price has to go up, and that is the forcing factor for max capacity of any given parcel of land.
The fact is we all can’t live in the same city. And people need to do what we did in the past. And that is move to new locations that are cheaper.
Every hot spot today once was a crappy place, it was over time that it became the desirable place. That is just how it works. You got to move and live where you can afford.
Every city has a max amount of occupancy, and density. It’s so silly to even think about this on the individual level. I can find 1BN people who want to live in NY today if told today they could have a place today for $500 a month but 1BN other people are also joining would instantly turn down the offer.
It needs a good _downzoning_ to be liveable again.
The market prices full one-bedrooms at less than this in most of Manhattan. Flophouse beds would cost a fraction of this and they would get cheaper the more of them you have. They’d also slow the growth of rent price in NYC.
Let’s take your example at face value. Suppose Manhattan added one million beds to its existing ~3.8M bedroom housing stock via the “missing middle” housing that you described, perhaps over the next ten years. These might have small private bedrooms and shared kitchen/office/bathroom facilities. They might even include dorms, but I’ll focus on single-room occupancy units. You’d get the space for this from some mix of re-developing office buildings or upzoning or re-developing low-slung buildings.
The rent of these single-room occupancy units would be a fraction of the rent of a normal place. The people living there would be far less rent-burdened than they would have been otherwise, freeing up more income for consumption or savings/investment, boosting economic activity. Some of them would be new residents, whose income taxes (if they pay them) and spent dollars/sales taxes would be a net benefit to the city budget. Some of them would otherwise become transiently homeless due to affordability concerns, which would be destabilizing for them and expensive for the city due to homeless program spending.
Others would be people who currently live in apartments but would move to these units because they prefer cheaper rent, greater privacy (they might be sharing a room today), a newer building, or the greater efficiency of having multiple bathrooms. Maybe right now they are sharing e.g. a four-bedroom one-bathroom apartment with three strangers in Hell’s Kitchen for $1400/month. These people would otherwise be in the housing market for a full apartment, and removing them leaves more full apartments for people who want to occupy them, either alone or with roommates. Ergo we get downward pressure on full apartment rents.
The flophouses and dorms and SROs were a key part of the housing market that kept Manhattan more affordable and therefore livable in the 20th century, when density was up to 40% greater than it is now. It was deeply shortsighted to get rid of them. The idea that we should downzone even further makes no sense to me; you get to decrease affordability and decrease the economic benefits of agglomeration to the local economy at the same time, all so… there are fewer people on the subway, I guess? I disagree with the “too much density” argument on its face anyway. Density has clear economic benefits via agglomeration and productivity gains; diverse and dense housing stock via upzoning increases affordability via supply/demand and filtering effects; and the way you manage density is through appropriate infrastructure spending on housing, services, and public spaces which—you guessed it!-becomes cheaper per person the denser you build. Seoul has twice the density of Manhattan.
I live here. The thing making Manhattan unlivable is that a one-bedroom is $4500 in the east village due to not enough supply. Fix the housing costs by building more of any and all kinds of housing and then we can deal with the other problems via better governance and increased tax revenues. There’s nothing we can do otherwise that isn’t just rationing or some other bandaid solution.
???? Can you provide the citation for higher density in the early 20th century?
> I live here. The thing making Manhattan unlivable is that a one-bedroom is $4500 in the east village due to not enough supply.
And there is never going to be enough supply. Your only choice is to Detroitify your city.
"Just build more" in Manhattan is beyond ridiculous. It's literally the definition of madness: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".
It was a quick google search and the value was taken from the Gemini result, which is not great practice. Thank you for asking for citations. Unironically! Good discussion on this site matters to me, and I want my positions to have strong foundations.
I looked into it more deeply and have found the actual numbers. The 1910 density was more like 54% higher.
Manhattan reached its peak population of ~2.3M around 1910, with a built-up area on the island of ~4,000 hectares=15.44 square miles. This gives a population density of 149k people per built-up square mile. This is per NYU professor Angel Shlomo's 2015 paper, which seems to be the most in-depth analysis I could find ([0]). We use built-up area because north Manhattan still had large tracts of uninhabited farmland at the time; this area should be excluded to better represent the experience of the residents.
Manhattan's current population is ~1.66M (per [1]), and I am estimating the current built-up area at 4466 hectares=17.24 square miles, as this was the exact built-up area given in [0] for 2013. I am assuming Manhattan was, then and now, basically fully built-up and therefore the area is unchanged. (If I'm wrong, then I would guess there's actually more built-up area now, and therefore the population density is lower, strengthening my POV.)
This gives a current Manhattan population density of 96.3k residents per built square mile. This means the peak density in 1910 was actually (149k/96.3k=)154.7% what it is today! My initial Google estimate was undershooting it.
Ergo Manhattan today is nowhere near its historic density.
From all this, I think it is clear that Manhattan and NYC are nowhere near their carrying capacity. There are other safe, clean metros on planet earth with much higher density and lower housing costs (e.g. Seoul), and the thing preventing greater density and lower costs isn't some fundamental upper bound or even economic incentives: it's just zoning.
What has changed since 1910? New York City has much better infrastructure that would allow even greater density in the city, outer boroughs, and surrounding area without negatively impacting quality of life. Modern building techniques allow us to build far more than six stories high without imperiling residents in tenement housing. There is a robust subway and rail network that allows commuters to come from other, even less dense areas. I think we could build to these historic densities much more safely and pleasantly now, which is also the opinion of the authors of [0].
> And there is never going to be enough supply.
I simply do not understand your rationale. We have not seriously tried to provide enough supply, due to the zoning constraints.
In 2023 there were ~3.7M housing units in NYC ([2]). We are adding ~9,450 units every quarter ([3]), for a total of ~38k units per year, a yearly increase of about 1%. This is a drastic undershooting of NYC's own goal to build 500,000 new homes from 2022 to 2032, which would look more like 13k to 14k new units per quarter ([3])—and some groups estimate that the housing shortage is even more than that 500k units. It takes 3.4 years on average to build a unit in NYC and more than four years to build an apartment in Manhattan ([3]), which is absurdly slow, and the vacancy rate is an absurdly low 1.4% where ~5% is the marker for a healthy real estate market ([2]+general knowledge).
Manhattan (and NYC in general) has onerous zoning and review requirements that prevent the adequate building of new housing to meet demand. Of the existing building stock, fully 40% of it would not be permitted nowadays, primarily because they are "too tall" or "have too many apartments," "too many businesses," or any number of other absurd requirements in a city with extremely high housing costs ([4]). There are even regulations around having enough parking spots in parts of Manhattan, a place with ample public transit, lots of street parking, and subsidized van service for the disabled. These buildings are the backbone of our urban core; they provide housing for hundreds of thousands of people and commercial space that drives much of the NYC metro area's economy, the GDP of which is over $2T and makes up ~9% of the US economy ([5]).
Conversely, there are many land uses in Manhattan that fit these zoning requirements and are ridiculous and uneconomical uses of land. For example: a small parking lot structure in the West Village (of which there are a depressing number) is a valid usage of land, while an eight-floor apartment building with an elevator and retail space on the bottom is "too tall" and disallowed because it would exceed the 80-foot limit in the village. How does another small parking lot serve a city gripped by housing crisis that is caused by a shortage of units—which also has excellent rail connection and plenty of parking already—better than an apartment building? The apartment building could even be on top of a parking garage if we wanted it to, but adding the residential space and/or more commercial space (which raises incomes via agglomeration and therefore improves affordability by higher salaries relative to housing) is not allowed because it runs afoul of height restrictions.
This is irrational policy that directly contributes to the housing crisis.
> Your only choice is to Detroitify your city.
It's interesting that you claim densifying Manhattan will turn it into Detroit.
I claim that Detroit was hollowed out precisely by anti-density and pro-suburbanization practices. I'm lazy and have been typing forever at this point, so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Detroit#Population_....
When you send factories to the suburbs and then put highways straight through the neighborhoods in your city where people actually live and work, that's not densification leading to bad outcomes. It is detonating a city via discriminatory urban policy and then falsely claiming it is the natural end result for those pesky cities and their residents.
[0] https://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/uploads/content/Manhattan_De...
[1] https://censusreporter.org/profiles/06000US3606144919-manhat...
[2] https://www.nyc.gov/content/tenantprotection/pages/fast-fact...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/nyregion/nyc-housing-deve...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
[5] https://edc.nyc/sites/default/files/2025-12/NYCEDC-2025-Stat...
(This is a more readable but much less detailed intro to [0]: https://urbanomnibus.net/2014/10/the-rise-and-fall-of-manhat...).
>I claim that Detroit was hollowed out precisely by anti-density and pro-suburbanization practices.
>When you send factories to the suburbs and then put highways straight through the neighborhoods in your city where people actually live and work, that's not densification leading to bad outcomes. It is detonating a city via discriminatory urban policy
Isn't this overstating the role of policy?
1. Wage arbitrage by the Big 3 to avoid urban auto unions out to the suburbs
2. Post-WW2 economic manuf. wind-down [1]
3. Post-WW2 highway build-up enabling suburbia
Looking at the things out of Detroit's hands, I don't think we should lean on policy as much because policy can't nail the factories to the ground or prevent their closure. The economic trends simply appeared much more powerful than city policy.
The fate of the Detroit city limits auto cluster could have been sealed with the war end. Businesses often want to escape high costs if they can do so without giving up their operation or market share, and they were able to do just that with the MI suburbs and highways.
Policy might have been able to delay the collapse if, like you promote, the city managed to encourage building housing to relieve the rent and home price pressure. However this seems nigh impossible in practice (even in NYC?) because property owners are politically connected and generally do not like values to go down, a classic case of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs [2].
[1] https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2...
[2] https://1889institute.org/the-problem-of-diffuse-costs-and-c...
If I might put my tinfoil hat on for a moment, I think the recent obsession with upzoning is to distract from the possibility of regulating landlords—as if there were any large number of people opposed to upzoning before....
I feel like that was the backdrop to about half the movies I watched in the '80s.
The people that have second luxury homes in new york are the people that spent through the roof to avoid mamdani being elected
I’m not an “eat the rich” person, but these mostly vacant buildings in a city with a housing affordability problem are a crime. I don’t necessarily fault the billionaires for this, I fault the politicians who sat back and watched it happen, approving all the projects along the way.
Vacancy rates are extremely low in NYC at 1.4%. Anything below 5% indicates drastic under-supply of housing. I don’t think that vacant real estate for billionaires is a significant contributor; it’s almost exclusively an issue of supply.
1 Wall St, for example, kept 85% of its units arbitrarily off market in order to prop up rents, and thus imputed property valuation. This kind of behavior shouldn’t be encouraged by the state and financial system, but guess what we do!
Housing is still massively squeezed and unaffordable for many in the Vancouver metro area, but the taxes definitely have encouraged some homeowners to sell or rent their properties, especially foreign investors, and their seem to be few or no downsides for people of middle-class and even moderately-affluent incomes.
I doubt that NYC will lose too much sleep over the protestations from extraordinarily wealthy people who own multiple extraordinarily expensive homes, and where NYC isn't their primary residence.
The WSJ somehow managed to best the infamous "avocado toast" line about saving for a house by suggesting that current youngsters are splurging on rotisserie chicken: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/wall-street-jou...
It has to be a deliberate joke, right? Isn’t rotisserie chicken the poster child for loss leaders? For all the reasons to buy it, luxury is the bottom of the list.
Damn socialists.
It's interesting that people choose to leave their properties vacant - They're effectively "taxing" themselves by foregoing rent (4+%/yr cap rate).
Is vacant real estate even a good investment?
(In a well-functioning real estate market there are some units offline due to vacancy, turnover, and renovation, so we don't expect 0%. High vacancies of e.g. 10% suggest insufficient demand for the supply.)
NY also has a 1% penalty on paying more than $1 million for housing, which was probably enacted to proletariat applause when $1 million was still considered a lot of money. Now it distorts the value of entry level housing in NYC, where you'll have a hard time finding anything more than a studio apartment for $1 million. High closing costs and similar distortions mean people tend to lose money on housing in NYC unless it's held for many years.
$5 million is expensive enough that this probably won't add much housing stock in the short term. Still, politicians never seem to think through the consequences of headline-grabbing tax policies.
Actually wait, I can't.
Because you are not allowed to roll that tax into the loan?
You realize a very small subset of the population can afford a million dollar home, let alone a five million dollar home?
The majority of the city does not give a shit.
Based on the voting, it seems they do give a shit but in the opposite direction.
We all understand the concept of commons. We all understand the concept of money pooling. Don't pretend it doesn't make sense or it's evil when most people pay for private insurance anyway or even fucking Claude Code subscription plans which follow the same concept.
I'd generally consider that a success metric? People making money flipping houses on short terms is a bad thing
What should happen when you find a mate and need more space than you did when you moved into your current unit?
A friend moved out of his space after 7 years to start a family, and the appreciation didn't cover the closing costs.
whether something is an investment or not is not a subjective opinion, but an objective fact.
If it takes effort, capital and time/labour to create, it's an investment, because such resources have alternative uses.
Just because this cost have been paid as a lump sum in the past (for constructing a building and/or buying the land etc), doesn't mean that cost is now sunk and is "lost" - it is, and must be, recouped in the future, otherwise the initial cost will not make sense to have been spent, and said investment would not be made and the world would now have one less of it.
There’s no reason that the cost of something you need “must be recouped” in future by you having and using that thing.
Food is obviously not comparable (you must consume it and only s*t is left over).
Cars depreciate quickly becase they wear out in the timespan of a couple decades. You can keep them going longer but it's a labor of love, not really economically worthwhile.
Housing is completely different. Absent some disaster (fire, earthquakes) it will last centuries with just basic routine maintenance. Given that inflation is a perpetual constant, something that lasts that long can't possibly not appreciate, it inevitably must.
The housing is artificially inflated and you are one administration away (e.g. see current one for the kind of power we experience in 'democracy') from having your "investment" worth a lot less than you think it is. Why do you think you and I are able to deduct mortgage interest but when I charge my credit card for gambling, hookers and cocaine (a lot more enjoyable than housing) I am unable to deduct my 29.99% interest on my Visa?! What about "villas for 1 euro" that you can buy throughout say Italy? some of them are older than our country is and I am not sure you'd be happy with your "investment" if you bought it in 1999 but you know, "something that last that long can't possibly not appreciate, right?!"
Not "something", housing. A pebble may last billions of years and not appreciate, but we're talking housing.
Yes housing which last a very long time cannot help but appreciate because we always have inflation. The only exception is what you identified, if the town has an economic collapse. Then, sure, nobody wants to live there. Detroit of the past being the typical USA example.
Looking at records my house cost ~$90/sqft to build. Today the exact same house on the exact same lot would cost about ~$500/sqft to build on the low end if you can find the labor, but probably closer to ~$650/sqft if you want to get it done this year.
So of course the older equivalent houses in the neighborhood will match in price to the new construction. Anything else would be impossible.
If you disagree, explain by what mechanism the old house wouldn't do that?
There are multiple real examples of both, even in America.
They knew exactly what they were doing by not indexing it.
This kind of talking point is reiterated ad nauseam, but never justified or backed by any empirical research.
I'll state one simple thing: if America is unable to raise taxes on second homes over $5M in Manhattan by 1% then this country is well and utterly fucked. The 1% are paying less taxes than anyone else in this country while hoarding the majority of the wealth. Homelessness is skyrocketing, debt levels are through the roof, but god forbid we raise the tax on second homes over $5M by 1%.
Taxing the rich is not a Liberal thing, but the Rich is calling it that because they do not want to pay any taxes at all.
He was elected because people are starting to feel real pain and seeing the ultra rich paying far less taxes then they are. If it was up to me, I would tax all the second homes above 5 million USD and add a Luxury Tax on all valuable Autos too.
Personal Income Tax accounts for around 31% of collected NYC tax revenue.
"The rich" also pay property tax. NYC's poorer residents generally don't have property to pay tax on. Everyone pays sales tax equally.
So how exactly are the ultra rich paying "less taxes"?
Luckily the law is much more egalatarian and bars the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges or stealing bread.
No, this will disproportionately negatively affect middle-class people and families and fuck them hard.
> I didn’t realize the billionaires ... are crabs in the same bucket as us.
All of us go to the same place in the end my dude. Life is too short and too hard to spend all your time living by comparisons. I'm sure the people you're worried about are just as miserable for other reasons.
If the idea of paying taxes affects your poor fragile mind so negatively then there is an easy solution where you can sell said extra home.
No one is being fucked hard by this other than people who are appalled at the thought that they need to contribute to society for the negative externalities they create, like accumulating excess shelter in regions with a dearth of housing capacity.
All these people pointing at the nat 20s losing their minds screaming like they rolled 1s.
[0]: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Jjy4drElYHNMRtxVQPENR?si=5...
Which means that a lot of people pay a proportionally high percentage of their income, while the Epstein class pays effectively none. That's the logic here.
But it is not a tax dodging scheme. It's a tax deferral scheme wrapped in a risk-on loan package, that is used almost entirely to maintain ownership of a company rather than to defer taxes. On smaller scales you can use it to unlock money tied up in stocks, if you think the stock will keep going up (if the stock falls, you now might get margin called as well as coming out worse then just getting a regular loan).
154 residents of NYC own 33% of the entire wealth of the city... notice I didn't say 1%, I said top 154. They are not contributing 33% of the tax income to the city.
So yes, the ultra rich pay "less taxes" if you look at how much of the resident wealth they control.
Also, property taxes are significantly lower than appraised value and the richer you get the bigger the disparity. That Ken Griffin’s $238M penthouse pied-a-terre? It's assessed value is $9M. So yea, he's paying like $150k/yr in property taxes.
And finally, it is a known fact that sales tax definitely hits poor people harder (re: "everyone pays sale tax equally"). What you want to look at is what percentage of a person's post taxincome vs sales tax paid, because if you make like $60k/yr you're probably close to 60% of all post tax income paying some form of sales tax (you buy with all the money you make). If you have $2B, your percentage of "tax paid as sales tax" is significantly lower, because you don't typically spend a billion dollars the same way you spend $60k.
If rain distribution and solar light distribution were even half as unequal as wealth distribution, our global ecosystem would collapse.
A better comparison would be imagine 1.6% of the earth having 50% of the valuable minerals. But that’s roughly what it actually is!
Is this actually true? I thought looking at the aggregates that the top 10% pay something like 1/3rd of all income/cap gain taxes.
If we're bringing receipts, how about you start? Do you have the data for this initial statement of yours?
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
- The top 1% of income earners pay 40.4% of the total U.S. Federal Income Tax receipts
- Top 5% pays 61.0%
- Top 10% pays 72.0%
- Top 25% pays 87.2%
- Top 50% pays 97.0%
If you look at all taxes, the share paid is remarkably close to the share earned. According to https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2024/, in 2024, the top 1% earned 20.1% of income while paying 23.9% of taxes. The bottom 20% paid 1.5% of taxes while earning 2.6% of income.
Within that group, the share is not evenly distributed, though.
Most who are in the 1% club are people who are earning wage income, like doctors, and are getting absolutely reamed with taxes. The vast majority of the 1% are not rich enough to be doing elaborate schemes to avoid taxes.
Billionaires, who are in the top 0.0002%, are an entirely whole different story. There are many figures that show they generally do not pay their fair share in taxes.
Top 50%: $53k/year
Top 25%: $93k/year
Top 10%: $155k/year
Top 5%: $210k/year
Top 1%: $450k/year
His assets are not income. Just like your assets are not taxed.
Ok, but he does that loan-against-assets hack!
Well the fact is that those loans eventually need to be paid, so at some point he will pay that 40% (unless he does the step-up basis hack when he dies)
Ok, but he should be paying annually like everyone else!
Well, technically he is, his assets, the company Amazon, pays a lot of taxes annually. The government views Amazon as a money printer, states get their sales taxes, and the federal government gets their income taxes. All of which originate with Amazon.
All of which is to say, that the uppe-middle/upper-class, the successful surgeon, is the one that needs to be paying more taxes to equilibriate society.
I'm sure we can count that as a given.
> The government views Amazon as a money printer, states get their sales taxes, and the federal government gets their income taxes.
Except when states fall all over themselves to give Amazon a massive tax break to build their second HQ.
It's very unlikely, he has pledged to give away most of his wealth in his lifetime, but there are a variety of factors that will always add space for detractors to make fair points. Bill Gates is still worth billions despite being an endless waterfall of charity money for decades.
Either way, the step-up thing is way way way more common in the upper class, where people with ~$24M want their kids to get $6M each. These people are nobodies with no public image, and light years away from "Billionaire Class" status.
>Except when states fall all over themselves to give Amazon a massive tax break to build their second HQ.
All the employees will pay income tax, and they will mostly spend their money in the state, generating sales tax. Then there is the second order effect of businesses that pop-up to feed off the money that the employees make.
What's often missed, and never explained, is that the government loves businesses, because businesses convert people into tax revenue, on almost all levels. Don't miss that.
The businesses that are laying off employees because of competition from Amazon were less efficient and this employed far more people than Amazon does, thus paying more in taxes.
> It's very unlikely, he has pledged to give away most of his wealth in his lifetime,
The ultra rich give away donations in the form of stock, so they never sell it, just transfer it. So no tax to them and they get a tax deduction for the donation fair market value.
$155k is a top 10% income.
Link - https://itep.org/washington-post-rich-not-paying-fair-share/
You are talking about effective taxes rates, which are different. To discuss that, I would have liked to see a bit more detail in the article, like what the income sources were and the deductions and losses to offset gains. I think changes around capital gains and loans against equities could use some adjustments. The other taxes like payroll are basically moot as Bezos's payroll income is only about $90k per year anyways.
At minimum, taking out a loan based on the current value of an asset should trigger immediate realization of capital gains/losses for at least those assets used as collateral. After all, the gains are already de facto being realized for the purpose of the loan.
Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to address the other side of things - that said loans often don't have to be repaid so long as the assets continue to gain. As such, the capital gains are actually being realized continuously by the loan, but I doubt it's feasible to properly handle that in tax law.
They wrote that whole article out just to make it all meaningless with 3 words in parenthesis.
"The plane crashed and everyone lived! (not including those who died)"
What in gods name would you call that otherwise?
> But we don't have a wealth tax on a federal level at least
And that somehow justifies rich people paying less taxes, because they navigate the system better than regular people?
Instead, a better alternative is to invest that same amount into an ETF that tracks the S&P 500 and after a 40 year working career the individual would have almost $5 million assuming a median wage and current employer matching on payroll tax. This would give them a yearly $200k payout which grows at 6% per year if they follow the 4% rule on withdrawals, lasting them indefinitely and leaving something behind for their children when they pass away. In contrast, social security right now, on average, pays $26k per year.
This would also generate federal taxes through transactions of the companies composing the S&P 500 which would give the government an additional tax revenue source.
He only paid income taxes on $80k while at Amazon.
The wealthy often make their money as capital gains, which if they held for at least one year, are exempt from the income tax and taxed at no higher than 20%
Billionaires literally have their own set of tax brackets in this country: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409
Not even close. As your link shows, "the wealthy" pay taxes on long-term capital gains. The lowest rate (for "the wealthy") is 15% but they can owe 20% or even 28% in certain circumstances.
Capital gains are not taxed as income, it is taxed as a capital gain, which has significantly lower rates than income tax.
Let's say you own some stock and it increased in value last year. Do you feel like you "made" any money from that? I did and it did and I do.
As long as the economy continues to grow, these people will thrive. All while avoiding to pay their share for society.
My point was simply that income and wealth are two different things, at least for tax purposes.
Whether or not we should have a wealth tax and at what level that should apply is an entirely separate issue. I'm quite sure Bezos pays all the taxes he's legally obligated to pay.
You’re really strawmanning here. Instead of arguing as if we’re morons who don’t know that unrealized gains aren’t taxed and think Bezos is committing tax evasion, convince us of why it’s wrong to think that Bezos should be legally obligated yo pay more, maybe by taxing those unrealized gains.
Surely, he’s not using loans, write-offs, and legal tricks to fund a Great Gatsby lifestyle while pretending to have no actual income?
Right?
Imagine you had to pay income taxes every year on the unrealized gains of your 401k, house, and car value. You too would be said to be paying a very low income tax rate. But again that's not how income taxes work because none of those things are income.
If Bezos were to sell those shares and actually realize those gains then he would be rightly taxed but that would also likely tank the stock as his 8% ownership is significant enough to drop the price drastically. 55% of Amazon is owned by 401k and other retirement accounts so if the price tanks average Americans take a huge hit.
Bezos does sell shares, all the time actually. You can see this in the SEC filings. And he is rightly taxed on those realized gains. But he's not going to sell all of his shares as that would be damaging to Amazon, the workers, retirement accounts, and his own investments.
Instead, the money stays in the company paying worker wages, buying new facilities, etc. This is even better for the economy because it keeps the funds in circulation. This generates even more tax revenue than if he did a 1 time sale of his investments. That's why unrealized gains don't get taxed, because its financially a worse outcome than keeping the money in circulation.
You can read the balance of explanations off interest rates, you can read it off of valuation metrics, you can read it off of judgement calls about the quality of the marginal investment opportunity. You can't read it off the anus of a billionaire or the turd of self-serving think tank propaganda it pinched out, though, and that's where you are clearly looking for it.
then have the government spend that tax money on services and infrastructure that also increase overall money circulating in the economy
Rich people always borrow money on the stocks they own. In effect, those unrealized gains help them borrow money which they spend like income. I will spend part of my paycheck to buy a cup of coffee and they will spend part of the loaned money to buy the same cup of coffee. They can also buy a house with that money. All they need to do is keep paying the 4-5% interest rate on that loan meanwhile the underlying stock appreciates at 15-20%.
Is this a loophole that rich people enjoy? Absolutely. Does this loophole need to be closed - absolutely.
Property tax on stock is a better place to aim.
1. Corporate income tax 2. Employee Federal income tax 3. FICA Payroll Tax 4. Sales Tax on transactions 5. Property Taxes
Now multiply that by each node on the graph. Each employee, vendor, business that comes in contact with your company spends the money you paid them and is taxed on it as well. It grows exponentially after just a couple of nodes. If each of those nodes is trying to make a profit from their own capital it generates even more tax revenue for the government.
Contrast that with capital gains tax which is a 1 time event at a maximum of 20%. That 20% needs to be taken out of the business in order to pay the taxes if you're going to tax unrealized gains. That means that 20% only gets taxed once instead of going through the graph and getting taxed exponentially many more times as it grows.
Folks, we've found it! Pure, distilled, refined, 100.0%, 200-proof trickle down economics!
Just one teeny tiny itty bitty problem: r>g
Oops.
If the company had a magical exemption from all taxes, the owner would have a substantially high net worth. The gap between that hypothetical value, and the real value, is the tax being paid.
Also, you didn't address the r>g elephant in the room.
Thankfully we are not corn, and every one of us is free to break off and make our own farm (or go to another one). However for the last few hundred years, people have flocked away from having their own farms into just safely dividing cells all day on someone else's farm. It's not surprising that capital concentrates when everyone would rather work for someone else than work for themselves. But at least we have a lifeline, where pretty much anyone can sign up with a broker and buy capital assets in a day.
It's not self-evident, or the person wouldn't have asked for a source.
And you have numbers that you're pulling from "somewhere" without sharing a source for them, which means it's even further not self-evident.
Monetary velocity is notoriously high among the poor and low among the wealthy. If you have a dollar and want to generate maximum economic activity or maximum taxes, the answer is unambiguous that you should give it to the poor person.
The real hack is being able to save money rather than "treat yourself" every single time you get more money.
You really don't want loans to be taxed as income, that would cause a lot worse problems than rich people existing...
The loophole is that they never pay taxes on the unrealized gains bc they lived on the borrowed money their whole life. They will never sell their stocks, so there will be no taxable event. When they die they will leave their wealth to the children which effectively erases the unrealized gains. So no one pays taxes on that huge chunk of money. Google "buy,borrow,die".
Here's how investment isn't taxed: take out a loan collateralized against the assets with unrealized gains. If the investment works, it can service its own interest, which is deductible. If it doesn't, the capital loss offsets the capital gain made by selling the collateral. Both cases result in approximately zero tax.
This is nuts.
that seems to be true in Arizona, for example.
> Arizona
That’s funny, isn’t Arizona a red state? I guess I’m not that surprised though.
EDIT: Here is a list reported by Google search but I really do not understand or know how reasonable these challenges are.
Equal Protection: Owners may argue the tax unfairly treats similar properties differently based on second-home status, value threshold, or owner residence. This is likely a weaker challenge because tax classifications usually receive deferential rational-basis review.
Nonresident Discrimination: A challenge could claim the tax targets out-of-city, out-of-state, or foreign owners rather than property use. The law is safer if written as a tax on non-primary luxury residences, not on nonresidents as a class.
Assessment Inequality: Owners may challenge how the city values condos, co-ops, townhouses, and mixed-use properties. This could be significant if the $5 million threshold is applied inconsistently or without reliable valuation rules.
Due Process: Owners may argue the law lacks clear notice, proof, exemption, and appeal procedures. This would be especially relevant for disputes over whether a home is truly a second home.
Residency Conflicts: Taxpayers may challenge inconsistent treatment if the city treats them as NYC residents for income tax but non-primary homeowners for this tax. Clear coordination between residency rules would reduce this risk.
Home Rule Authority: Opponents may argue NYC lacks authority unless the state clearly authorizes the tax. This challenge is less likely to succeed if Albany passes valid enabling legislation and NYC follows required procedures.
The tax is also likely politically difficult to counter. Consider how limited in scope these taxes are, how the tax revenue benefits residents who live in NYC through providing more revenue for services without taxing residents at all, and how the only constituent the taxes negatively affects are non-residents (aka it’s non-trivial to argue that these people should even be considered constituents) who benefit from the services the city offers through stable apartment prices that nicely store their wealth yet provide little value in return.
The only rebuttal one could conceive is the value these high-net-worth individuals altruistically provide the city through developing office space and giving jobs to the city is not worth risking, but that is like saying the tail wags the dog. The reason these CEOs go to NYC is because that is where the talent and economic clustering is: if these high-net-worth individuals could get the talent they need to run their firms in Miami and Austin, they would have done so already. They have tried and they have failed up until this point.
Regardless, a claim into the future in such a complex system such as the markets and the judicial system (especially a common law system) always relies on induction which is never going to be deterministic. However, this tax is just another property tax meaning it likely will stand in court. Additionally, given that the opposition has very weak rebuttals against a well-versed counterparty implies the legislature or other political machinery won’t have a strong enough incentive to fight this tax.
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
I am from NYC and live in Miami.
I have seen hedge funds try and fail to bring talent down here, and paying talent through the nose to convince them. It has failed, because 1. local private schools won't let Ken Griffin buy his way to the front of the line; and 2. there's no local talent pipelines to recruit from that come even remotely close to what is found in the Northeast, or in the Bay Area.
UM pales in comparison to the fact that almost every Ivy League school is within a 3 hour drive of NYC, not counting other strong school (NYU, NEASC colleges, MIT, etc). FIU or UF isn't even in the same stratosphere.
Taxes pay for the establishment of a strong educational foundation so that even local public schools can send kids to Ivies or top colleges. Taxes pay to keep that going.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money
> Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.
> We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history.
> [...] We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.
1: https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism...
Show me the proof of a working Socialist system [1] and I might change my mind. Otherwise you're just deflecting through misplaced ad-hominems.
[1] No, the Scandinavian countries are not socialist countries - I live in one of then. Neither is the Netherlands, nor France nor any other European country.
Similarly, it's still unheard of in Europe to go bankrupt because of healthcare.
Edit: lol -4 nice! What are y’all upset about?
1. https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/04/20/2026-primary-e...
"We find that, before adjusting for these factors, our choice of tax rates and brackets could raise almost exactly $500 million from a little over 11,200 properties. However, revenues could be reduced to between roughly $340 million and $380 million based on assumptions on exclusions for rented units and behavioral changes following the imposition of the tax."
It's all media feel goodsies but not actually do anything substantive.
That's disappointing.
Decreasing the number of secondary homes for the wealthy _does not_ create more first homes people can realistically afford though.
It’s a tax on second homes. If a single person sells due to the tax and someone who had 0 homes previously, it’s spread the scarce housing stock.
Not to say we shouldn’t build more but acting like a tax on multiple homes is going to make houses less available to everyone is ludicrous.
The per-apartment cost of construction in Manhattan is more than the retail price of my 3500sq ft house in near-rural South Carolina.
He is economically illiterate.
Edit: scratch that, he also mentioned leaving a rent controlled apartment because of a crabs in a bucket mentality. I think he’s lying to push his own political agenda which appears to be that of the rich never paying taxes.
I’ll lol if he’s some pleb like most of us and is just running defense for his “betters”
You can be in that cohort and not necessarily be the 1%, 0.1%, etc but you are not the middle.
The draw for people to move there is so intense, that any draw downs in rent are met with upticks in immigration.
Adding housing stock in NYC is not like adding housing stock in Lawnsdale Ohio. Almost by definition you cannot out build the demand for housing.
Would love to see some justification for this claim, which tacitly suggests that adding, say, 2M extra apartments over baseline would have zero effect on our housing market.
I call water safe, but you may say it's a tacit admission that you could drink 5 gallons in an hour an experience zero effects. I wouldn't call that an honest rebuttal
> I call water safe, but you may say it's a tacit admission that you could drink 5 gallons in an hour an experience zero effects. I wouldn't call that an honest rebuttal
I meant it as an honest rebuttal, and I largely disagree that your analogy applies.
Humans obviously die from hyponatremia if they drink massive amounts of water: in your example, 5 gallons of water, which is 5X-10X someone's daily consumption in a short period of time. OK, I agree.
I don't think the theoretical example of increasing the housing stock in NYC by 54% is likely to lead to serious negative effects, especially if it happens over a period of several years, because the city has astronomically high rents and even higher house prices [1]. I believe the culprit is primarily zoning and other restrictions on building, which I defended in another comment upthread.
I do think radically relaxing zoning laws and regulations could theoretically lead to such an increase in supply within a period of, say, ten years. It is politically infeasible and would require basically every voter to understand that supply and demand pricing works in the housing market, which they don't.
The reason I used that exact number—which was deliberately chosen to be large—is that I simply disagree with your claim, if I am understanding it correctly, and I felt a larger number would drive the point home more.
I interpreted your claim as: adding marginal units to the housing market in NYC will not change the price of housing, relative to the universe in which we do not add more units, because there is alway a marginal person waiting in the wings who would like to move to NYC but hasn't yet.
The thing is, what is actually preventing that marginal person from moving here? There is some vacancy here in NYC, even if it's low at 1.4%. Just adding one more unit with no change in price anywhere should not affect anything. In order for that person to actually go from "I am staying where I am" to "I am moving to NYC," the thing that has to change is the value of that apartment: it must breach the threshold at which point they'd move to NYC. I claim this predominantly happens through increased supply driving down price for a given unit compared to the universe where supply is held constant, which happens with basically any additional housing (via the filtering effect). If the increased supply held rents steady, there is no reason for that in-migration. This is the underlying mechanism by which all supply and demand works from my understanding; I don't see a reason why it should be different solely for housing in exactly one metropolitan area.
Obviously individual decision making for a given person is not this simplistic, but at a population level I think the desirability vs. price calculation holds and the increase in supply decreasing price holds, which is why metro areas that have built a lot (e.g. Tokyo, Austin, Nashville) have even seen falling housing prices, while NYC and SF see rising rents.
I picked a large number of units in my initial claim, but I basically do not think the logic changes for a small number of units either. Adding 100 units relative to baseline would nudge it down a smaller, but still meaningful amount.
[0] https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uplo...
[1] https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/new-york-ny/#:...
Why would that be the case?
It's a complex market and this is definitely a risk.
Ideally no second home tax would be implemented, and we could treat housing as an export. But due to intense local planning constraints, housing is scarce.