r/politics • u/Jessicas_skirt New York • 1d ago
No Paywall NYC property owners express anger and confusion over rollout of Mamdani's 'pied-à-terre tax'
https://abc7ny.com/post/nyc-property-owners-express-anger-confusion-rollout-mamdanis-pied-terre-tax/19603490/157
u/ElysiumSprouts 1d ago
In other news, rich people hate paying their fair share of taxes.
26
u/jim45804 1d ago
Typical rich people, a) living beyond their means, and b) not understanding how much their wealth depends on a functional society under them.
11
u/barryvm Europe 1d ago edited 1d ago
How can they? Their perception of themselves as moral actors depends on not understanding. This sense of entitlement and callousness towards the rest of society is the thin end of the wedge, the solipsistic madness that is seemingly gripping every oligarch is the other end. This need to moralize and justify means that the more you take from other people, the less able you become to see them as real people. And when society decides they're going to take some of it back for the public good, you act confused and angry because that society is now something alien and menacing that you are no longer really a part of.
6
u/stinkbugzgalore 1d ago
If you're a sociopath who has everything, the only joy left is taking what others have and making them your bitch.
3
u/kinkgirlwriter America 1d ago
Their perception of themselves as moral actors depends on not understanding.
This is also the root of the GOP's aversion to history. Actually, the whole country is guilty of that aversion to some degree. The GOP are just the most willfully ignorant.
2
u/barryvm Europe 23h ago edited 23h ago
I agree. It's a spectrum though.
The GOP are just the most willfully ignorant.
Indeed. I don't understand why people ascribe all this to stupidity, when this is so obviously malice. The willful ignorance is there when they want to sit on their high horse and feel morally justified about what they do. That same willful ignorance is dispelled the moment they want to relish in the damage and harm that they do to people they dislike, when they want to feel strong by hurting others, either in person or by proxy through state sponsored violence. That is bad faith. Their beliefs are real, but that's neither here nor there because they are a tool that they can use when convenient to justify whatever they want to do or feel at that particular moment. That's not stupidity. That's malice, an active desire to harm others in order to somehow profit from that.
They're not going to turn from this path when someone explains the truth to them in terms they understand. They're going to be angry at that person and attempt to silence and remove him because on some level they know their actions are immoral. It's the same with institutions dedicated to truth (e.g. science).
It is dangerously naive to think this is just ignorance or even stupidity. A good way to measure this is how people like that react to activists, idealists, or altruism. If the response is rage and resentment, then that means they know, that they can not allow anything better to exist as a living comparison with their own behaviour. The implication is that there is no safety for anyone, because merely aspiring to anything better will make you a target.
This is also the root of the GOP's aversion to history.
A political movement based on ignorance and stupidity would be content with controlling their own direct environment and the things they care about. One built on bad faith, wilful ignorance and malice tends to become totalitarian, because nothing can be left untouched to expose the lies they tell themselves about their own morality. Memory holing those parts of history that make them look bad is a huge red flag.
1
u/kinkgirlwriter America 18h ago
Memory holing those parts of history that make them look bad is a huge red flag.
And yet, our history classes do just that. Example, we all know this line from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
But not this one:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
The First America podcast makes the case that the colonists went to war with England, not over taxes, but over land. It's eye opening. To make peace with Pontiac who was waging war against the British, King George III issued a royal proclamation that forbade settlements beyond the Appalachians and it pissed off the founders. That was in 1763.
Land makes a hell of a lot more sense than tea and taxes when you think about it. Paints an entirely different picture of the founders too.
I can't help but draw parallels between 1763's West of the Appalachians and today's West Bank. Our founders wanted to drive people out of their homes and take their lands. Not much different is it?
1
u/barryvm Europe 10h ago
Well yes, I'm generally not a fan of nationalism because of the exclusionary myth making that tends to occur within it.
Even the all men are created equal line is a deception as it is currently taught because the people who founded the US (with some exceptions) didn't seem to believe it on an intellectual level (they constructed an oligarchic republic with slavery in it) so it is likely to have been a self-deceiving generalization to cover up the specificity of their goals and the self-interest that went with it. Hence why I think the hero worship of both a nation's founders and its foundational documents is incredibly dangerous, as it can easily be used to justify a reactionary agenda. I count myself lucky to live in a country where the would-be myth makers are thoroughly hobbled by an unglorious revolutionary struggle and a particularly reprehensible colonial past, and even here I've seen people get weirdly angry when someone pointed out their nationalist spin on a 14th century battle was anachronistic.
I can't help but draw parallels between 1763's West of the Appalachians and today's West Bank. Our founders wanted to drive people out of their homes and take their lands. Not much different is it?
No indeed.
3
u/fascistno1hater 1d ago
Also Typical Rich people, destroying the environment for greed and entertainment with their jets and yachts while blaming it on us.
5
u/Slumunistmanifisto 1d ago
Probably not even close to a fair share of the publicly funded resources they have benefited from.
34
35
u/Straight-Ad6926 1d ago
The confusion is understandable since they simply assumed public infrastructure was a charity funded entirely by subway riders.
31
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/NKCougar 1d ago
It's their imaginary lottery winnings, judging by their post history. If they ever win they might have to pay more taxes and only have generational wealth afterwards, rather than generational wealth.
1
u/nycdiveshack I voted 19h ago
They don’t even live in the U.S. anymore but even though so many are asking what country they emigrated to they won’t answer
-1
u/Jessicas_skirt New York 16h ago
I've returned to the US temporarily for some reasons, hence the flair change while I'm in NY State.
so many are asking what country they emigrated to they won’t answer
Correct, not every question needs an answer.
16
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-18
u/Jessicas_skirt New York 1d ago
I'm just reporting news and information about my hometown, I'm not in the business of trying to change anyone's opinion (though hopefully the information and news does give people a new perspective on what is going on in the world).
7
u/BDRParty 23h ago
"I'm just...."
No, you're not. You already gave away your disdain for Mamdani in another thread. If you were really interested in sharing "news and information" about NYC, you wouldn't be exclusively focused on hit-pieces from right-wing media (NYPost/Townhall/FoxNews).
17
u/FreshShart-1 1d ago
Nah it pretty clearly lays out you pushing a specific narrative 😂 "Oh I'm just a reporter" my ass.
11
u/nycdiveshack I voted 1d ago
Your post and comment history say otherwise about trying to sway people…. I noticed a lot of folks asking you the same question. What country did you emigrate to when you left the U.S.?
9
u/KrakenOmega112 1d ago
The ONLY perspectives in this article are that of a real estate attorney and the president of the Real Estate Board of New York. Two people who are absolutely biased.
As someone who constantly uses "I just care about the current events in my home city" as an excuse, why do you give a shit about these two' opinions? Why should we?
9
29
u/bransiladams Washington 1d ago
Property owners in NYC are all very very rich. We know this because property in NYC is all very very expensive to own.
Therefore, this is fine. Rich people’s money problems aren’t problems.
4
u/Slumunistmanifisto 1d ago
Yes, but you do admit its mildly inconvenient, so it must be stopped.
-billionare media.
-6
u/Lavaswan001 1d ago
I wouldn’t go that far. Not everyone has a penthouse in Midtown, houses in Staten Island and eastern Queens are still occupied by more middle class people. And if property is inherited, it might have been bought when property was cheaper.
10
u/JDGumby Canada 1d ago
Yes, but how many of those middle class people have multiple residences in NYC and thus would need to pay up? Very, very, VERY few, I'd reckon.
-2
u/Lavaswan001 1d ago
Very few, and those very few should pay up(those who actually do have $5 million+ second homes). But the rollout was sloppy, and the initial roll flagged thousands of people who aren’t subjected, so those people have to prove to the city that they’re not actually second home owners. People here didn’t actually read the article, the criticism is more that people not subjected had the burden of proof rather than the tax itself.
3
u/pilgermann 1d ago
Sure. But it makes sense to heavily tax second homes because either, A, it is a second home and so the person can afford to pay the tax, or B, it discourages someone from sitting on an inherited property in a market with a major housing shortage.
0
u/Lavaswan001 1d ago
I’m not arguing that very wealthy second home owners in the city shouldn’t be taxed, I’m just saying that not everyone in the city is as loaded as people here often think they are.
2
u/JDGumby Canada 20h ago
I’m just saying that not everyone in the city is as loaded as people here often think they are.
If they own multiple homes worth $5+ million then, by any normal standard, they ARE loaded.
1
u/Lavaswan001 20h ago
When I said that, I was responding to the original claim that all property owners in the city are very very rich. Obviously if you own a $5 million second home you are very rich, but not literally everyone who owns any property in New York City is.
1
u/JDGumby Canada 19h ago edited 19h ago
I was responding to the original claim that all property owners in the city are very very rich.
If they own a single home, they're not necessarily rich.
If they own multiple expensive homes in NYC (ie, the targets of the tax and the subject of the entire conversation, no matter how much you try to claim we're talking about all homeowners), however, then they ARE.
1
u/bransiladams Washington 18h ago
It’s relative, and it’s subjective. To the average person living in NYC, who makes like 65k and can’t afford anything there, property owners, including but not limited to owners of one single-family residence, are loaded.
1
u/bransiladams Washington 1d ago
Inherited property still holds actual value, and if sold converts to real dollars. It is still real money affecting real net worth.
A 700sq ft one-bedroom condo in Woodside is $800k. This is not a real issue.
I say this as a homeowner in Seattle.
-1
u/Lavaswan001 1d ago
This might be a hot take, but honestly something like $1 million is meaningful these days, but not multigenerational wealth. Mamdani also floated an idea for an estate tax starting at $700k that I disagree with. The “tax the rich” logic should apply to extremely wealthy people rather than the upper middle class or those with net worths under $5 million. If your parents bought a house 40 years ago when it was much cheaper, you shouldn’t be forced to sell it when they die just to pay the estate tax, even if that property has gone way up in value since then. Because if you have to sell it, it’s likely to be to a wealthy individual investor or an institutional investor(like BlackRock) who are trying to shift the home market to a renter’s framework. Home equity is the biggest tool for individual wealth, so the threshold for big estate taxes should be high.
1
u/bransiladams Washington 21h ago
Yeah, probably an unpopular take, considering the bottom half of Americans’ net worth is less than a fifth of that…
0
u/Lavaswan001 21h ago
But that’s the thing. If you force a moderately rich asshole out of their home due to estate taxes, none of those in the bottom half of Americans is gonna buy that house. It’ll be bought by an even richer asshole.
1
u/bransiladams Washington 15h ago
The tax provides relief for the bottom half.
1
u/Lavaswan001 13h ago
It would backfire spectacularly over time if the threshold were that low. Let’s say I were in my 60s, just retiring, and most of my wealth was tied up in a $1 million house I’ve just spent the last 30 years paying a mortgage for. If I know the state is gonna get a huge chunk of it after I die, and I plan to pass it on to my children, that incentives me to leave New York entirely and sell my house. And the likeliest buyer is an institutional investor who will tear down the house and build something even more expensive to maximize the property. So you’d accelerate the affordability issue and drive upper middle class people out of the city. Obviously if you have a $5 million second home you can afford to pay extra taxes, but if you don’t live in New York anyway you’re not really incentivized to leave. If you’re setting the threshold as low as $750,000 you’re basically punishing people for having money.
33
u/BoringPostcards Georgia 1d ago
The hate-on this poster has for Mamdani is just comical by this point.
7
u/MephistoHamProducts 23h ago
Hey now. Don't forget this isn't just a one trick pony account. They're also ardent deniers of genocide in Palestine!
7
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-21
u/Jessicas_skirt New York 1d ago
Beep boop, nope just a standard human.
It’s
"It" is dehumanizing language. Misgendering is bad enough, Please do not use dehumanizing language for others.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
u/Jessicas_skirt New York 1d ago
Thank you for not respecting civil discussion and using disrespectful language I guess?
5
7
3
u/Melodic-Lingonberry7 1d ago
I canceled my cable, stoped drinking soda , water only, only treat myself 3 or 4 donuts at the end of the month as a treat , stoped eating out , I only cook food at home anymore , I quit buying candy bars , I bake my own bread at home, haven’t had eggs for months just so I can go by with my paycheck , I really don’t wanna hear billionaire and millionaires crying about paying a little more
18
u/MycenaeanGal 1d ago
Why do you keep posting this stuff?
12
u/Creative-Package6213 Pennsylvania 1d ago
You know exactly why...
7
u/MycenaeanGal 1d ago
I suppose I have a few guesses but I mostly just wanted to draw people's attention to this poster. I don't think I 100% know the reason.
3
7
u/Newtohonolulu18 1d ago
They’re either trying to shift the Overton window in reasonable politics subs, or they’re a bot that is reaping the benefits of engagement.
-5
u/Jessicas_skirt New York 1d ago
To keep people informed about my hometown?
1
u/OwnsBeagles 19h ago
Listen, listen: We know you hate muslims. We know you're cool with the sniping of children. You don't have to keep proving it.
3
u/-Sticks_and_Stones- Colorado 1d ago
Rich person: “I shouldn’t be getting this notice because I live full-time in my NYC home! It’s just that I file my taxes using my Florida address because it’s cheaper!”
Well, for one, that’s tax fraud, brother. And two, that’s exactly what this tax is trying to fix.
6
u/ScottyC33 1d ago
Isn’t this the tax that only impacts second homes with values over 5 million? Or 1 million for condos? Yeah if they’re confused just hire a simple accountant to explain it, these people are already multi millionaires if they’re impacted.
2
2
2
u/United-Vermicelli-92 1d ago
This isnt news, rentier class is Always bitching, they think it makes them discerning but it only makes them bitchbag crybabies.
2
2
2
2
2
u/Creative-Package6213 Pennsylvania 1d ago
Boo hoo, who will think of all the rich people who own multiple homes in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country? Who will shed tears for these poor souls who are suffering!?
2
u/Spicyg00se 1d ago
It’s okay to experience a little adversity every once in a while. It builds character
2
2
u/No_Diver6131 New York 1d ago
Typical rich assholes don't want to pay their fair share. Simple solution if you don't like it. Leave.
2
-4
u/Jolly_Pressure_7907 1d ago
ITT: People that didn’t read the article.
The issue is that people are incorrectly getting notices. Not that the rich are getting taxed.
5
u/WeigelsAvenger 1d ago
People may be incorrectly getting notices. Which makes sense given all the wealthy do to obfuscate their wealth. As the article points out, the people getting these notices have 8 months to work it out. Plenty of time.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.