Zohran Mamdani Appreciation Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDs Couch
  • Start date Start date
1776549398276.jpeg
 
JDs Couch said:
The pied-à-terre tax — supported by 93% of New Yorkers — will levy an annual surcharge on one to three family homes, condominiums and co-ops valued above $5 million when owners have a separate primary residence outside of New York City.
The tax will start at 0.5% and scale up to 4% for homes worth over $25 million. (The horror!)
Click to expand...
Ross Perot said it best "giant sucking sound".
 
JDs Couch said:
The pied-à-terre tax — supported by 93% of New Yorkers — will levy an annual surcharge on one to three family homes, condominiums and co-ops valued above $5 million when owners have a separate primary residence outside of New York City.
The tax will start at 0.5% and scale up to 4% for homes worth over $25 million. (The horror!)
Click to expand...
62% of NYC residents according to a March 2026 poll. 54% state wide when the poll question was framed that everyone in the state would have taxes increased otherwise.

No way in hell 92% of New York residents support this.

And if they did, just remember, you always get the politicians you deserve.
 
Floyd Eye said:
62% of NYC residents according to a March 2026 poll. 54% state wide when the poll question was framed that everyone in the state would have taxes increased otherwise.

No way in hell 92% of New York residents support this.

And if they did, just remember, you always get the politicians you deserve.
Click to expand...
93%.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
You're not thinking ahead. Go watch the Tim Pool video I posted a few pages back. It explains how the city will lose revenue where I don't have to type it all out.
Click to expand...
I watched that idiot for as long as I could stand it, about 6 minutes. All he said was "this is gonna be bad" but gave no reasons why.

Wanna TL/DR it for me please?
 
JamesTiberiusKirk said:
I watched that idiot for as long as I could stand it, about 6 minutes. All he said was "this is gonna be bad" but gave no reasons why.

Wanna TL/DR it for me please?
Click to expand...
About another minute or so and you would have gotten to it. He seems to like to hear himself talk sometimes and takes a bit to get to a point. They all do. I guess that's the world of podcasting now. :dunno:

I'll quickly bullet point it for you. He basically applies the Laffer Curve to the situation
  • Wealthy people need places to invest their money & use property.
  • NYC's new tax deincentivizes them from investing in new properties there.
  • No one is investing so developers stop developing new properties because they don't sell.
  • This leads to all the employees down that chain not having active work and potential full job loss.
  • No new properties being developed leads to the area not being developed (i.e. no new businesses)
  • Additionally the staffing jobs that would have been created for maintenance/upkeep of the wealthy person's property won't exist.
  • No new business, no new staffing jobs for properties means no job growth and no money
  • No work = no money = no commerce exchange = economic stagnation = urban decay = less taxes overall being collected by the city
A few additional point made were
  • Many of the wealthy people own properties they rent out. Cost of new taxes gets passed on to the renters through rent increases. That just makes it harder for the middle class to live there.
  • To compensate for increased taxes, maintenance/upkeep on currently owned properties gets cut down to minimum. That means loss of jobs for those occupying these positions.
There will likely be a boost in city revenue from the pied-a-terre tax up front. That won't last long though. In the long run it would lead to a loss of city revenue and NYC will end up reverting back to what it was in the 1970's & 80's. It will essentially be the inverse of the economic boon seen in 1990's NYC.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
About another minute or so and you would have gotten to it. He seems to like to hear himself talk sometimes and takes a bit to get to a point. They all do. I guess that's the world of podcasting now. :dunno:

I'll quickly bullet point it for you. He basically applies the Laffer Curve to the situation
  • Wealthy people need places to invest their money & use property.
  • NYC's new tax deincentivizes them from investing in new properties there.
  • No one is investing so developers stop developing new properties because they don't sell.
  • This leads to all the employees down that chain not having active work and potential full job loss.
  • No new properties being developed leads to the area not being developed (i.e. no new businesses)
  • Additionally the staffing jobs that would have been created for maintenance/upkeep of the wealthy person's property won't exist.
  • No new business, no new staffing jobs for properties means no job growth and no money
  • No work = no money = no commerce exchange = economic stagnation = urban decay = less taxes overall being collected by the city
A few additional point made were
  • Many of the wealthy people own properties they rent out. Cost of new taxes gets passed on to the renters through rent increases. That just makes it harder for the middle class to live there.
  • To compensate for increased taxes, maintenance/upkeep on currently owned properties gets cut down to minimum. That means loss of jobs for those occupying these positions.
There will likely be a boost in city revenue from the pied-a-terre tax up front. That won't last long though. In the long run it would lead to a loss of city revenue and NYC will end up reverting back to what it was in the 1970's & 80's. It will essentially be the inverse of the economic boon seen in 1990's NYC.
Click to expand...
First, thank you for taking the time and making the effort to type all that. I'm sincere in that. That's a lot of work.

And now I know what the Laffer Curve refers to, so that's a win for me.

The break in logic I see is between your second and third point.

  • NYC's new tax deincentivizes them from investing in new properties there.
  • No one is investing so developers stop developing new properties because they don't sell.
You've jumped from being disincentivized to 'no one'. Which is like saying raising the prices of Les Pauls by $100 (or whatever the figure would be if you applied the tax to the price of a Les Paul) means no one will ever buy a Les Paul. I have to disagree with you there.

Those dwellings will always have a market. As will Rolex and Bugatti and etc. IMHO and all that.

Again, thank you for your time. (sincere)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top