By John Q. Hosedrinker 
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani expressed strong support for a newly unveiled pied-à-terre tax proposal. This tax, championed by Governor Kathy Hochul, targets luxury second homes in New York City valued at $5 million or more and owned by ultra-wealthy nonresidents. The initiative is anticipated to generate at least $500 million annually, with funds earmarked for essential services and city improvements. Mayor Mamdani emphasized that the tax is designed to address an unfair system and ensure that those who benefit from the city’s prestige contribute more significantly to its upkeep.
Read the original article here
“We’re taxing the rich,” Mayor Mamdani proudly declared, unveiling a new $500 million-a-year tax targeting luxury second homes, specifically those owned by ultra-wealthy non-residents who possess prime city properties but do not reside there. This “pied-à-terre tax” represents a significant shift in how New York City plans to generate revenue, aiming to tap into the immense wealth of individuals who benefit from the city’s prestige and value without contributing to its day-to-day life through residency. The sentiment behind this move is that it’s “about damn time” for such a policy, with many expressing a sense of pride and satisfaction that leadership is taking action to address wealth disparity, even if it means questioning how “poor billionaires” will manage.
The proposed tax isn’t seen as particularly radical by many, sparking a feeling of justifiable pride in the leadership’s actions. The notion of “feeling proud of my leadership” is a recurring theme, suggesting a genuine desire among some for policies that actively work towards economic fairness. This positive reception is amplified by the understanding that the individuals targeted by this tax already maintain a distance from New York City, often living elsewhere and structuring their finances to minimize tax burdens. Therefore, the argument that this tax will drive the wealthy away is met with skepticism, as they “already don’t live in New York.”
It’s rather amusing to consider the reactions from those who are seemingly upset by this development. There’s a notable disconnect between the realities of a multi-millionaire, who might have sophisticated tax structures in place, and the perspective of someone in a different economic bracket, perhaps in Tennessee, living in a more modest home and voting Republican, who still feels compelled to defend the wealthy’s tax obligations. This highlights a broader societal debate about wealth, taxation, and fairness, often observed when policies aimed at redistributing wealth are introduced.
The implementation of this tax is viewed as a reasonable and potentially beneficial step for the city. The prevailing thought is that New York City will always attract people, and if some millionaires choose to leave due to this tax, there will always be others willing to embrace it. More importantly, there’s a hope that this measure might lead to a situation where locals can actually afford to buy homes in the city, especially if the influx of wealthy individuals using properties as investment vehicles, leading to empty homes, is curtailed by these new tax implications. This could be a win-win, benefiting the local population significantly.
The call for this type of taxation extends beyond New York City, with many advocating for its widespread adoption “everywhere, even everywhere!” This sentiment underscores a global concern about wealth inequality and the perceived lack of contribution from the ultra-wealthy. The fact that this “tiniest, most insanely specific tax” could generate an astonishing HALF A BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY is a stark illustration of the immense wealth disparity present in the country. This success is seen as proof that “good policies are not actually hard” to implement.
The predictable response from some quarters is the concern that the wealthy will simply “leave.” However, this is again countered by the observation that these individuals “don’t like there” in the first place. The underlying principle here is that housing should not be treated purely as a commodity or investment, but rather as a fundamental human need. If this policy were to be implemented nationwide, it could also effectively remove corporations from dominating the housing market, further addressing affordability issues.
For those who embrace this approach, it feels like a step towards a more equitable society, with some even embracing the label of “socialist” if this is what “democratic socialism” looks like. The mayor’s efforts are also lauded for their comprehensiveness, extending beyond this new tax to address tangible improvements like fixing potholes, expanding bike lanes, and offering universal daycare to city workers. This multi-faceted approach, tackling both “low hanging fruit” for immediate quality of life improvements and enacting “long term structural changes,” garners significant praise.
The desire for such policies is not confined to New York; calls for similar measures in cities like Boston have been voiced for years. Despite past assertions that the mayor had already “failed and destroyed NYC by driving the rich away,” this new tax suggests a continued commitment to progressive policies. The reaction from a “random dude in the Midwest” being “pissed about this” further emphasizes the national implications and diverse opinions surrounding wealth redistribution.
The consensus among many is that “every city should do this,” and not just for primary residences. The extension of such taxes to any non-primary residence is seen as beneficial not only for tax revenue but also for curbing practices like short-term rentals, such as those seen with Airbnb. Furthermore, suggestions are made to increase taxes on individuals owning more than three rental homes, indicating a broader desire to disincentivize speculative property ownership and encourage properties to be used for actual habitation.
The sarcasm is palpable when imagining the arguments against this tax, where someone earning a modest income might lament, “Sure, I only make $50,000 a year and I’m middle aged but someday I may be rich and this isn’t fair!” This highlights the often-outlandish justifications used by those who oppose any form of wealth taxation. The notion that a “MAGA, somewhere, who makes less than 75k is FURIOUS about this” points to a perceived disconnect between the economic interests of certain political demographics and their vocal opposition to policies that could potentially benefit the broader population.
There’s a strong sense of hope and expectation that New York City, under Mayor Mamdani’s leadership, will “show the rest of the country how it’s fucking done.” This is seen as a testament to the effectiveness of policies often mislabeled or misunderstood, with some arguing that the “establishment has really successfully demonized democratic socialism,” and now “the biggest city in the US proving it works.” Questions naturally arise about whether iconic properties, such as “Trump tower,” will be affected, and there’s a clear desire for them to be included in the tax’s reach.
This policy is being hailed as “one of the most brilliant things I have ever seen,” and the hope is that other cities, particularly tourist destinations like “Lake Tahoe,” will take note. The potential impact on media narratives is also considered, with a playful query about whether “Fox onside with this policy now?” met with an enthusiastic “Hell yeah.” The overarching sentiment is one of appreciation and a desire for “More of this please.”
The critique of certain influential figures, like “Bloomberg’s golden child,” suggests a perception of them being overly protected or propped up, implying that any criticism of Mamdani’s tax is likely driven by ulterior motives or is part of a coordinated effort by “bots/trolls.” The policy’s perceived “French” sound leads to an observation that it’s “only for the rich,” which is precisely the intention. This focused approach is seen as positive, with congratulations offered to “Good job New York.”
The positive reception extends to the idea of taxing corporations that own real estate and leave it empty, and foreign nationals who treat $100 million penthouses as mere investments, visiting them infrequently. This tax is viewed as an “Excellent start!” with a clear desire to see entities like “Black Rock punished for absolutely dicking the housing market.” The “staggering” number of people who defend the wealthy is noted with disappointment, while the policy itself is seen as “The way.”
The “hilarious” amount of pushback on this policy is met with amusement, especially when considering the specific criteria for the tax to apply: owning a second residence in NYC worth over $5 million and not having NYC as your primary residence. The notion that “usual hacks” might believe this will lead to rent increases on small apartments is dismissed. Instead, this move is celebrated as an “absolute win” for the DSA, with a defiant “Eat shit Dems!” The spirit of this policy is even extended to the affluent vacation destinations like the Hamptons.
The positive developments in New York City are not limited to this tax. There are mentions of addressing “100,000 potholes in 100 days,” new daycare openings, plans for city-run grocery stores, efficient snow removal, cracking down on problematic landlords, and significantly reducing the budget deficit. This comprehensive approach to urban management is seen as a model that should be replicated, with calls to “Now do San Diego!!” and a desire to see this implemented “in Florida” and “in London.”
Some feel the tax could still be “low,” arguing that anyone who can afford a spare home in Manhattan should be able to contribute more. The pragmatic acknowledgment that “it has to pass many hands before it goes to law” is present, along with the concern that “everyone going to forget about it before reaching a decision.” Despite these procedural hurdles, the overall feeling is overwhelmingly positive, with a repeated sentiment of “You love to see it happen.”