Seems taxing million-dollar homes in NYC is only the beginning

[Jarod]

NY's state government wants to slap a tax on all $1 million + cash home purchases now. Of course, this isn't going to work like they think it will. I can see purchasers of such homes slapping down say $990,000 in cash and taking out a mortgage on the rest then paying that off in full a year later avoiding the tax.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-14/ny-plans-new-tax-on-city-homes-over-1-million-bought-with-cash

Lawmakers plan tax on NYC cash home sales, as Hochul details pied-a-terre plan

The governor laid out the details of her proposed tax on NYC second homes, a month after she backed it.

gothamist.com

There's already specialty companies that will help New Yorkers avoid property and other taxes on their properties.

Ownwell: Lower Your Property Taxes

Save money on property taxes. With no upfront commitment, our local experts manage your appeal from start to finish. Pay just 25% of what you save. Start your appeal today.

www.ownwell.com

The Left never learns...

Good, the place is a victim of its own success. Supply and demand has been way to out of balance in NYC, way to many people are desperate to live there.

 

[cawacko]

Good, the place is a victim of its own success. Supply and demand has been way to out of balance in NYC, way to many people are desperate to live there.

Supply and demand is out of whack in NYC (and other big cities) because they ultimately restrict supply. No, people do not have a constitutional right to live in NYC. But when you do not let the market function, this is the result.

It's also a big contributor to the growth in Florida. Florida itself is going to have allow for additional supply to keep up with demand. If the state adopts the same anti-growth NIMBY mindset NYC has, you're going to see less people coming.

 

[cawacko]

Good, the place is a victim of its own success. Supply and demand has been way to out of balance in NYC, way to many people are desperate to live there.

I'll add this. Even with the political ramifications of states like New York and California losing congressional seats (and electoral votes), and states like Texas and Florida gaining them, people still have your the attitude you expressed which is basically we don't need more housing.

New York Could Lose Seats in Congress Because It Won’t Build Housing​

As housing construction booms in red states, blue states are falling behind. That will likely boost Republicans in federal politics.

New York Could Lose Seats in Congress Because It Won’t Build Housing

As housing construction booms in red states, blue states are falling behind. That will likely boost Republicans in federal politics.

nysfocus.com

 

[Jarod]

I'll add this. Even with the political ramifications of states like New York and California losing congressional seats (and electoral votes), and states like Texas and Florida gaining them, people still have your the attitude you expressed which is basically we don't need more housing.

New York Could Lose Seats in Congress Because It Won’t Build Housing​

As housing construction booms in red states, blue states are falling behind. That will likely boost Republicans in federal politics.​

​

New York Could Lose Seats in Congress Because It Won’t Build Housing

As housing construction booms in red states, blue states are falling behind. That will likely boost Republicans in federal politics.

nysfocus.com

I wish Florida would stop building housing, Palm beach County is overrun. The most liberal county in the south. The infrastructure can’t keep up. Takes an hour to drive 10 miles west.

 

[Jarod]

Supply and demand is out of whack in NYC (and other big cities) because they ultimately restrict supply. No, people do not have a constitutional right to live in NYC. But when you do not let the market function, this is the result.

It's also a big contributor to the growth in Florida. Florida itself is going to have allow for additional supply to keep up with demand. If the state adopts the same anti-growth NIMBY mindset NYC has, you're going to see less people coming.

Have you never been to Manhattan, huge tall story apartment buildings everywhere.

Stop New Yorking my Florida!

 

[cawacko]

I wish Florida would stop building housing, Palm beach County is overrun. The most liberal county in the south. The infrastructure can’t keep up. Takes an hour to drive 10 miles west.

If most areas of the country took that NIMBY attitude, where would people live if the U.S. is to continue to grow?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If most areas of the country took that NIMBY attitude, where would people live if the U.S. is to continue to grow?

The US has massive tracks of land in the West that go totally, or nearly so, unutilized because the federal government owns them. This vast acreage lies fallow and almost unproductive and the Left generally tries to fight to keep it that way.

The reddish areas are the Native American apartheid system.
Blue is Department of War
The dark green are national monuments and parks
Orange is fish and wildlife, mostly fallow land.
The light green national forests that lie fallow
Yellow is BLM land that lies fallow

 

[cawacko]

Have you never been to Manhattan, huge tall story apartment buildings everywhere.

Stop New Yorking my Florida!

NYC is much bigger than Manhattan and even within Manhattan there's plenty of areas without high rises.

In the '80's California took a very anti-growth attitude. San Francisco specifically pass "anti-Manhattan" measures regarding growth. The results were growth and development moved to the suburbs. Now people complain about suburban sprawl, traffic and climate change when this is what their anti-growth policies helped created.

It's interesting to see the cycle. You're complaining about growth in Florida, which is driven in part by the policies in NYC towards housing yet you don't think NYC should change in that regard.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

NYC is much bigger than Manhattan and even within Manhattan there's plenty of areas without high rises.

In the '80's California took a very anti-growth attitude. San Francisco specifically pass "anti-Manhattan" measures regarding growth. The results were growth and development moved to the suburbs. Now people complain about suburban sprawl, traffic and climate change when this is what their anti-growth policies helped created.

It's interesting to see the cycle. You're complaining about growth in Florida, which is driven in part by the policies in NYC towards housing yet you don't think NYC should change in that regard.

Portland's growth boundaries did the same thing there. Crippled the city in the long run.

Infill rules help, but growth boundaries remain a housing obstacle

The “landmark” measure — imposed at the behest of environmentalists and agricultural interests — was designed to stop urban sprawl, protect open space and promote transit use. “Observing the loss of farmland and greenspaces, as well as poorly planned development in other states, Oregonians saw...

www.pacificresearch.org

Portland's Urban Growth Boundary: A Driver of Suburban Sprawl

Human settlement trends outfox the planners once again.

www.forbes.com

 

[Jarod]

NYC is much bigger than Manhattan and even within Manhattan there's plenty of areas without high rises.

In the '80's California took a very anti-growth attitude. San Francisco specifically pass "anti-Manhattan" measures regarding growth. The results were growth and development moved to the suburbs. Now people complain about suburban sprawl, traffic and climate change when this is what their anti-growth policies helped created.

It's interesting to see the cycle. You're complaining about growth in Florida, which is driven in part by the policies in NYC towards housing yet you don't think NYC should change in that regard.

I think capitalism will take care of it, capitalism with environmental limits so capitalism won’t destroy life. When no garbage workers and teachers and police can no longer afford to live close to the city, people will leave and prices will go down.

My home value has increased 380% in 10 years. I love living here, but one day, if inflation here keeps skyrocketing, ima have to move somewhere cheaper.

 

[cawacko]

The US has massive tracks of land in the West that go totally, or nearly so, unutilized because the federal government owns them. This vast acreage lies fallow and almost unproductive and the Left generally tries to fight to keep it that way.

The reddish areas are the Native American apartheid system.
Blue is Department of War
The dark green are national monuments and parks
Orange is fish and wildlife, mostly fallow land.
The light green national forests that lie fallow
Yellow is BLM land that lies fallow

Building on federal land can potentially help on the margins in certain areas. But there's no real demand from people wanting to move to remote parts of Nevada and Wyoming.

Pricing isn't high in urban areas/metro's because we don't allow development in rural areas.

 

[cawacko]

Portland's growth boundaries did the same thing there. Crippled the city in the long run.

Infill rules help, but growth boundaries remain a housing obstacle

The “landmark” measure — imposed at the behest of environmentalists and agricultural interests — was designed to stop urban sprawl, protect open space and promote transit use. “Observing the loss of farmland and greenspaces, as well as poorly planned development in other states, Oregonians saw...

www.pacificresearch.org

Portland's Urban Growth Boundary: A Driver of Suburban Sprawl

Human settlement trends outfox the planners once again.

www.forbes.com

The theory in Portland was attempting to restrict sprawl by allowing more density in the city. In and of itself, not the worst thing imo. Where they failed is not allowing enough new housing to meet demand within the city limits.

 

[cawacko]

Portland's growth boundaries did the same thing there. Crippled the city in the long run.

Infill rules help, but growth boundaries remain a housing obstacle

The “landmark” measure — imposed at the behest of environmentalists and agricultural interests — was designed to stop urban sprawl, protect open space and promote transit use. “Observing the loss of farmland and greenspaces, as well as poorly planned development in other states, Oregonians saw...

www.pacificresearch.org

Portland's Urban Growth Boundary: A Driver of Suburban Sprawl

Human settlement trends outfox the planners once again.

www.forbes.com

Anecdotal, but one of my good buddies runs one of the largest multi-family development firms in the country. He's built in Portland and the Portland suburbs.

He said he will never build in the City of Portland again. So it's one thing to want to prevent sprawl, but you can't make building so difficult within the City limits then.

 

[cawacko]

I think capitalism will take care of it, capitalism with environmental limits so capitalism won’t destroy life. When no garbage workers and teachers and police can no longer afford to live close to the city, people will leave and prices will go down.

My home value has increased 380% in 10 years. I love living here, but one day, if inflation here keeps skyrocketing, ima have to move somewhere cheaper.

Capitalism would take care of it if we let markets work. You can't put the massive restrictions we do on supply and then expect capitalism to solve affordability issues.

And environmentalism, CEQA, is arguably the biggest reason for California's housing crisis. And the ultimate irony is it was environmentalists who pushed for the anti-development measures in San Francisco, that resulted in massive sprawl and negative effects on the environment.

People vote with their feet and we see people leaving high costs supply constrained markets like New York and California for places like Florida. And if Florida takes the NY/California attitude towards development, you'll see a similar response.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Building on federal land can potentially help on the margins in certain areas. But there's no real demand from people wanting to move to remote parts of Nevada and Wyoming.

There is if the land is available and somebody were to put something like a data center or three on it. With remote work now a thing, it's easier to live where you want rather than where you have to.

Pricing isn't high in urban areas/metro's because we don't allow development in rural areas.

In part it is. When you can't develop rural areas, urban density is forced up and land costs go up in turn.

 

[cawacko]

I think capitalism will take care of it, capitalism with environmental limits so capitalism won’t destroy life. When no garbage workers and teachers and police can no longer afford to live close to the city, people will leave and prices will go down.

My home value has increased 380% in 10 years. I love living here, but one day, if inflation here keeps skyrocketing, ima have to move somewhere cheaper.

And Jarod, if you really care about the environment build more density around transit in urban areas. It's closer to job centers and public transportation, which helps get people out of their cars.

But people, even those who claim to care about the environment, block it and new development occurs far outside the City. And people end up with hour to hour and a half commutes each way. That's no bueno for the environment.

 

[Crepitus]

Its amazing how simple minded demoncraps are. They think every problem they have is because "the rich" dont pay enough taxes. Its a tune theyve been singing badly for decades but they have no other tune to sing.

Nope, but the affordability issue is related directly to that.

 

[Crepitus]

We have a growing population and a pretty severe housing shortage in many of the more desirable areas of the country. That affects all of us as it leads to a less dynamic economy.

And it's only a slight exaggeration to say we're essentially giving veto power to existing homeowners across the country on the grounds that they don't want their neighborhood to change, have more people live around them etc.

NIMBY syndrome.

 

[Crepitus]

They are needed. We dont have a revenue problem we have a spending problem. Get your hear out of your ass

 

[countryboy]

Does your Messiah know this spending millions by the hour in his war?

Jesus?

You know your Laffer curve, as demonstrated in Trump’s first term, is bogus

The Laffer curve is empirical, and there is no data that exists that contradicts it.