Non resident luxury tax on $5M + properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people who don’t live in NY weighing in on this?

Why not? We can't vote but can share opinions, New Yorkers aren't obligated to follow.

As far as my opinion goes, non residents owning extra multimillion dollar properties can absorb the tax for benefit of the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not even sure how they can enforce this. There so many ways to avoid classifying the property as a second home.

I have not followed this closely, but I suspect anyone who does not pay NY city taxes (income taxes) but owns a property over $5 mil would be subject to this new tax.

There is a lot of gamesmanship that can be had. For example, if you place in LLC or Trust and rent the property to yourself, rent the property to your child, etc.. It would no longer be considered a second home.

This is not really accurate. Having it owned by an LLC doesn’t avoid the tax. And if you rent it and claim it is an investment property, then you’ll pay income taxes on that rent and property taxes as well. And even then, it has to be arms length terms to avoid the PT tax, and if you crash there occasionally or the child doesn’t pay market rent, you might pay the tax anyway plus the other taxes.

It is humorous to me that all of you laptop warriors think you’re smarter than the govt.

This isn’t true. Property tax is deductible. Wit depreciation you’ll protect most of that rental income in the early years. You can also stay in that apartment for personal use up to 14 days per year or 10% of rented days, whichever is higher, and still have it deemed an investment property.

Real estate is complicated and NYC has no idea how these owners will not cough up the measly 500mm they want (and 500mm is not nearly enough to matter)

Real estate is complicated but NY has savvy people, sorry.

This is all fairly inaccurate. SALT- property tax deductions are capped and if you’re renting at anything approaching market rent, you’ll blow through the ded limit in about a month.

As far as staying in the apt for 14 days, that’s an IRS concept, and has nothing to do with how NYC categorizes the apt. If you want to avoid the SALT ded cap, it must be a real investment property with real tenants and at market rent. In nyc, you can’t do short term rentals btw.

So essentially you’re either holding an investment for which you will pay income taxes on the rental. Or you’re sitting on a second home and you’ll pay piede a tiere tax. Or it’s your primary home and NYC gets to tax you on ALL of your income, wherever it is earned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people who don’t live in NY weighing in on this?

Why not? We can't vote but can share opinions, New Yorkers aren't obligated to follow.

As far as my opinion goes, non residents owning extra multimillion dollar properties can absorb the tax for benefit of the community.

It just seems like a lot of people weighing are doing it because they want to find a reason to bash Mamdani

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not even sure how they can enforce this. There so many ways to avoid classifying the property as a second home.

I have not followed this closely, but I suspect anyone who does not pay NY city taxes (income taxes) but owns a property over $5 mil would be subject to this new tax.

There is a lot of gamesmanship that can be had. For example, if you place in LLC or Trust and rent the property to yourself, rent the property to your child, etc.. It would no longer be considered a second home.

This is not really accurate. Having it owned by an LLC doesn’t avoid the tax. And if you rent it and claim it is an investment property, then you’ll pay income taxes on that rent and property taxes as well. And even then, it has to be arms length terms to avoid the PT tax, and if you crash there occasionally or the child doesn’t pay market rent, you might pay the tax anyway plus the other taxes.

It is humorous to me that all of you laptop warriors think you’re smarter than the govt.

This isn’t true. Property tax is deductible. Wit depreciation you’ll protect most of that rental income in the early years. You can also stay in that apartment for personal use up to 14 days per year or 10% of rented days, whichever is higher, and still have it deemed an investment property.

Real estate is complicated and NYC has no idea how these owners will not cough up the measly 500mm they want (and 500mm is not nearly enough to matter)

Real estate is complicated but NY has savvy people, sorry.

This is all fairly inaccurate. SALT- property tax deductions are capped and if you’re renting at anything approaching market rent, you’ll blow through the ded limit in about a month.

As far as staying in the apt for 14 days, that’s an IRS concept, and has nothing to do with how NYC categorizes the apt. If you want to avoid the SALT ded cap, it must be a real investment property with real tenants and at market rent. In nyc, you can’t do short term rentals btw.

So essentially you’re either holding an investment for which you will pay income taxes on the rental. Or you’re sitting on a second home and you’ll pay piede a tiere tax. Or it’s your primary home and NYC gets to tax you on ALL of your income, wherever it is earned.

There is no salt cap for a pass through entity claiming property tax as a deduction.

NY state and NYC tax collectors are not savvy. Trump and the Dursts and other RE families effectively don’t pay taxes, and there’s nothing bitter losers like you can do about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not even sure how they can enforce this. There so many ways to avoid classifying the property as a second home.

I have not followed this closely, but I suspect anyone who does not pay NY city taxes (income taxes) but owns a property over $5 mil would be subject to this new tax.

There is a lot of gamesmanship that can be had. For example, if you place in LLC or Trust and rent the property to yourself, rent the property to your child, etc.. It would no longer be considered a second home.

This is not really accurate. Having it owned by an LLC doesn’t avoid the tax. And if you rent it and claim it is an investment property, then you’ll pay income taxes on that rent and property taxes as well. And even then, it has to be arms length terms to avoid the PT tax, and if you crash there occasionally or the child doesn’t pay market rent, you might pay the tax anyway plus the other taxes.

It is humorous to me that all of you laptop warriors think you’re smarter than the govt.

This isn’t true. Property tax is deductible. Wit depreciation you’ll protect most of that rental income in the early years. You can also stay in that apartment for personal use up to 14 days per year or 10% of rented days, whichever is higher, and still have it deemed an investment property.

Real estate is complicated and NYC has no idea how these owners will not cough up the measly 500mm they want (and 500mm is not nearly enough to matter)

Real estate is complicated but NY has savvy people, sorry.

This is all fairly inaccurate. SALT- property tax deductions are capped and if you’re renting at anything approaching market rent, you’ll blow through the ded limit in about a month.

As far as staying in the apt for 14 days, that’s an IRS concept, and has nothing to do with how NYC categorizes the apt. If you want to avoid the SALT ded cap, it must be a real investment property with real tenants and at market rent. In nyc, you can’t do short term rentals btw.

So essentially you’re either holding an investment for which you will pay income taxes on the rental. Or you’re sitting on a second home and you’ll pay piede a tiere tax. Or it’s your primary home and NYC gets to tax you on ALL of your income, wherever it is earned.

There is no salt cap for a pass through entity claiming property tax as a deduction.

NY state and NYC tax collectors are not savvy. Trump and the Dursts and other RE families effectively don’t pay taxes, and there’s nothing bitter losers like you can do about it.

Again, misleading. Avoiding SALT is only possible if it is set up as a legitimate investment entity. The whole ‘I’ll form an LLC and rent to myself or a family member’ and avoid taxes is mostly a myth.

NY is an extremely aggressive tax jurisdiction. They have already regularly audited in this area, and are well versed in tricks people try to play.

Of course a Durst or Trump will have structures that benefit them, but they aren’t using loopholes like you claim.

This a great idea and will have an effect.

[Anonymous]

Ken griffin didn't donate that money. He pledged to over many years. H donated a fraction and made it totally deductible

We'd all like to just give our money to our fav causes and be applauded for it. But that doesn't get us safer streets or childcare or public hospitals. Taxes do.

He can afford to pay this. Over and over the rich people say, we're gonna move and they don't. In this case, we'd be fine if they moved. Property taxes are not that high. City income taxes are. If you're skipping out on this whole using our sewers and streets, pay up

[Anonymous]

Funny how high tax jurisdictions never have enough money. Tax tax tax and still the people have worse outcomes. NY, CA, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The same parasite people who pay like $8k a month in property taxes and/or common charges to either the city or the building staff despite not using any city resources for most of the year?

You don’t think taking up valuable real estate to just have it sit there empty counts as using resources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same parasite people who pay like $8k a month in property taxes and/or common charges to either the city or the building staff despite not using any city resources for most of the year?

You don’t think taking up valuable real estate to just have it sit there empty counts as using resources?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can actually see why the tax might make sense but Mamdani was dumb going after Ken Griffin to appease "tax the rich" crown. He didn't bother to check Griffin's charitable activity in NYC. Over past few years Griffin donated:

- $400mm to Sloan Kettering cancer center
- $40mm to Museum of Natural History
- $12mm to NYC Hospital for Special Surgery
- $25mm to NYC success academy charter schools

Additional tax on Griffin's penthouse will be a drop in the ocean in comparison to these numbers. If Griffin decides to reduce his donations, NYC will be worse off.

Ken Griffin’s “donations” are a drop in the ocean compared to his net worth. He can f—k right off if he doesn’t like paying taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can actually see why the tax might make sense but Mamdani was dumb going after Ken Griffin to appease "tax the rich" crown. He didn't bother to check Griffin's charitable activity in NYC. Over past few years Griffin donated:

- $400mm to Sloan Kettering cancer center
- $40mm to Museum of Natural History
- $12mm to NYC Hospital for Special Surgery
- $25mm to NYC success academy charter schools

Additional tax on Griffin's penthouse will be a drop in the ocean in comparison to these numbers. If Griffin decides to reduce his donations, NYC will be worse off.

Oh, please. These are vanity donations and tax rights offs.

They are not tax write offs or tax credits. They are tax deductions which means the effective cost to Griffin is still hundreds of millions of dollars.

They may be vanity donations but they still benefit New York and New Yorkers. Mamdani could have picked a better target (e.g. a Russian oligarch - surely, there must be one) but his team is not very smart. They focused on dramatic effects and forgot about data. Math is hard...

apparently, as these donations are approximately 1% of Griffins net worth, and yet you’re on here simping for him…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can actually see why the tax might make sense but Mamdani was dumb going after Ken Griffin to appease "tax the rich" crown. He didn't bother to check Griffin's charitable activity in NYC. Over past few years Griffin donated:

- $400mm to Sloan Kettering cancer center
- $40mm to Museum of Natural History
- $12mm to NYC Hospital for Special Surgery
- $25mm to NYC success academy charter schools

Additional tax on Griffin's penthouse will be a drop in the ocean in comparison to these numbers. If Griffin decides to reduce his donations, NYC will be worse off.

Sounds like Ken can afford the tax. If not, I’m sure he can find a $4.99m apartment to not use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people hate ultra rich parasite people

The poor are the parasites.

Kill the rich. They are takers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can actually see why the tax might make sense but Mamdani was dumb going after Ken Griffin to appease "tax the rich" crown. He didn't bother to check Griffin's charitable activity in NYC. Over past few years Griffin donated:

- $400mm to Sloan Kettering cancer center
- $40mm to Museum of Natural History
- $12mm to NYC Hospital for Special Surgery
- $25mm to NYC success academy charter schools

Additional tax on Griffin's penthouse will be a drop in the ocean in comparison to these numbers. If Griffin decides to reduce his donations, NYC will be worse off.

Oh, please. These are vanity donations and tax rights offs.

They are not tax write offs or tax credits. They are tax deductions which means the effective cost to Griffin is still hundreds of millions of dollars.

They may be vanity donations but they still benefit New York and New Yorkers. Mamdani could have picked a better target (e.g. a Russian oligarch - surely, there must be one) but his team is not very smart. They focused on dramatic effects and forgot about data. Math is hard...

apparently, as these donations are approximately 1% of Griffins net worth, and yet you’re on here simping for him…

I can see logic is hard as well.

Griiffib’s total wealth, federal tax status of his donations or his moral character are all irrelevant to the question of what is best for the city. The question that should matter (to a pragmatic mayor) is how to maximize city’s tax intake while minimizing potential negative consequences (including loss of charity dollars).

Picking on Griffin was plain dumb. Of course, he can afford the tax. However, trading off a few single digit millions a year against a potential loss of tens or hundreds of million of donations is an unwise move. Griffin might not have noticed the tax if the announcement had been handled differently. You may not care about Griffin’s reaction (fair enough, you are probably not Mamdani) but anyone close to mayor’s administration should have asked the question whether a sleek video is worth the consequences before posting the clip on social media.

[Anonymous]

it makes me think he really identifies as a New Yorker - given the donations he's pledging and the events where he wants to be the "honored guest"- and yet he's not interested in paying city tax like the rest of us.