Non resident luxury tax on $5M + properties.

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

We do not know if he pays city tax.

I have to pay income tax in several states (even though I am based in NYC) because I travel a lot for work. There are different rules depending on how much time you spend in each state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m very pro this tax but I agree. Don’t pick on people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

We do not know if he pays city tax.

I have to pay income tax in several states (even though I am based in NYC) because I travel a lot for work. There are different rules depending on how much time you spend in each state.

no, this is not how it works.

I pay taxes in several states bcs I have income that is generated in several states. that is very different than city tax which is only paid by residents (over x days). you are only a resident on one area (majority of time).

we know he's not a resident and doesnt pay those taxes bcs if he did, he wouldnt have to pay the this pied a terre tax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response isn’t logical, dear.

There will be no consequences; Griffin isn’t going anywhere. Either way, he’s welcome to eat a giant bag of dicks.

[Anonymous]

My take: I think Mamdani wants the billionaires who own property but don't pay income taxes to NYC to leave. Why else would he so publicly go after one of them?

But a whole lot will have to leave in order for any of those properties on Billionaire's Row to ever get divided up into smaller, more affordable apartments.

I think NYC is going to go the way of CA, OR and WA. Still very expensive and not a great quality of life.