The NYC housing bubble.

[fskimospy]

Does NY city not have a property tax already?

Yes they have a property tax, what I mean is that I would include an extra assessment for speculative properties. There are quite a few stories of high end buildings where very few of the apartments are actually occupied. They are just bought as investments and occasionally used. Considering what a premium housing space in NYC is at, I think people who are taking it up without actually using it should face am extra charge.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes they have a property tax, what I mean is that I would include an extra assessment for speculative properties. There are quite a few stories of high end buildings where very few of the apartments are actually occupied. They are just bought as investments and occasionally used. Considering what a premium housing space in NYC is at, I think people who are taking it up without actually using it should face am extra charge.

So now we are going to tell people how to use their property.

 

[cabri]

Yes they have a property tax, what I mean is that I would include an extra assessment for speculative properties. There are quite a few stories of high end buildings where very few of the apartments are actually occupied. They are just bought as investments and occasionally used. Considering what a premium housing space in NYC is at, I think people who are taking it up without actually using it should face am extra charge.

And how does one delineate that a unit is bought for speculation investment?

High end buildings cost more than low end buildings. Higher taxes as a result. Also requires higher costs to justify the cost of the building.

Low end buildings can turn into "projects".

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Yes they have a property tax, what I mean is that I would include an extra assessment for speculative properties. There are quite a few stories of high end buildings where very few of the apartments are actually occupied. They are just bought as investments and occasionally used. Considering what a premium housing space in NYC is at, I think people who are taking it up without actually using it should face am extra charge.

So you want to make those units even MORE expensive (via government added to their cost and which means pushing up the final end price) and thus more lucrative.

 

[fskimospy]

So you want to make those units even MORE expensive (via government added to their cost and which means pushing up the final end price) and thus more lucrative.

Uhmm, I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. They would be more expensive only for people who were not living in them. That gives a price advantage to residents and/or additional tax revenues if they remain unoccupied by their owners.

Making them more expensive for those who aren't using them is the whole point. It is utterly bizarre and in direct contradiction to basic economics that you think increased taxes on a property would make it more valuable.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Uhmm, I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. They would be more expensive only for people who were not living in them. That gives a price advantage to residents and/or additional tax revenues if they remain unoccupied by their owners.

Making them more expensive for those who aren't using them is the whole point. It is utterly bizarre and in direct contradiction to basic economics that you think increased taxes on a property would make it more valuable.

Taxes add to the cost of a unit and thus end up adding to the price of a unit. Imposing more taxes for these types of units will only drive up their price over the long term because...SURPRISE taxes in big cities like NYC almost always go up year after year, decade after decade.

So in a market like NYC you'd be inevitably pushing up the price of these units in the long term thus making their purchase as investments in more viable. As for having these wealthy people pay less in taxes if they "reside" in a unit goes, how exactly are you going to police that policy? How exactly are you going to determine who is staying in a resident without violating some basic rights of property owners and the right to privacy, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

Taxes add to the cost of a unit and thus end up adding to the price of a enit. So in a market like NYC you'd be pushing up the price of these units. AS for having these wealthy people pay less in taxes if they "reside" in a unit goes, how exactly are you going to police that policy? How exactly are you going to determine who is staying in a resident without violating some basic rights of property owners and the right to privacy, etc.

Uhmm , I don't know how to say this other than to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. An increase in taxes does not increase the cost of the unit for residents of NYC. Period. Also, an increase in taxes in absolutely no rational way would make the property more lucrative as you previously claimed. It would only make it more expensive for those not living in it, which is the whole point.

If your argument is that they will increase their sales prices to compensate for the taxes in time that will make their prices uncompetitive with other sales. The market corrects that easily.

As for verifying if the owner is a resident, that's super easy. You apply the assessment to the owner of each property unless they filed NYS taxes as an NYC resident with that as their address. If they aren't a resident there's no way they will fake being one on their tax return to avoid the assessment (as NYS tax rates are almost certain to cost these high income individuals more).

That should cover it all.

 

[K1052]

Taxes add to the cost of a unit and thus end up adding to the price of a unit. Imposing more taxes for these types of units will only drive up their price over the long term because...SURPRISE taxes in big cities like NYC almost always go up year after year, decade after decade.

So in a market like NYC you'd be inevitably pushing up the price of these units in the long term thus making their purchase as investments in more viable. As for having these wealthy people pay less in taxes if they "reside" in a unit goes, how exactly are you going to police that policy? How exactly are you going to determine who is staying in a resident without violating some basic rights of property owners and the right to privacy, etc.

Additional tax shouldn't be placed on the sale of a unit but the annual property tax levied if it isn't owner occupied by a resident of the state. It would not be all that difficult to establish a set of criteria. States have residency requirements for tax purposes backed up by audits and I don't see anyone waving the constitution at them.

FWIW odds are that if such a scheme was implemented here in SF I'd be paying the penalty since my primary residence and business is back in IL, so I have skin in the game. It is not to our cities benefit let foreign investors drive up pricing and keep supply artificially constrained in order to park their wealth.

 

[fskimospy]

So now we are going to tell people how to use their property.

We already have different tax structures based on how a property is used, so we have been telling people "what to do with their property" for a very long time.

I am consistently baffled by how little you seem to know about things that you are busy getting angry and indignant about.

 

[fskimospy]

Additional tax shouldn't be placed on the sale of a unit but the annual property tax levied if it isn't owner occupied by a resident of the state. It would not be all that difficult to establish a set of criteria. States have residency requirements for tax purposes backed up by audits and I don't see anyone waving the constitution at them.

FWIW odds are that if such a scheme was implemented here in SF I'd be paying the penalty since my primary residence and business is back in IL, so I have skin in the game. It is not to our cities benefit let foreign investors drive up pricing and keep supply artificially constrained in order to park their wealth.

Yeap.

 

[theeedude]

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...d-chelseas-buytoleave-phenomenon-9207306.html

When George Osborne announced in the Budget on Wednesday that properties worth more than £500,000 purchased through a company and left empty would be charged a punitive 15 per cent stamp duty, saying, “This abuse will end”, this was the nut he wanted to be seen to be cracking.

Looks like it's being considered in London.

 

[BurnItDwn]

so, it sounds like it's not a good idea to live in NYC unless you make like 300K or more?

 

[fskimospy]

so, it sounds like it's not a good idea to live in NYC unless you make like 300K or more?

It all depends on what you value. You sacrifice some income for the benefits that NYC has to offer in terms of culture, events, etc.

I don't know how I could live here if I made less than $50k a year though.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...d-chelseas-buytoleave-phenomenon-9207306.html

Looks like it's being considered in London.

Goes against my principles, but I can understand it. If one lives in an apartment, once contributes to the local economy in many ways. If one owns a vacant apartment, those do not apply and prevent someone else from so contributing. Someone who lives in Jersey rather than in NYC because of the price of housing is contributing only part of what she would were affordable (for her) housing available.

It all depends on what you value. You sacrifice some income for the benefits that NYC has to offer in terms of culture, events, etc.

I don't know how I could live here if I made less than $50k a year though.

Roughly a decade ago a neighbor had an old friend stay a few days. Dude was a goldsmith and he was boasting that he had a new employer in New York City who was going to pay him $25,000 a year. Setting aside his no-doubt rude surprise, how the hell can you trust someone with gold if you're paying him $25k in NYC?

 

[BoberFett]

Doesn't New York have a homestead status? I guess I don't know about anywhere else, I've only owned in MN. But here you have to be a resident to claim homestead on a property, non-homestead pays a higher tax rate on the property.

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't New York have a homestead status? I guess I don't know about anywhere else, I've only owned in MN. But here you have to be a resident to claim homestead on a property, non-homestead pays a higher tax rate on the property.

Yes, but it's effectively meaningless as far as these properties go. NYS homestead tax exemption makes the first $30,000 of a home's value non-taxable for school tax purposes. When it comes to a $10 million penthouse that's a rounding error.

 

[fskimospy]

Roughly a decade ago a neighbor had an old friend stay a few days. Dude was a goldsmith and he was boasting that he had a new employer in New York City who was going to pay him $25,000 a year. Setting aside his no-doubt rude surprise, how the hell can you trust someone with gold if you're paying him $25k in NYC?

Wow. I mean I guess you could live here on $25k but you're going to be sleeping on a couch in an apartment with 5 roommates or will be living (still with roommates) so far into Queens that it will take you 2 hours to get to work.

My guess is that gold seller got a rude surprise one day from some employee who sought to augment his income enough that he didn't have to eat cat food.