New York Passes Tax on the Ultra-Wealthy

One wrinkle I haven't heard much discussion of -- cities respond to incentives too. NYC is a global destination for the mega wealthy. If it turns out the uber-rich don't mind paying and this becomes a cash cow for the city, that creates incentives for the city to cater to them and try and get more uber-rich people to have second homes in the city.

> State lawmakers on Wednesday passed the tax on nonprimary residences in order to help close the city’s budget gap. The so-called pied-a-terre tax will be imposed on second homes valued at $1 million or more. It’s expected to raise $500 million in revenue.

> Details on the tax obtained by CNBC show that the property tax would take effect in two different phases. In the first two years – the tax years 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 – condos and co-ops valued at more than $1 million by the city’s Department of Finance will be subject to the tax. Properties worth between $1 million and $3 million will face a 4% annual tax; properties valued at $3 million to $5 million will face a 5.25% tax; and those above $5 million will face a 6.5% tax.

The rates sound a bit steep (although I'm not familiar with the baseline tax rates on properties of that value) but the principle is sound. In the UK, the equivalent tax on housing is council tax, and local councils in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) are empowered to double the rates of council tax on second homes.

Is there a better way to think about this?

Why's there an obsession with the $1m cutoff?

The dollar has been turned to dust. $1M is not that much money, especially in housing, especially in NYC.

Why tax $1m second homes and not second homes generally? Effectively, you're going to tax almost all second homes.

So why the arbitrary cutoff?

Chicago wanted to add a "millionaire's tax" on $1m+ home sales. At least in Chicago, that isn't effectively taxing the vast majority of housing (and total value) - so there's some distinction worth having.