Even if (more likely "when") Momdani becomes NYC Mayor studies show the richest New Yorkers will stay

[essentialsaltes]

How does someone invest in low income housing if they are rent controlled even before they are built?

With money? I'm not sure what the question is.

We build public housing to house people, not as an investment property.

ETA:

Housing By and For New York​

Investing in Public Sector Development​

From the first public housing in the nation to the union-built, publicly-funded, limited equity cooperatives that have kept hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers affordably housed, New York was once a beacon of creative, public sector-led, affordable housing production. But decades of disinvestment and shrinking government capacity have left us waiting on the real estate industry to solve a housing crisis from which they profit.

As Mayor, Zohran Mamdani will triple the City’s production of publicly-subsidized, affordable, union-built, rent-stabilized homes—creating 200,000 new units over the next 10 years. And he will double the amount of capital we are investing into preserving the homes of existing public housing tenants.

 

[iluvatar5150]

How does someone invest in low income housing if they are rent controlled even before they are built?

If the rent cap is enough to cover the cost of construction, then voila, profit. It's not like there aren't other industries with price controls: utilities and non-elective medical care are the two that come to mind immediately, with utility prices typically controlled by the government and medical prices by insurance companies.

I don't think rent control is a good idea, but it's not entirely unworkable.

 

[Always in His Presence]

With money? I'm not sure what the question is.

We build public housing to house people, not as an investment property.

ETA:

Housing By and For New York​

Investing in Public Sector Development​

From the first public housing in the nation to the union-built, publicly-funded, limited equity cooperatives that have kept hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers affordably housed, New York was once a beacon of creative, public sector-led, affordable housing production. But decades of disinvestment and shrinking government capacity have left us waiting on the real estate industry to solve a housing crisis from which they profit.

As Mayor, Zohran Mamdani will triple the City’s production of publicly-subsidized, affordable, union-built, rent-stabilized homes—creating 200,000 new units over the next 10 years. And he will double the amount of capital we are investing into preserving the homes of existing public housing tenants.

Try actually listening to the video.

If the rent cap is enough to cover the cost of construction, then voila, profit. It's not like there aren't other industries with price controls: utilities and non-elective medical care are the two that come to mind immediately, with utility prices typically controlled by the government and medical prices by insurance companies.

I don't think rent control is a good idea, but it's not entirely unworkable.

If you just cover the cost of construction - where is the profit?

They expect investors to put millions into a building project, construction, permits - some the highest property taxes in the US - insurances and utilities. Then the same people who just put up all that investment are told by the government what they can and can not rent their property for.

Would you do it?

If that is not totalitarianism, not sure what it is.

 

[Hentenza]

No, we want rich people to pay a higher marginal tax rate than they do now. That way, we might be able to afford all the things that We The People want to do with our tax revenues without going deeper into debt.

Who is we?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Interesting questions from Kevin O'Leary -

How does someone invest in low income housing if they are rent controlled even before they are built?

Ask Fred Trump. He built a fortune building subsidized apartments in NYC.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who is we?

"Those that walk around demanding the rich pay their fair share"

I may be speaking principally for myself, but I'm positive my take is far more common than the other poster's ludicrous take.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Ask Fred Trump. He built a fortune building subsidized apartments in NYC.

Fred Died 26 years ago.

I'm talking about people who are alive and operate in the current market place - like Kevin O'Leary.

 

[Always in His Presence]

No, we want rich people to pay a higher marginal tax rate than they do now. That way, we might be able to afford all the things that We The People want to do with our tax revenues without going deeper into debt.

Do you support a balanced budget amendment for states and nationally?

Do you live in NY?

 

[Hentenza]

"Those that walk around demanding the rich pay their fair share"

I may be speaking principally for myself, but I'm positive my take is far more common than the other poster's ludicrous take.

Thanks for your honest response.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you support a balanced budget amendment for states and nationally?

I certainly support reducing deficits, but an amendment would be too constricting. Trump's pandemic spending was expensive and unpaid for, but necessary.

Do you live in NY?

No.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I certainly support reducing deficits, but an amendment would be too constricting. Trump's pandemic spending was expensive and unpaid for, but necessary.

Passing a balanced budget amendment would guarantee no deficit spending. Why not support it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Fred Died 26 years ago.

I am aware of that. Just pointing out that it can be done. You could check with Charles Kushner. I believe he also built his fortune on similar apartments. He is alive and (disgracefully) serves as US abassador to the court of Versailles.

I'm talking about people who are alive and operate in the current market place - like Kevin O'Leary.

Does he build low-rent apartments? I all I know about him is that he is some rich guy from Canada who is on some "reality" TV show.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I am aware of that. Just pointing out that it can be done. You could check with Charles Kushner. I believe he also built his fortune on similar apartments. He is alive and (disgracefully) serves as US abassador to the court of Versailles.

Here's the issue - your need to add (disgracefully) belies a severe bias. IMHO - it taints your credibility.

BTW It is spelled ambassador (grammar police are in the forum).

Asking people who have been successful in the past under Democratic and Republican Leadership is not beneficial because the circumstances are changing. They built under different regulations, tax rates and codes etc.

To formulate a statement the circumstances have to be similar - and they are not.

Does he build low-rent apartments? I all I know about him is that he is some rich guy from Canada who is on some "reality" TV show.

You should really do your own research - since you don't ever accept mine.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here's the issue - your need to add (disgracefully) belies a severe bias. IMHO - it taints your credibility.

Charles Kushner is a disgusting (Trump pardoned) criminal. (Read up on his federal crimes if you want to know why I think so. It's not critical to this post.) It *is* a disgrace that Charles Kushner is the US ambassador to France.

BTW It is spelled ambassador (grammar police are in the forum).

1. This is spelling, not grammar.
2. My keyboard is failing and needs replacement. It tends to drop letters (like the "p" in "drop" which I had to go back and fix.)

Asking people who have been successful in the past under Democratic and Republican Leadership is not beneficial because the circumstances are changing. They built under different regulations, tax rates and codes etc.

To formulate a statement the circumstances have to be similar - and they are not.

There have been no major changes to federal housing law.

You should really do your own research - since you don't ever accept mine.

You won't even tell me if this guy is in real estate or housing. That's on you. I didn't post a video from some minor Trump bootlick. You did.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Academic Studies Showing Mamdani’s Tax May Lead To Wealthy Taxpayer Migration​

Whether wealthy taxpayers leave a jurisdiction when facing higher tax liabilities has been studied within the economics, finance, and accounting academic literatures. The findings have been rooted in the Scholes-Wolfson Framework, which suggests that taxpayers in a global planning framework should consider all taxes, all parties, and all costs. Thus, when a taxpayer faces an increase in explicit taxes, not unlike the increase Mamdani proposes for the wealthiest New York City residents, they are likely to weigh these costs against relocating.

Of particular note, Cassidy, Dinecco, and Troiano’s published work in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy in 2024 evaluates U.S. states that implemented an individual income tax from 1900 to 2010. They find that while the tax revenues per capita increase following taxes being imposed by states, it comes at a cost. In particular, the tax revenues for each taxpayer goes up but this result is, in part, because wealthy taxpayers leave. They suggest that these taxpayers have high mobility due to their resources, and the effects of the higher tax rates do not have their intended effect since the wealthiest taxpayers migrate out.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Charles Kushner is a disgusting (Trump pardoned) criminal. (Read up on his federal crimes if you want to know why I think so. It's not critical to this post.) It *is* a disgrace that Charles Kushner is the US ambassador to France.

No - I leave that to you. thanks for your opinion

1. This is spelling, not grammar.

Sorry, the grammar patrol often takes on the duties of spell checkers also - at least that has been my experience.

2. My keyboard is failing and needs replacement. It tends to drop letters (like the "p" in "drop" which I had to go back and fix.)

whatever - just trying to help

There have been no major changes to federal housing law.

The man isn't in office yet - that is what we are discussing - what the Socialist wants to do. And we are NOT addressing federal housing law - but City regulations.

You won't even tell me if this guy is in real estate or housing. That's on you. I didn't post a video from some minor Trump bootlick. You did.

Nope - See I use AI for getting a lot of information and you have repeatedly stated how you do not follow bots - etc. Please don't ask me to do something you have consistently complained about my doing.

Also your rude biased moniker towards the man - without you even knowing who he is - prevents civil discourse - certainly we are both intelligent and mature enough to share our thoughts without what appears to be sophomoric name calling.

 

[probinson]

Academic Studies Showing Mamdani’s Tax May Lead To Wealthy Taxpayer Migration​

Whether wealthy taxpayers leave a jurisdiction when facing higher tax liabilities has been studied within the economics, finance, and accounting academic literatures. The findings have been rooted in the Scholes-Wolfson Framework, which suggests that taxpayers in a global planning framework should consider all taxes, all parties, and all costs. Thus, when a taxpayer faces an increase in explicit taxes, not unlike the increase Mamdani proposes for the wealthiest New York City residents, they are likely to weigh these costs against relocating.

Of particular note, Cassidy, Dinecco, and Troiano’s published work in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy in 2024 evaluates U.S. states that implemented an individual income tax from 1900 to 2010. They find that while the tax revenues per capita increase following taxes being imposed by states, it comes at a cost. In particular, the tax revenues for each taxpayer goes up but this result is, in part, because wealthy taxpayers leave. They suggest that these taxpayers have high mobility due to their resources, and the effects of the higher tax rates do not have their intended effect since the wealthiest taxpayers migrate out.

Interesting article.

There is little doubt that some taxpayers will continue to stay in New York City even after Mamdani imposes his city tax on high earning taxpayers. In that regard, the proponents of imposing the tax have credible arguments that the tax rate increase will not result in all millionaires suddenly departing New York City. However, what is missing from these commentaries and Mamdani’s platform is evidence and analysis suggesting that wealthy New York City residents and corporations will remain in place to the point that it can sustainably generate $10 billion in additional tax revenues annually to fund his proposed social projects. A significant amount of academic evidence both in this article and beyond seems to be at odds with the expectation that wealthy taxpayers will stay put when facing higher tax burdens, and the problem might be exacerbated by the fact that these taxpayers may only need to move a few miles.​

​

We'll all find out soon enough which speculations translate to reality.

 

[Always in His Presence]

One million New Yorkers preparing to flee NYC as polls predict Zohran Mamdani win​

According to a recent poll conducted by J.L. Partners for Daily Mail, nearly one million New Yorkers are already preparing to leave should Mamdani win the election.​

​

Experts point to the growing anxiety among wealthy New Yorkers as the catalyst for a major shift in the city’s real estate market. High-end properties are being snapped up by those seeking refuge in less-taxed and less-regulated areas, most notably in suburban Connecticut and Westchester County.​

​

New York realtor Jay Batra told Daily Mail that many of his clients, who had previously been looking at multimillion-dollar apartments in Manhattan, are now pulling the plug on their purchases.​

 

[Always in His Presence]

From Realtor dot com

Wealthy New Yorkers Are Preparing for a Mayoral Election Exodus—Sparking Luxury Bidding War in Affluent Suburbs​

With Democratic Socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani leading in the polls—and promising sweeping tax and housing reforms—a growing number of affluent New Yorkers are quietly eyeing up alternative locales, asking brokers to line up properties in such places as Westchester County, NY, and New Jersey.​

​

“Yes, the election is definitely playing a big role in buyers’ motivation to relocate," Taylor Lucyk, broker and founder of the Taylor Lucyk Group in Bergen County, NJ, tells Realtor.com®.​

​

They’re calling it the “Mamdani effect,” a sudden rush of Manhattan and Brooklyn buyers eager to lock in suburban properties before potential policy shifts take hold.​

​

"While several factors are fueling this resurgence, concerns about the mayoral election keep coming up among buyers from New York. City residents eyeing the suburbs have cited a potential Mamdani victory as a key reason for making their move," they said.​

​

"Nearly all of the Westchester towns have no resident income tax, and many potential buyers have voiced concerns that resident income taxes in the city may be on the rise."​

​

Bidding wars are really heating up as demand outpaces supply, the agent duo explained.​

 

[iluvatar5150]

Try actually listening to the video.

If you just cover the cost of construction - where is the profit?

I didn't think I needed to get super clear on this point, but ok:

Yes, the rent cap would need to be high enough to cover construction and and ongoing maintenance and profit.

Is that clearer?

If that is not totalitarianism, not sure what it is.

Then perhaps you should read a book on something like history or systems of government. Heck, even a dictionary would enlighten you.

Academic Studies Showing Mamdani’s Tax May Lead To Wealthy Taxpayer Migration​

Whether wealthy taxpayers leave a jurisdiction when facing higher tax liabilities has been studied within the economics, finance, and accounting academic literatures. The findings have been rooted in the Scholes-Wolfson Framework, which suggests that taxpayers in a global planning framework should consider all taxes, all parties, and all costs. Thus, when a taxpayer faces an increase in explicit taxes, not unlike the increase Mamdani proposes for the wealthiest New York City residents, they are likely to weigh these costs against relocating.

Of particular note, Cassidy, Dinecco, and Troiano’s published work in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy in 2024 evaluates U.S. states that implemented an individual income tax from 1900 to 2010. They find that while the tax revenues per capita increase following taxes being imposed by states, it comes at a cost. In particular, the tax revenues for each taxpayer goes up but this result is, in part, because wealthy taxpayers leave. They suggest that these taxpayers have high mobility due to their resources, and the effects of the higher tax rates do not have their intended effect since the wealthiest taxpayers migrate out.

That study isn't the slam dunk the Forbes author seems to think it is.

Here's the full thing if you want to read it yourself:

https://www.traviss-cassidy.com/uploads/1/2/7/5/127541915/cdt_tax.pdf

The authors of the paper point out that there's a difference between states that implemented the sales tax before WW2 and those that did so after, with only the "late adopters" experiencing any out migration due to the income tax. However, only eleven states enacted a sales tax after the war. Ten of them in the period of 1961-1971 and the last in 1976. Nearly all of those states are in the rust belt and their timeline of decreasing revenues and outmigration matches with the decades-long de-industrialization of that region. They try to control for shocks, but I question how effectively they do so.