durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,251
- 18,982
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Zohran Mamdani Proposes Taxing 'Whiter Neighborhoods' in NYC
- Thread starter ThatRobGuy
- Start date
- Oct 7, 2018
- 11,059
- 9,107
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Where is this document?
Zohran Mamdani proposes taxing 'whiter neighborhoods' in NYC
One conservative commentator branded Mamdani a "racist" in response to his proposal.www.newsweek.com
A housing policy document on Mamdani's official website includes a pledge to "shift the tax burden from homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods."
Upvote
0
ralliann
christian
- Jun 27, 2007
- 7,946
- 2,509
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Because he wants to just tax whites. Isn't he Indian?
In New York
From wikki
"Indians in the New York City metropolitan area constitute one of the largest and fastest-growing ethnicities in the New York City metropolitan area of the United States. The New York City region is home to the largest and most prominent Indian American population among metropolitan areas by a significant margin, enumerating 711,174 uniracial individuals based on the 2013–2017 U.S. Census American Community Survey estimates.[6] The Asian Indian population also represents the second-largest metropolitan Asian national diaspora both outside of Asia and within the New York City metropolitan area, following the also rapidly growing and hemisphere-leading population of the estimated 893,697 uniracial Chinese in the New York City metropolitan area in 2017"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 11,059
- 9,107
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Precisely! Here in California our Indian population are among the wealthiest.
Upvote
0
ralliann
christian
- Jun 27, 2007
- 7,946
- 2,509
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Indians in the New York City metropolitan region
India Square in Jersey City, New Jersey, United States, is home to the highest concentration of Asian Indians in the Western Hemisphere,[1] and one of at least 24 Indian American enclaves characterized as a Little India which have emerged within the New York City Metropolitan Area, with the largest metropolitan Indian population outside Asia, as large-scale immigration from India continues into New York City.[2][3][4][5]
Oh my these escape!
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,836
- 16,860
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,836
- 16,860
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Interestingly enough, he's also pushing for rent controls, a policy that economists spanning the political spectrum have agreed is bad policy.
(in fact, it's one of the few things that both left-leaning and right-leaning and libertarian economists actually do agree on)
When Thomas Sowell (L), Paul Krugman (D), Milton Friedman (R) all say it's a bad idea (despite having very different views on several other facets of economics), it's a pretty safe bet that it's a bad idea.
en.wikipedia.org
I'm half expecting some "REAL rent control has never been tried before"-style posts to start popping up on social media lol.
(in fact, it's one of the few things that both left-leaning and right-leaning and libertarian economists actually do agree on)
When Thomas Sowell (L), Paul Krugman (D), Milton Friedman (R) all say it's a bad idea (despite having very different views on several other facets of economics), it's a pretty safe bet that it's a bad idea.
Rent control in the United States - Wikipedia
I'm half expecting some "REAL rent control has never been tried before"-style posts to start popping up on social media lol.
- Jun 29, 2010
- 4,222
- 3,544
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Bringing race into it, was either amazingly poor judgement or he really hates white people.
Upvote
0
ralliann
christian
- Jun 27, 2007
- 7,946
- 2,509
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Perhaps he will de-whitey, in his form of degentrification.
From wikki. Take note on [2]
"Gentrification is the process whereby the character of a neighborhood changes through the influx of more affluent residents (the "gentry") and investment.[1]
[2] There is no agreed-upon definition of gentrification.[3][4] In public discourse, it has been used to describe a wide array of phenomena, sometimes in a pejorative connotation.[4]"
Focus in his view of gentrifying neighborhoods.
"Prior to becoming an Assemblymember, Zohran worked directly with these New Yorkers
to keep them in their homes, serving as a Foreclosure Prevention Housing Counselor at
Chhaya CDC. He knows how the city’s property tax system favors wealthier homeowners
in gentrifying neighborhoods, has seen how the tax lien sale system leads to families
losing their homes, recognizes how deed theft is displacing entire communities, and
understands how the city lets speculators and slumlords box working class New Yorkers
out of homes. And he has a plan to fix it as Mayor."
Well we will see what New York does. Indeed voters get what they deserve.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,836
- 16,860
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
You have to keep in mind the modern narratives that exist as the backdrop...
I've noted it before, but among a substantial pocket of the progressive left (notice I didn't say all, but a noteworthy pocket -- so before anyone jumps all over my case for that lol) views most things through an "colonialism -- oppressed v. oppressor" lens, underpinned with a "pigment based" evaluation system.
How that shakes out in practical terms? Things that would be considered overtly racist going in the direction of "lighter -> darker" are celebrated as speaking truth to power when going in the opposite direction.
I'll use a city here in Ohio as an example... Bedford is an area where the Black households have a higher median income level than White households.
If I decided to run for Mayor of Bedford (I don't live there, but let's pretend), and put out a document saying "we need to transfer taxation over to the more well-to-do Black neighborhoods", I would get accused of implying some sort of "uppity" dog whistle.
The part that's more surprising is how quickly some were willing to abandon other values in order to stick with that particular lens. Iran, on paper, is opposed to everything progressives hold dear, women's rights, gay rights, opposing theocracy, etc... but there are progressive protestors out there waving Iranian flags simply because they're embroiled in a conflict with Israel.
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 11,059
- 9,107
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
IMPORTANT FACTSHomeowner Policy Memo.pdf
drive.google.com
Thanks for the link. Here are the facts of the situation. It has been well documented:
New York City's property tax system disproportionately burdens homeowners in less affluent, often outer borough, and minority neighborhoods, while favoring more expensive homes in wealthier areas, is widely supported by various reports and analyses.
The way wealthier homes in New York City can end up paying less in property taxes, relative to their market value, compared to less wealthy homes is due to several complexities and historical quirks in the city's property tax system. The key factors include:
* Assessment Caps (especially for Class 1 properties):
* New York City's property tax system classifies properties into different categories (e.g., Class 1 for 1-3 family homes, Class 2 for larger residential buildings like co-ops and condos, Class 3 for utilities, and Class 4 for commercial properties).
* For Class 1 properties, there are state-mandated assessment caps. This means the assessed value (the value on which taxes are calculated) cannot increase by more than 6% in any one year or 20% over any five-year period.
* In rapidly appreciating markets, like many wealthier neighborhoods in Manhattan or parts of Brooklyn, the market value of homes can skyrocket much faster than these caps allow the assessed value to increase. This creates a widening gap between the market value and the assessed value. As a result, these properties effectively pay taxes on a much lower percentage of their true market value.
* In contrast, in neighborhoods where property values have not increased as dramatically, or perhaps have even stagnated, the assessed value is often much closer to the market value. This means homeowners in these areas end up paying a higher effective tax rate (tax paid as a percentage of market value).
* Fractional Assessments and Different Assessment Ratios:
* NYC uses a "fractional assessment" system, meaning properties are assessed at a fraction of their estimated market value.
* Class 1 properties are assessed at 6% of their market value.
* Class 2, 3, and 4 properties are assessed at 45% of their market value.
* While on the surface it seems that properties assessed at 45% (like co-ops and condos) should pay more, the combination of assessment methodologies and caps can lead to luxury co-ops and condos being significantly undervalued for tax purposes compared to their actual sales prices. The Department of Finance often bases the valuation of these units on hypothetical rental income or comparable rentals, which can significantly understate their true market value, especially for high-end properties.
* "Taxes Based on Location" and Gentrification Effects:
* The way property taxes are calculated has historical roots aimed at avoiding huge tax bills for homeowners. However, this system didn't fully account for rapid gentrification and soaring property values in certain areas.
* This has led to situations where properties in areas that have experienced rapid value appreciation (often wealthier areas) end up paying relatively less in property taxes compared to areas with more stable or slower growth in property values, where assessments more closely reflect market value.
* How "Low Rates are Made Up by Climbing Taxes in Other Parts of the City":
* Because the city needs to collect a certain amount of property tax revenue to fund services, the lower effective rates paid by some wealthier properties (due to assessment caps and undervaluation) effectively shift a greater portion of the overall tax burden onto other properties that are assessed closer to their market value or have less protective assessment caps. This often includes homeowners in outer boroughs and certain types of rental properties.
In essence, the NYC property tax system's structure, particularly the assessment caps and valuation methods for different property classes, leads to a situation where properties that have seen the largest increases in market value (often in wealthier areas) benefit from artificially suppressed assessed values, resulting in a lower effective tax rate for their owners, while other properties bear a proportionally higher share of the tax burden.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,836
- 16,860
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Great, so why was the "white" part tossed in there in the memo?
Seems as if such a well thought-out and aggregated list of selling points could've left out that little bit of pandering.
I have theories on that... there's a difference between "in a perfect world -- people would say gee shucks, yeah, I should be paying more, here's the extra 70k of tax money", and world where people have freedom of movement to relocate to another state that's offering them a more enticing tax plan. We live in the latter, they're going to have to acknowledge and accept that.
It seems as if they're trying to preemptively hedge this whole plan with a way where they can point the finger at "White flight" later when this doesn't go as planned.
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 11,059
- 9,107
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
It's not " tossed" , it is factual but, I can understand why it might feel uncomfortable.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,836
- 16,860
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Well sure it was "tossed in"
For what other purpose would
Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods
...sound better than...
Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer neighborhoods
??
Other cities have had this same narrative pattern before.
There's a certain set of narratives that paint the "rich whiteys" as being the bad guys no matter what.
When a bunch of well-to-do people move into a neighborhood and spruce the place up, it gets a pejorative label of "gentrification"
"A bunch of these rich white people moved in, and caused the prices of things to increase and now people can't even afford to dine in their neighborhood...we need raise taxes on them to make them pay their fair share!"
"Well, I don't intend on parting with 40% of my income, so peace out! I'll leave"
"Hey, look, it's white flight, these selfish white people would rather leave than stay and help the community"
They can't have it both ways...
Let's just be honest, nobody likes getting fleeced for taxes...
The kinds of people who have the money to pay big taxes want nice things in their communities, nice things cost money. Nobody works to climb the corporate ladder to eat at Burger King and Applebees. They want the Burger King to be ripped out so they can get a gourmet sushi joint a block from their house, that's just the way it is.
People like Mamdani still seem to be under the false impression that people who make a lot of money will be willing to "slum it" in terms of their entertainment, dining, and shopping options in the name of some sort of communal interest in 'the public good'...that's just not the way things work.
Last edited:
ralliann
christian
- Jun 27, 2007
- 7,946
- 2,509
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Are you all noticing any thing here?
Indians where...New york city METROPOLITAN AREA. The next post identifies this as NEW JERSEY.
Indians in the New York City metropolitan region
India Square in Jersey City, New Jersey, United States, is home to the highest concentration of Asian Indians in the Western Hemisphere,[1] and one of at least 24 Indian American enclaves characterized as a Little India which have emerged within the New York City Metropolitan Area, with the largest metropolitan Indian population outside Asia, as large-scale immigration from India continues into New York City.[2][3][4][5]
These people will not be subject to any of this. They are in another state.
However their close proximity to do business in NEW YORK. They may as well live in New York. But they don't
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The other part of this is Democrats have run the state for a very long time. They could have done something about this property tax thing a long time ago. However they are also smart enough to know that rich people wouldn't put up with such tax increases on their property. They will bail.
The democrats need their money. So they cater to what's politically expedient and just give lip service to "the rich dont pay their fair share". All the while knowing you can't ask them to pay a 40% property tax or whatever.
Now Mamdani is adding to this mantra and adding "white" to the mix just so he can get further support from his base. "Yeah lets get Whitey Richman".
It will be interesting to see what happens politically. The outcome of politics can be quite different than political promises.
The democrats need their money. So they cater to what's politically expedient and just give lip service to "the rich dont pay their fair share". All the while knowing you can't ask them to pay a 40% property tax or whatever.
Now Mamdani is adding to this mantra and adding "white" to the mix just so he can get further support from his base. "Yeah lets get Whitey Richman".
It will be interesting to see what happens politically. The outcome of politics can be quite different than political promises.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
