General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn Tax Day, Mamdani Taxed the Rich
The mayor, his supporters, and public opinion convinced their previously reluctant governor to agree to a tax on the second (or third, fourth, fifth, etc.) homes of their citys nonresident rich.
https://prospect.org/2026/04/16/mamdani-hochul-new-york-pied-a-terre-tax-the-rich/

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani waves during an address marking his first hundred days in office, April 12, 2026, at the Knockdown Center in New York. Credit: Andres Kudacki/AP Photo
Six months after Gov. Kathy Hochul scolded New Yorkers for telling her to tax the rich, she joined New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to do just that. The two officials instituted a pied-à-terre tax on second homes worth over $5 million, a fee that would apply to the ultra-wealthy who store their wealth in New York City real estate but who dont actually live here, Mamdani said in a video announcement of the new tax set to music that sounds like the theme song to Succession.
Theyre able to reap the huge financial rewards of owning property in, dare I say, the greatest city in the world, Mamdani said, and most of the time the units sit empty. This is a fundamentally unfair system that hurts working New Yorkers. He gave examples of the types of homes hes talking about, including billionaire Ken Griffins $238 million penthouse in Midtown, once the most expensive home in the country, and Russian auto dealer Alexander Varshavskys $20.5 million property, which he bought in cash. Mamdani counted thousands more similarly opulent homes owned by foreign oligarchs and the global ultra-rich.
The new fee would bring in about $500 million annually, less than 10 percent of the citys projected budget deficit of $5.4 billion. Nonetheless, its a crack in Hochuls stone wall against the idea of applying any new tax against the rich, which shes maintained for months. At a rally for the Mamdani mayoral campaign in October, New Yorkers chanted Tax the rich at Hochul when she took the stage. Initially, she pretended that she thought the audience was yelling Lets go, Bills, in reference to the NFL team from Buffalo. Then she tried other ways to get out of the intensely popular demand, including repeating the lie that taxes on the ultra-wealthy prompt them to leave, which has repeatedly been proven untrue, and saying that having to listen to a repeat request from the constituents she serves is akin to her having to put up with a lot of crap.
I hear you, Hochul said a month later when some in the audience at a political conference in Puerto Rico told her to tax the rich. But Im the type of person, the more you push me, the more Im not going to do what you want. So little lesson to all of our friends out there. Later, she told reporters that Buffalo natives dont put up with a lot of crap, adding, You look at the history of people whove run multimillion-dollar ad campaigns to try and get me to change my position. I dont change my position. But that was 2025, and her constituents did not shut up. Not only did Mamdani continue to advocate for taxing the rich, but the massive volunteer network built during his campaign did as well. Volunteers knocked on doors to tell their neighbors that Hochul was standing in the way of Mamdanis project to tax the rich, plugging in with the new 501(c)(4) Our Time to sign up for canvassing shifts. Unlike 501(c)(3) nonprofits, 501(c)(4) organizations can lobby.
snip
Scrivener7
(59,803 posts)It absolutely isn't.
If they want to go, I'll pack their bags for them.
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,730 posts)Celerity
(54,652 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(156,730 posts)I have a feeling this is going to take a while.
MichMan
(17,253 posts)Seems like they are still paying a lot of property taxes and not using any city services. Why are those residing there taxed less than those who don't?
PeaceWave
(3,616 posts)...in order to dodge NYC income taxes. This way, presumably, NYC will extract some form of tax from the "wealthy" no matter what. For the truly wealthy (I'm talking about $100+ million wealth), they're definitely going to be in a bind. Even if they escape NYC income tax by moving to say Florida, they're going to have a hard time unloading their previous primary residence in NYC - since demand for such residences is going to flatline. The wealthy are remarkably adept at creating solutions to avoid tax though. What I think will happen is that this new "pied-à-terre tax" will stem the tide of very wealthy individuals leaving the city but create whole new avenues for dodging NYC income tax. Executive compensation packages that defer the majority of income out 10 or 20 years until a time when the executive is retired and then living in Florida. That kind of thing. It's going to be fascinating to see how it all plays out. California is about a year or so behind NYC in its efforts to more aggressively tax the wealthy. Hopefully, we here can learn from NYC as to what to do and what not to do.
MichMan
(17,253 posts)If property values flatline, won't property tax revenues follow?
PeaceWave
(3,616 posts)...but the interesting thing will be what happens with income tax revenue. There is nothing in any of Mamdani's tax proposals to stop some wealthy guy who only owns one residence in NYC from simply selling that place and buying into some upscale part of Connecticut while renting a second place in NYC. In this way, that guy would continue to pay existing NYC income tax but dodge any wealth and property taxes Mamdani has planned for the wealthy.
Scrivener7
(59,803 posts)Russian gangsters buying up properties to launder their money, and the apartments just sit empty for years.
This encourages developers to build apartments that will bring the exorbitant prices those people will pay rather than more modest housing. It runs up housing costs to the stratosphere and makes the city completely unaffordable to those who actually live there.
If this tax makes the city less attractive to these people, that might help restore some affordability to NYC housing, or at least slow the rate of increase.
MichMan
(17,253 posts)$100 million dollar apartment. Why not a $20 million annual property tax?
Scrivener7
(59,803 posts)MichMan
(17,253 posts)Scrivener7
(59,803 posts)Two different goals.
W_HAMILTON
(10,379 posts)MichMan
(17,253 posts)Are there a lot of vacant unoccupied housing units sitting around that people can't afford to rent? People seem to still want to live there and pay what it takes.
I didn't see anything in the link about the tax plan being introduced to make making housing more affordable for everyone else. Perhaps I missed it. Are they planning on using the $$$ from taxing $5 million dollar non occupied residences in order to give everyone a housing subsidy?
Living in a big city is not for me, but to each their own.
W_HAMILTON
(10,379 posts)- If things stay the way they are, it's more money the city takes in from taxes that it can use to make up its existing budget shortfall from providing services already.
- If the rich leave because of the tax, it's more units available for people to live in, which will ultimately drive down housing costs.
- If the rich start renting out their units because of the tax, it's more units available for people to live in, which will ultimately drive down housing costs.
MichMan
(17,253 posts)Where will the money go?
The proposed tax is projected to generate $500 million in revenue that will be diverted to city services.
During a press conference on Friday, Mamdani said the money will be used to fund "essential city services like free child care, cleaner streets, and safer neighborhoods."
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/nycs-plan-tax-luxury-second-091102302.html
JI7
(93,755 posts)will lower cost of housing.
MichMan
(17,253 posts)I looked at the numbers. The number of residences worth over $5 million in NYC is pretty low.13,000 estimated compared to a total of 3.7 million. Only a percentage of the 13,000 are owned by non residents, so the number affected by the tax is much less than that.
Assuming they were all owned by non residents (which they aren't) and all of them were sold, (which is very unlikely) that means that available housing stocks would be increased a whopping 0.35%.
