▲ 805 ▼ Mamdani Threatens 9.5% Property Tax Increase if Wealth Tax Is Not Passed (www.nytimes.com) submitted 5 months ago by avidamoeba@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world 237 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/55502152
[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (2 children) Just like every other cost related to owning and maintaining a rental: property taxes get passed down to renters. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) Do you suppose a wealth tax wouldn't also be passed on to renters? Should we just not tax the rich at all since they'll just pass the cost on to their tenants? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago There is one way a wealth tax probably wouldn't be passed down to renters. If everything over a certain point is taxed at 100%. Including stocks and all that stuff that rich people typically store their money. That way it doesn't matter if they increase the rent they still won't get more money out of it so there's no point in increasing it. They may be incentivized to sell properties in that case to bring property values down and therefore rent. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rushmonke@ttrpg.network 2 points 5 months ago Wrong. Renters already pay what the market is able to bear. Landlords aren't like "we'll leave money on the table just because our renters were suckers and didn't vote for people that will raise our taxes." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) Do you suppose a wealth tax wouldn't also be passed on to renters? Should we just not tax the rich at all since they'll just pass the cost on to their tenants? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago There is one way a wealth tax probably wouldn't be passed down to renters. If everything over a certain point is taxed at 100%. Including stocks and all that stuff that rich people typically store their money. That way it doesn't matter if they increase the rent they still won't get more money out of it so there's no point in increasing it. They may be incentivized to sell properties in that case to bring property values down and therefore rent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago There is one way a wealth tax probably wouldn't be passed down to renters. If everything over a certain point is taxed at 100%. Including stocks and all that stuff that rich people typically store their money. That way it doesn't matter if they increase the rent they still won't get more money out of it so there's no point in increasing it. They may be incentivized to sell properties in that case to bring property values down and therefore rent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rushmonke@ttrpg.network 2 points 5 months ago Wrong. Renters already pay what the market is able to bear. Landlords aren't like "we'll leave money on the table just because our renters were suckers and didn't vote for people that will raise our taxes." permalink fedilink source parent