The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersSBPDL Blog
In the Name of Equity, New York Lawmakers Seek to Create a Gentrification Tax (Tax on White Property Purchasers)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Let’s just call it the white tax and be done with it.[City lawmakers want to impose gentrification tax, New York Post, December 26, 2019]:

Here’s one thing that unites local pols across the political divide — a gentrification tax.

A bipartisan group of city lawmakers is pushing Albany to approve tweaks to the state tax laws that would allow them to hit new homebuyers with tax bills based on the actual market prices of their properties.

The coalition of 13 Republican and Democratic city council members says that taxes would not go up for existing owners.

New York’s famously opaque property tax system offers big breaks to new homebuyers by taxing them at assessed values that are often millions of dollars less than the market price.

For instance, a buyer who snapped up a Clinton Hill brownstone for $3 million in 2017 only has to pay taxes on a sliver of that amount — $24,000, leaving the lucky owner with a tax bill of just $4,297 a year.

Meanwhile, the owner of a relatively modest half-million-dollar Bergen Beach bungalow pays nearly an identical amount, despite being worth just one-sixth the price on the market.

The current system amounts to a giant giveaway for gentrifiers, Staten Island Councilman Joe Borelli told The Post.

“People are just getting fed up with the loophole, and they’re demanding action,” the GOP politician added.

The bipartisan coalition also includes Park Slope Democrat Brad Lander and Bay Ridge Democrat Justin Brannan.

They’re backing a resolution that calls on state lawmakers to change the tax law to require new homebuyers to pay property taxes on the market rate instead of the heavily discounted assessed value.

The change would boost the Clinton Hill gentrifiers bill by $1,600 a year while keeping the Bergen Beach old timer’s costs the same.

“Borelli’s plan to reset the tax cap whenever a new owner purchases a property would bring a small drop of fairness to a system that is just completely screwed and totally unfair,” Brannan said.

Borelli sent the proposed resolution to City Council Speaker Corey Johnson and state Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie earlier this month with a letter asking for the change.

Reps for Heastie did not return calls.

Johnson’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Fermino, said, the speaker is awaiting the preliminary report from a property tax reform commission he convened with Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2018.

“The Advisory Commission is looking at Real Property Tax Law 1805 as part of its review of our broken system,” Fermino added. “Any recommendations for changes will be part of the commission’s preliminary report. The Speaker is looking forward to reviewing their recommendations when the report is ready.

There’s no deadline for the initial tax overhaul report, which has been reportedly near release since July.

A spokeswoman for de Blasio also punted on Borelli’s plan, referring to the overdue tax study.

“The property tax system is complex, and we appreciate Council Member Borelli’s interest in reforming the Real Property Tax Law,” said Marcy Miranda, press secretary for the city’s Department of Finance.

ORDER IT NOW

Communities filled with people of color sit on desirable real estate, whose primary impediment to appreciating property values is the paucity of whites. So of course an extra tax should be mandated and required for whites to pay if they dare encroach on property owned by people of color via the free market and exchange of ownership of property.

In the end, there is one primary rule dominating American life in 2020: there is always a white person to blame, and for this fault, they must be extra.

Hence, the proposed gentrification tax (white tax).

The Empire State today, all of America tomorrow.

 
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The people who live in multi-million properties are not /ourguys/ and I don’t think it is wise to confuse pro-white politics with pro-rich politics the way that the GOP has tried to over the past few decades. This is a trap for the right. The well-off are not your friends. It is perfectly reasonable that they should pay more tax if their property is worth 3 million than if it is worth 300K.

    • Replies: @Bugg
    We own 2 one family homes in NYC, one in Marine Park, Brooklyn and one in the Rockaways in Queens. My market value on each, while very good, is significantly less than that of the 2-family brownstone commie Mayor Diblasio owns on 11th Street in Park Slope.Yet his annual realty tax bill is roughly half that of each of our homes. Further African-American and Latino one and two family home owners in up and coming neighborhoods like Bed Stuy and Bushwick(never thought I would write that sentence!) are in the same boat as me; they're paying more or roughly the same annual realty tax as Park Slope and Manhattan properties. While they're properties have appreciated in gentrification, they still don't touch the market value of Park Slope, the Upper West Side or Boerum Hill. It has nothing to do with race but a lot to do with elites cutting their own tax bills at the expense of working and middle class people of all races.
  2. Paul writes “So of course an extra tax should be mandated and required for whites to pay if they dare encroach on property owned by people of color via the free market and exchange of ownership of property.” One interesting thing to consider here is how colored peoples have generally obtained the neighborhoods which whites are now supposedly ‘gentrifying’. Did they do so, as Paul would put it, “via the free market and exchange of ownership of property”? I aver not. I fact, I aver that blacks, and to a lesser but still relevant extent, Latinos, have taken over the neighborhoods which whites are now ‘gentrifying’ by means of violent force. For instance, when I did a stint in Grand Rapids MI a few years back, I befriended a somewhat elderly Ukrainian immigrant couple. They lamented that while Detroit used to have a vibrant Ukrainian community, the crack epidemic of the 80’s and its attendant black violence constitutes a major driver of what engendered this community’s dissipation and of what drove this particular couple into the westward reaches of MI. As Detroit slowly improves (it will never return to its former glory, but is gradually acquiring coffee shops, restaurants, and clubs which are attracting more upper brow white folk), I have read much grumbling about how this ‘gentrification’ is inconsiderate to the incumbent black populations, as it is white in cultural character, prices out the blacks, etc. But do these criticisms consider that blacks took over many neighborhoods by acting like violent thugs to begin with? A similar case could be had about Pilsen Chicago, a former Czech neighborhood turned Mexican. Threads on Reddit/Chicago and articles in the city’s left wing rag “Chicago Reader” harp endlessly about how white affluent people are starting to price out the poor Mexicans. But do they consider how Mexicans abrogated the neighborhood to begin with? Partly, there are elements off deracination which diluted the Czech identity in America. But also significantly, gangs like the Latin Kings came along and made the neighborhoods cesspits of drug related crime. Bottom line: colored people are allowed to overtake white urban neighborhoods by means of violence, and that gets generally ignored, but if white people take back these neighborhoods by the lawful exchange of property, that’s heinous and criticizable.

    • Replies: @ShermanFan
    I knew some Ukrainians outside the ATL in Hall and Barrow counties.
    Blacks ain’t driving them out of anywhere. They were nice folks, providing they liked you.
  3. I’m a little confused about this one. Don’t most jurisdictions have systems in place that keep property taxes lower for the current, long time residents, and then they hit the newcomers when they buy in?

    In Maryland, they have what’s called a “Homestead Tax Credit” that helps keep your property taxes in check, for your principal residence. You’ll pay the assessed value when you first buy the house, but then, if the taxes based on the assessed value go up too much, the Homestead tax credit kicks in to bring the bill back down. For instance, at my old home in Prince George’s County, MD, the taxes were about $2300, in 2004. Because there was a delay in the phased-in value, after the Great Recession had knocked prices down, the tax bill actually peaked at around $5,000. But the Homestead tax credit was about $1700, so I only paid about $3300. If I had sold the house at that point though, the new buyer would have been on the hook for the whole $5000.

    The main difference I see here though, is that it looks like they want to base the tax bill on market value, rather than assessed value. So yeah, there’s definitely a screw-the-newcomer (i.e., Whitey) vibe, in that respect. And, I guess “market value” is simply just the purchase price of the house.

    Honestly though, the example of buying a $3M house and only paying property taxes based on an assessed value of $24K does seem awfully unbalanced. I just looked up the most recent house to sell, in my old neighborhood. It was assessed at $285K, and sold for $375K, a much narrower spread

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I too find this a little peculiar.

    "New York’s famously opaque property tax system offers big breaks to new homebuyers by taxing them at assessed values "
     
    As far as I know, all US property tax systems tax on assessed values. That is the definition of "assessed": what the Tax Assessor assesses the value of your property to be. A property appraisal is what a appraiser thinks you can get if you put your property on the market, but that's not a government function, that's a private function.

    Since property market values (appraised values) fluctuate, but the assessments are meant to keep everyone on the same yardstick, the market value and the appraised value will usually be out of synch in any given year (usually the market values are higher). But then the government doesn't want to leave tax money on the table, so there will be a multiplier or an increase in the tax rate to bring the tax paid back into line with the market values anyway. The net result of these Rube Goldberg calculations is usually something like a tax paid at 1%-2% of market value of the property. There are exceptions, such as California where Prop 13 has kept longtime homeowners' taxes below the curve. Is NYC another exception? Maybe. The Clinton Hill/Bergen Beach comparison implies it. But the article doesn't really explain what, how or why the discrepancy is.

    NYC has a large Jewish population, and the Jewish population is even better represented among the property owners than it is among the population at large. Obviously, the Jewish community is also politically influential in NYC, so it is possible they have carved out some anomalies for themselves in the local tax system. Or maybe this "Borelli plan" is the attempt to carve out a favorable anomaly. Or maybe Jews are irrelevant to this. But in NYC, that's not the way to bet.

    Anyway, yeah, something's going on, but I can't tell what it is, and if it even knows, the newspaper isn't explaining it.
  4. It’s all about keeping neighborhoods reliably Democrat. If that happens to correlate with ghetto hellholes, so be it.

    When you look at ghetto hellholes, don’t say the Democrats have failed. Something has failed, but the Democrats have succeeded.

  5. @PO'd in PG County
    I'm a little confused about this one. Don't most jurisdictions have systems in place that keep property taxes lower for the current, long time residents, and then they hit the newcomers when they buy in?

    In Maryland, they have what's called a "Homestead Tax Credit" that helps keep your property taxes in check, for your principal residence. You'll pay the assessed value when you first buy the house, but then, if the taxes based on the assessed value go up too much, the Homestead tax credit kicks in to bring the bill back down. For instance, at my old home in Prince George's County, MD, the taxes were about $2300, in 2004. Because there was a delay in the phased-in value, after the Great Recession had knocked prices down, the tax bill actually peaked at around $5,000. But the Homestead tax credit was about $1700, so I only paid about $3300. If I had sold the house at that point though, the new buyer would have been on the hook for the whole $5000.

    The main difference I see here though, is that it looks like they want to base the tax bill on market value, rather than assessed value. So yeah, there's definitely a screw-the-newcomer (i.e., Whitey) vibe, in that respect. And, I guess "market value" is simply just the purchase price of the house.

    Honestly though, the example of buying a $3M house and only paying property taxes based on an assessed value of $24K does seem awfully unbalanced. I just looked up the most recent house to sell, in my old neighborhood. It was assessed at $285K, and sold for $375K, a much narrower spread

    I too find this a little peculiar.

    “New York’s famously opaque property tax system offers big breaks to new homebuyers by taxing them at assessed values “

    As far as I know, all US property tax systems tax on assessed values. That is the definition of “assessed”: what the Tax Assessor assesses the value of your property to be. A property appraisal is what a appraiser thinks you can get if you put your property on the market, but that’s not a government function, that’s a private function.

    Since property market values (appraised values) fluctuate, but the assessments are meant to keep everyone on the same yardstick, the market value and the appraised value will usually be out of synch in any given year (usually the market values are higher). But then the government doesn’t want to leave tax money on the table, so there will be a multiplier or an increase in the tax rate to bring the tax paid back into line with the market values anyway. The net result of these Rube Goldberg calculations is usually something like a tax paid at 1%-2% of market value of the property. There are exceptions, such as California where Prop 13 has kept longtime homeowners’ taxes below the curve. Is NYC another exception? Maybe. The Clinton Hill/Bergen Beach comparison implies it. But the article doesn’t really explain what, how or why the discrepancy is.

    NYC has a large Jewish population, and the Jewish population is even better represented among the property owners than it is among the population at large. Obviously, the Jewish community is also politically influential in NYC, so it is possible they have carved out some anomalies for themselves in the local tax system. Or maybe this “Borelli plan” is the attempt to carve out a favorable anomaly. Or maybe Jews are irrelevant to this. But in NYC, that’s not the way to bet.

    Anyway, yeah, something’s going on, but I can’t tell what it is, and if it even knows, the newspaper isn’t explaining it.

  6. anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:

    “Racist” is an anti-White slur. I am allowed to prefer and preserve my own children, just like everyone else.

    Privileged? Yes, in my own countries, just like everyone else.

    America IS a White country. It was settled by White men for Ourselves and Our Posterity. It’s in the Preamble and Naturalization Act. We owed something to the Aboriginals and ADOS – noone else. This applies to Canada, Aus/NZ, etc.

    Maybe some global privilege is warranted. We are, after all, responsible for the overwhelming majority of prosperity and advancements the world enjoys.

  7. NY state has the highest number of population fleeing the state, so let’s make it harder for people to buy a house in the state. Great plan!

  8. To me, it’s Whites RETAKING the neighborhoods White people built from the negroes and hispanics that had infested and ravaged them.

    It’s like recovering an heirloom from the thieves that stole it and putting a shine back on it.

    Whenever local news trots out Shaniqua, the “community organizer”, to whine about how another negro nay-bah-hood is losing it’s “kult-cha” to Whites, it fills me with immense pleasure.

    I enjoy seeing White families eating out and walking and their children playing in areas that used to be crack and gang infested cesspools just a decade or two ago.

  9. After decades of blacks destroying it, whites come back to the city and make it livable once again and the Left immediately tries to drive them away.

  10. I think we are about to see the slowing down of gentrification in many neighborhoods now especially since NYC (where most of it was taking place) is attacking the public school system that help attract many of the middle classes back to the city in the first place.

    Already some of the newer developments in Dumbo are starting to see vacancy rates well above what they expected and I believe this trend will continue.

    I think its called “killing the goose that laid the golden egg”…

  11. NYC grows less White each year and those Palefaces that remain are almost completely far leftists. They worship at the altar of blackness and favor the foreigner over their fellow citizens. They will happily pay the tax because they sincerely believe it will make them more virtuous than everyone else.

  12. Oh, whites won’t be paying the taxes. The (((whites))) who speculated on real estate will.

  13. We owed something to the Aboriginals and ADOS – noone else. This applies to Canada, Aus/NZ, etc.

    We owe the losers nothing. Whites, however, are saddled with the handicap of pathological altruism and a portion of traitorous Whites (and (((“whites”))) always give away the farm–not theirs to give–to the least deserving.

  14. @Thulean Friend
    The people who live in multi-million properties are not /ourguys/ and I don't think it is wise to confuse pro-white politics with pro-rich politics the way that the GOP has tried to over the past few decades. This is a trap for the right. The well-off are not your friends. It is perfectly reasonable that they should pay more tax if their property is worth 3 million than if it is worth 300K.

    We own 2 one family homes in NYC, one in Marine Park, Brooklyn and one in the Rockaways in Queens. My market value on each, while very good, is significantly less than that of the 2-family brownstone commie Mayor Diblasio owns on 11th Street in Park Slope.Yet his annual realty tax bill is roughly half that of each of our homes. Further African-American and Latino one and two family home owners in up and coming neighborhoods like Bed Stuy and Bushwick(never thought I would write that sentence!) are in the same boat as me; they’re paying more or roughly the same annual realty tax as Park Slope and Manhattan properties. While they’re properties have appreciated in gentrification, they still don’t touch the market value of Park Slope, the Upper West Side or Boerum Hill. It has nothing to do with race but a lot to do with elites cutting their own tax bills at the expense of working and middle class people of all races.

  15. NYC tax rates on property are extremely low in comparison to the rest of the state because 1) the large commercial tax base and 2) the influential landlord class. This anti-gentrification tax is a way for the democrats to increase revenue in a way previously denied to them, and do it in a virtue-signalling fashion.

  16. @jpp
    Paul writes "So of course an extra tax should be mandated and required for whites to pay if they dare encroach on property owned by people of color via the free market and exchange of ownership of property." One interesting thing to consider here is how colored peoples have generally obtained the neighborhoods which whites are now supposedly 'gentrifying'. Did they do so, as Paul would put it, "via the free market and exchange of ownership of property"? I aver not. I fact, I aver that blacks, and to a lesser but still relevant extent, Latinos, have taken over the neighborhoods which whites are now 'gentrifying' by means of violent force. For instance, when I did a stint in Grand Rapids MI a few years back, I befriended a somewhat elderly Ukrainian immigrant couple. They lamented that while Detroit used to have a vibrant Ukrainian community, the crack epidemic of the 80's and its attendant black violence constitutes a major driver of what engendered this community's dissipation and of what drove this particular couple into the westward reaches of MI. As Detroit slowly improves (it will never return to its former glory, but is gradually acquiring coffee shops, restaurants, and clubs which are attracting more upper brow white folk), I have read much grumbling about how this 'gentrification' is inconsiderate to the incumbent black populations, as it is white in cultural character, prices out the blacks, etc. But do these criticisms consider that blacks took over many neighborhoods by acting like violent thugs to begin with? A similar case could be had about Pilsen Chicago, a former Czech neighborhood turned Mexican. Threads on Reddit/Chicago and articles in the city's left wing rag "Chicago Reader" harp endlessly about how white affluent people are starting to price out the poor Mexicans. But do they consider how Mexicans abrogated the neighborhood to begin with? Partly, there are elements off deracination which diluted the Czech identity in America. But also significantly, gangs like the Latin Kings came along and made the neighborhoods cesspits of drug related crime. Bottom line: colored people are allowed to overtake white urban neighborhoods by means of violence, and that gets generally ignored, but if white people take back these neighborhoods by the lawful exchange of property, that's heinous and criticizable.

    I knew some Ukrainians outside the ATL in Hall and Barrow counties.
    Blacks ain’t driving them out of anywhere. They were nice folks, providing they liked you.

  17. All property taxes are a a wealth tax.
    Your school assessments, County, State, etc are largely driven off assessed value.

    The issue, for those who are willing to see it, is that there is plenty of financial incentive to make your property un-appealing your dwelling appear smaller than it is. My salary demand in NY must offset the higher taxes and cost of living. All to be able to say “I work in New York”.

  18. This is what I’m worried about, the creation of a racial caste system with whites at the bottom, treated like the old dying horse in Dostoyevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment. Originally Crime and Punishment was a 12 part series in a Saint Petersburg paper, which I think is pretty cool.

  19. NYC is actually a lot LESS black than it was 20–30 years ago and its white population has grown as crime fell from its peak in the 80s-90s. The New York Times routinely trots out articles bemoaning and lamenting this very fact.

    Apparently, as the lawless element continues to move out and return to the South of its great-great grandparents—demographic trends indicate this is indeed the case—heaps of valuable culture and vibrancy are lost. Mean ol’ Whitey, with his-and-her terrible, sterile, gray, vibrancy free existence must be punished, dontchaknow.

    Many of us don’t believe a word of it, and the “paper of record” actually loses subscribers every year, no matter what their fraudulent numbers say.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Kersey Comments via RSS