New York passing sweeping new rent control rules

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why are you talking about corporate taxes? What does that have to do with anything? And why are you claiming something as ridiculous as "Trump decreased corporate taxes"? He had as much to do with that as Mickey Mouse.

2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered corporate taxes from 35% to 21%, to be inline with global average corporate tax rate of 21.4%

Originally Posted by Crawford

And you're claiming that wealthy people will move their families from the U.S. if we raise capital gains taxes? Why, exactly?

You do not have to physically move. You can move your capital in a foreign registered LLC. This is exactly what happened in France. When the French government hiked taxes on cap. gains, there was a significant outflow of capital and they had to reverse the law.
A lot of people move because of taxes, even within the US. Taxes and cost of living is why most people move out of California and NYC. Interesting how you refer to people who work and make a lot of money 'deadbeats'.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And then you support 0 taxes, correct? .

No.

Originally Posted by Crawford

yet the U.S. has, by far, the largest concentration of wealthy.

Yes, because historically US has been very good in fostering, protecting, and growing individual wealth.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why are you talking about corporate taxes? What does that have to do with anything? And why are you claiming something as ridiculous as "Trump decreased corporate taxes"? He had as much to do with that as Mickey Mouse.

And you're claiming that wealthy people will move their families from the U.S. if we raise capital gains taxes? Why, exactly?

And then you support 0 taxes, correct? Because plenty of places have 0 tax on capital gains, yet I'm not aware of any wealthy people fleeing. Switzerland, Cayman Islands, plenty of existing havens for deadbeats and tax cheats, yet the U.S. has, by far, the largest concentration of wealthy.

Did you watch the Democratic debates? "Trump gave billions to large corporations" was the slogan for the two nights.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's certainly selfish. It creates scarcity and if it applies to new buildings it discincentivizes new supply.

It sounds good before reality intervenes, basically. Typical populist formula.

Hmm, do you have any evidence to support this conclusion?

(sincere question, not trolling)

I ask, because the province of Ontario has had rent control for decades.

But during the 1990s, using a theory similar to your own, the then government of Mike Harris chose to exempt all new rental construction from rent control.

The theory being that this would ease supply constraints.

In fact, the rental vacancy rate declined further, with new starts remaining minimal in the ensuing 2 decades.

This leads me to conclude that rent control as it applies to ongoing tenants is not a key factor.

Ontario it should be noted has 'vacancy-decontrol' ie, when a tenant leaves the landlord is free to reset the rent to whatever the market will bear.

Control applies to ongoing tenant-landlord relationships.

****

Studies I've read suggest that affordable rentals in Canada and many other countries were predicated not on free-market conditions but on government-backed below-market mortgages, and other grants and incentives in exchange for rents deemed affordable at the time.

I find that to be a compelling argument.

****

Regardless, I find it difficult to describe rent control, in the context of a near-zero vacancy market as selfish or confiscatory.

Clearly an immoderate rent increase imposed on a lease anniversary could compel someone to move, when they may have no reasonable prospect of securing any other housing at the price they currently had.

I find it unreasonable to expect people to up and move every year if landlords maximize short-term gains, in a market that can not be called competitive.

I would feel different if the vacancy rate in a given community were over 5% and the market otherwise functioned in a healthy way.

But this is rarely the case in major urban centres around the Globe.

Keep in mind that the 'middle class' more often than not lives in government owned housing in many major European cities (notably Vienna) as the private market was incapable of delivering sufficient affordable housing.

I'm open to any solution that provides quality housing at a range of prices, including affordable.

But if the market can't be made to work for the majority, then government intervention of some kind is necessary.

[mhays]

It's impossible to compare real estate scenarios...every situation is unique. There's no "control version" in the comparison.

A few other things have changed in Ontario since then...the greenbelt comes to mind.

I'll look at your post more fully later.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gantz

2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered corporate taxes from 35% to 21%, to be inline with global average corporate tax rate of 21.4%

Again, you haven't answered the question. What do corporate tax rates have to do with capital gains taxes? Why would people remove their families from the U.S. because capital gains taxes were increased?

Originally Posted by Gantz

You do not have to physically move. You can move your capital in a foreign registered LLC. This is exactly what happened in France. When the French government hiked taxes on cap. gains, there was a significant outflow of capital and they had to reverse the law.
A lot of people move because of taxes, even within the US. Taxes and cost of living is why most people move out of California and NYC. Interesting how you refer to people who work and make a lot of money 'deadbeats'.

No. You're just spouting random off-topic right-wing talking points.

You generally cannot avoid U.S. taxation without moving and renouncing citizenship. France lowered income taxes, not capital gains. France doesn't have particularly high capital gains. CA and NY have the greatest concentration of wealth in the U.S., and their share has increased over time, as taxes have risen. And no one claimed that rich people are "deadbeats", but people who avoid taxes in havens like the Caymans certainly are.

Originally Posted by Gantz

Yes, because historically US has been very good in fostering, protecting, and growing individual wealth.

Historically the U.S. has had far higher taxes than today.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, you haven't answered the question. What do corporate tax rates have to do with capital gains taxes? Why would people remove their families from the U.S. because capital gains taxes were increased?

Nobody is removing families (unless taxes get really out of control), you do not have to remove families to move your capital. Capital nowadays is just numbers on a screen.

You generally cannot avoid U.S. taxation without moving and renouncing citizenship.

Yes you can on cap. gains. All you have to do is invest your capital in a foreign country through an investment vehicle/company, and not repatriate the money. You can also realize gains as long as you pay into that foreign entity and not yourself or any other US based business you own (that entity will have to pay whatever taxes are in that jurisdiction). It also discourages foreign capital to come and invest in the US. This is different from income tax, which you can't escape unless you renounce citizenship.

CA and NY have the greatest concentration of wealth in the U.S., and their share has increased over time, as taxes have risen. And no one claimed that rich people are "deadbeats", but people who avoid taxes in havens like the Caymans certainly are.

CA and NY are both hemorrhaging people and have massive domestic migration outflows. The only reason both states are posting positive population figures is due to natural births and foreign immigration. The people are absolutely moving away due to COL in those states. And yes, as the taxes in those states increased, the income gap increased a lot more, as working/middle/and even upper middle class as in the case of CA are fleeing the states, and only the ultra rich and subsidized poor can afford to stay.

Historically the U.S. has had far higher taxes than today.

Not when it comes to effective tax rates. Even when the highest tax bracket was in the 90%, the effective tax rate never went up above 34% for the highest earners. I think its at around ~32% today.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Gantz

CA and NY are both hemorrhaging people and have massive domestic migration outflows. The only reason both states are posting positive population figures is due to natural births and foreign immigration. The people are absolutely moving away due to COL in those states.

But why isn't the wealth fleeing those states? Isn't that what we would expect to see if what you're saying is true?

Originally Posted by Gantz

And yes, as the taxes in those states increased, the income gap increased a lot more

There is a strong negative correlation between capital gains tax rate and income inequality going back decades.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by badrunner

But why isn't the wealth fleeing those states? Isn't that what we would expect to see if what you're saying is true?

They do, but you don't have to take my word for it:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cuomos-budget-rich-high-taxes/

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Gantz

CA and NY are both hemorrhaging people and have massive domestic migration outflows. The only reason both states are posting positive population figures is due to natural births and foreign immigration. The people are absolutely moving away due to COL in those states. And yes, as the taxes in those states increased, the income gap increased a lot more, as working/middle/and even upper middle class as in the case of CA are fleeing the states, and only the ultra rich and subsidized poor can afford to stay.

Not when it comes to effective tax rates. Even when the highest tax bracket was in the 90%, the effective tax rate never went up above 34% for the highest earners. I think its at around ~32% today.

A lot of people are leaving CA because they are retiring and can sell their little suburban house for $1 million, buy something bigger somewhere else for $200k and live on the rest plus Social Security and a 401(k).

It's probably similar for New Yorkers.

Don't cry for Californians. The state has made many of us rich (some exceedingly so).

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

A lot of people are leaving CA because they are retiring and can sell their little suburban house for $1 million, buy something bigger somewhere else for $200k and live on the rest plus Social Security and a 401(k).

It's probably similar for New Yorkers.

Don't cry for Californians. The state has made many of us rich (some exceedingly so).

Not crying for Californians at all. It is a beautiful state full of innovative companies who can afford the costs and high salaries. But one of the main reasons why people move away is because of taxes and high COL, otherwise a lot less people would even move out.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Gantz

They do, but you don't have to take my word for it:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cuomos-budget-rich-high-taxes/

That's just part of long term out-migration trends in that part of the country. What about California? And in order to actually prove your point, you would have to show that all those people are specifically moving to low tax, low cost, low service states, and for specifically those reasons.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

A lot of people are leaving CA because they are retiring and can sell their little suburban house for $1 million, buy something bigger somewhere else for $200k and live on the rest plus Social Security and a 401(k).

It's probably similar for New Yorkers.

Don't cry for Californians. The state has made many of us rich (some exceedingly so).

This is true. Many people are moving not because they are being priced out, but because they are cashing out.

And a lot of people moving in are young, highly educated and upwardly mobile (also a ton of trust fund babies from the Midwest and Northeast). Funny how people with money and options consistently choose higher cost, higher tax parts of the country.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by badrunner

That's just part of long term out-migration trends in that part of the country. What about California? And in order to actually prove your point, you would have to show that all those people are specifically moving to low tax, low cost, low service states, and for specifically those reasons.

Here are some numbers for net domestic migration for just 2017:
Net negative:
San Jose: -1.26%
New York City: -1.03%
Chicago: -.89%
Los Angeles: -.82%
Hartford: -.56%
San Francisco: -.51%
Rochester: -.50%
San Diego: -.48%

Net positive:
Nashville: .98%
San Antonio: 1.01%
Phoenix: 1.08%
Charlotte: 1.23%
Jacksonville: 1.26%
Raleigh: 1.30%
Tampa: 1.31%
Las Vegas: 1.33%
Austin: 1.42%

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Not crying for Californians at all. It is a beautiful state full of innovative companies who can afford the costs and high salaries. But one of the main reasons why people move away is because of taxes and high COL, otherwise a lot less people would even move out.

You read these things. They aren't true.

I have homes in CA and AZ. I live roughly half the time in each. I could be a legal resident of and pay taxes in either state. I've done the numbers. I would save being an Arizonan but not nearly as much as you think and not enough to give up the capital gains deduction on my CA home (to get that it has to be your PRIMARY residence) should I ever decide to sell it.

Most Californians make so much more in CA that it makes up for the higher cost of living and there are other considerations. Those of us who've lived there any amount of time get a real bargain on property taxes vis Prop. 13. These are all reasons why the mass exodus for many doesn't happen until they retire and want to use their inflated CA home as a piggy bank. To a lesser extent, it happens with young people who either never really got established in the state after moving here straight out of college or remain a single renter and decide to go elsewhere when they get ready to marry and buy a home.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Here are some numbers for net domestic migration for just 2017:
Net negative:
San Jose: -1.26%
New York City: -1.03%
Chicago: -.89%
Los Angeles: -.82%
Hartford: -.56%
San Francisco: -.51%
Rochester: -.50%
San Diego: -.48%

Net positive:
Nashville: .98%
San Antonio: 1.01%
Phoenix: 1.08%
Charlotte: 1.23%
Jacksonville: 1.26%
Raleigh: 1.30%
Tampa: 1.31%
Las Vegas: 1.33%
Austin: 1.42%

Old cities vs young cities. Who would've guessed it

Still doesn't prove your point though.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

You read these things. They aren't true.

I have homes in CA and AZ. I live roughly half the time in each. I could be a legal resident of and pay taxes in either state. I've done the numbers. I would save being an Arizonan but not nearly as much as you think and not enough to give up the capital gains deduction on my CA home (to get that it has to be your PRIMARY residence) should I ever decide to sell it.

Most Californians make so much more in CA that it makes up for the higher cost of living and there are other considerations. Those of us who've lived there any amount of time get a real bargain on property taxes vis Prop. 13. These are all reasons why the mass exodus for many doesn't happen until they retire and want to use their inflated CA home as a piggy bank.

Yes CA is unique due to Prop 13, without Prop 13, a lot more people would be leaving the state, but for a lot of people who are simply renting, or bought their home recently, the numbers may be different. Also, the mere fact that people are "cashing out" for retirement, once they are not tied to the state via employment, suggests that it is due to COL. "Cashing out" means you are taking advantage of the difference between the COL in two different locales. Would your numbers be different if CA taxes went up by another 5%? 10%? 20%? 40%? All people have their own "breaking point", depending on a situation.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Yes CA is unique due to Prop 13, but for a lot of people who are simply renting, or bought their home recently, the numbers may be different. Also, the mere fact that people are "cashing out" for retirement, once they are not tied to the state via employment, suggests that it is due to COL. "Cashing out" means you are taking advantage of the difference between the COL in two different locales.

Wealthier areas tend to have higher COL, locally, nationally, globally.

Funny how that works huh?

You're essentially saying that Californians are able to cash out at retirement because they are wealthier

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Wealthier areas tend to have higher COL, locally, nationally, globally.

Funny how that works huh?

You're essentially saying that Californians are able to cash out at retirement because they are wealthier

Of course, CA also has some of the highest salaries in the nation, especially in the Bay area. It helps CA to minimize population losses (great weather also helps to a smaller extent).

[the urban politician]

^ Illinois also has a lot of people leaving, but is has another really neat thing going for it:

High COC (Cost Of Corruption)

Due to the wonders and charms of corruption, old people are bailing as soon as possible!!

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Illinois also has a lot of people leaving, but is has another really neat thing going for it:

High COC (Cost Of Corruption)

Due to the wonders and charms of corruption, old people are bailing as soon as possible!!

NY is trying to give IL a run for its money in this department as well!
MS is another super corrupt state, but it doesn't have the same amount of $$$ as IL or NY at play. I think as a general rule, states out west are less corrupt.