What do you mean? It's not a tax on commercial property.
One effect might be that wealthy non-residents prefer to stay in a hotel when they visit New York? The amount of money being collected as property tax would pay for a very fancy suite.
You sound like you feel the need to criticize this tax because you want to reflexively attack any idea whereby the rich have to pay their fair share of anything, and thus have strung together a bunch of tokens that seem relevant to you, but actually don't constitute a logical response at all to the issue being discussed.
I think this is sarcasm, but in case it's not isn't this the opposite of trickle down? Trickle down means lower taxes for the wealthy so they'll then have access to those extra funds to create jobs (through direct and indirect actions (investing in their companies, buying more stuff, etc.)). This is actually taking money away from the wealthy.
If this works (meaning NYC gets the revenue without kneecapping those extra property taxes in the long run because the wealthy bail on their second homes, which would drive down prices and therefore property taxes), it would be an anti-trickle-down win.
I'd slightly adjust what you're saying because I think in this NYC case, and oftentimes generally-speaking, those funds are not reserved solely for what would conventionally be considered social programs.
Only adding this because I think it's important to point out that tax increases that solely target the rich are not always a transfer of wealth from rich(er) to poor(er), but sometimes fund things that those rich taxpayers also benefit from (in the NYC case those funds could easily be paying part of the police, parks, sanitation, etc. budget).
Push up asset prices mainly - so locking poorer people out of (e.g.) home ownership.
Money is not a tangible thing, you can't eat or drink it. Instead it is a signalling protocol for resource allocation. If the very wealthy have many empty homes, when many people are homeless or inadequately housed, then that signalling protocol has failed (from a social justice point of view), and 'trickle down' is not working.
To what degree do they really invest it? A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.
> move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating
So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? What exactly is it you are claiming? Sounds like something a populist youtuber would say.
That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else. Capturing 100% of the value is all but impossible.
Also you didn't address what he said, possibly because it's complete nonsense?
> A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.
That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself
Acquire it from other people. That's how I do it; my day job pays me less money than me just swapping stocks around. The companies whose stock I buy and sell have never seen a penny from me; never received from me a single penny of investment in their business. I harvest wealth without having ever invested in any company and my actions create no new wealth; I harvest wealth I did not create.
> That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else
I mean, there are a bunch of direct mechanisms for that, from the legal (preferred stock classes), through the grey (letting your buddies invest pre-IPO), to the less-legal (insider trading)
Sitting on a bunch of real estate in a desirable location like NYC isn't a bad mechanism either.
But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.
The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.
And that doesn't change the fact that Jeff Bezos, fundamentally, is extremely wealthy, even if he'd have to sell or borrow against a few shares to use it.
It kind of was the subject. The person I replied to up thread was clearly implying that rich people making investments is a net benefit to everyone, and if they were all acting like VCs, maybe, but since they are mostly locking up their investments in mutual funds or real estate, its less clearly beneficial.
Yes, a lot of economic activity is predicated on the availability of investment capital, but only investing in already-successful firms doesn't generate new economic activity. And static, unused real estate generates basically none at all.
It's a label for a very real tax policy and the advertised reason behind it, it's definitely a thing (or was, at least, the argument is less common today)
It is a label, but it has always been used by those expressing opposition to a policy that they label "trickle down". It has never been used by proponents of a policy to describe or advocate for their own policy.
The original comment, and many other comments spread across the Internet including yours, are written as if the elites themselves are the ones "advertising" the label of "trickle down economics" as if it's some kind of economic theory they are advocating for. But it's always been a label used by opponents, particularly Democrats to derogate Reagan era policies.
