
Facing a looming $5.4 billion budget deficit gap this year and next, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, both Democrats, are jointly backing a tax on high-end pieds-à-terres, or second homes, in New York City, which can sit empty much of the year.
The proposal, which was presented without much detail, would tax people who own a second home in New York that is worth more than $5 million. Hochul said her goal is to raise $500 million annually, which would go toward closing the anticipated $5.4 billion budget deficit in 2027.
“If you can afford a $5 million second home that sits empty most of the year, you can afford to contribute like every other New Yorker,” Hochul stated.
Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to its City Journal who researches urban policy, including public finance, told JNS that New York City is “long overdue” for a “full rethink of its property-tax system.”
“Gently discouraging keeping a house or apartment unoccupied might make sense in the context of full property-tax reform,” according to Gelinas, a contributing opinion writer at the New York Times.
“The mayor and governor have not proposed full property tax reform, instead isolating one gimmicky, tax-the-rich idea essentially as a marketing ploy as the state budget remains stalled,” she told JNS.
“It sounds good to most people who don’t have second homes” but isn’t a “rational tax strategy,” she said. “It’s also concerning that they are making a desperate cash grab when state and city revenues, including property tax dollars, are still naturally rising with the economy.”
Hochul said at a press conference that “what I’m saying is simple and similar to what other international cities like Paris and Toronto have already adopted, because it’s a matter of fairness to all those millions of residents who actually live here.”
“Those who benefit from the city without living in a full-time capacity should contribute to the costs that it takes to run the city: public safety, world class parks, amenities, the roads, the subway system,” she said. “This proposal simply ensures that they’re contributing in a meaningful way to keeping New York City the greatest city in the world, and it goes also to help the city’s budget gap.”
Mamdani spoke on Wednesday at a Tax Day forum with leading economists Joseph Stiglitz and Gabriel Zucman.
“This is a tax on properties worth more than $5 million that are owned by people who do not reside in New York City,” the mayor, a Democratic Socialist, said at the forum.
Mamdani said that the “super wealthy” buy properties and use them to “store their wealth” but don’t “pay back into that same city that generates so much of that wealth in the way that they should.”
“What we are talking about is a recognition of the inequality that has permeated politics through the five boroughs of our city, through our country, through the world,” he said. Mamdani called a projected exodus of high earners from the city, if taxes get too high, “imagined,” saying that “we have to reckon with the very real exodus that we are seeing in this city: an exodus of working-class people.”
The mayor has also proposed raising property taxes by more than 9% in the next fiscal year. That and the proposed new tax on secondary homes have met strong opposition.
Multiple real estate brokers, who cater to an ultra-wealthy clientele, declined to comment on the impact such a tax would have on the Big Apple real estate industry.
Bess Freedman, CEO of the real estate brokerage Brown Harris Stevens, wrote to her staff that “while this proposal is being framed as a tax on the ultra-wealthy, the reality is that its impact would extend far beyond a narrow segment of the market” to “every corner of our industry.”
Freedman reportedly added in the memo that “targeting the top of the market creates a ripple effect” and “when luxury values decline, it compresses pricing throughout the entire market, impacting homeowners at all levels.” (Freeman’s firm said earlier this month that more buyers spent $10 million or more to buy a new development residence in Manhattan in the first quarter of 2026 than in any other quarter of the past 10 years.)
At the event with Mamdani and the economists, Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank who holds a Nobel Prize in Economics, said that in the past 25 years, “41% of all the increase in wealth has gone to the top 1%.”
“The bottom 50% of the world has gotten just 1% of that increase in wealth. So inequality has been growing,” he said. The United States has “more inequality than any other advanced country,” he said.
Stiglitz, a Jewish university professor at Columbia University, pointed to Mamdani during his remarks and told the mayor that in his travels all over the world, “one of the striking things, as we’ve traveled, is everywhere, you are known.”
“You are as famous as Donald Trump, and the point I want to make is that the election in New York got so much attention everywhere because it was symbolic,” the economist said. “It showed that there was another side of the United States, that there were, you know, a city, which is the largest Jewish city, could elect somebody of very different persuasion, a religious belief.”
“It was a real testimony to the good side of humanity, and we need affirmation that there exists a good side to humanity right now,” he said. “One can’t underestimate the influence that New York has on the entire world as a symbol of what is possible.” JNS
{Matzav.com}







ahrg!
Overhauling a subjective system is akin to overhauling education. Everybody will have a finger in that pie and it will still be a mess.
Isn’t it racism
Systemic injustice
And selective brutality
Against the wealthy?
It’s backwards. There is going to be a deficit. Why? Because new york is too expensive for some people. So the govt feels it needs to make the city more affordable for those people. How? By taxing the rich any which they can. Hmm. Maybe people who can’t afford to live here should move to an area that they can afford. Satmar is encouraging its chasidim to move to Monticello because it’s cheaper. Monticello is not close to where they would rather be, but hey we can’t afford, we can’t afford it. Many young families have moved to lakewood, Howell, toms river, jackson, edison etc ( years ago when still cheaper) because they were priced out of brooklyn. So why can’t these people move? Did anyone think to ask ny govt to sponsor our younger couples so that they could stay in brooklyn? Of course not. You buy what you can afford. That’s it. Plain and simple. Why do these people have to stay in ny? There are probably more job opportunities in other states anyways
“If you can afford a $5 million second home that sits empty most of the year, you can afford to contribute like every other New Yorker,” Hochul stated.
Does she even get the ridiculousness of that statement?
First, it assumes facts not in evidence. Not all second homes “sit empty most of the year.”
Second, it conflates ability to pay with fairness of taxation. Saying “you can afford it” doesn’t, by itself, justify this specific tax. By that logic, any group perceived as wealthier could be singled out arbitrarily
Third, it ignores reality . Owners of second homes already pay property taxes and income taxes. So “contribute like every other citizen” is just us vs them demagoguery.
Why stop at second houses? How about empty bedrooms? And then rarely used cars…until we get to the Democrats real agenda which is money not being used in your savings account