"That would create more revenue and could create enough of a disincentive for those high-earners to move out into better quality housing, thus freeing up those apartments for people who really need them. The idea of an income-tax surcharge on high-earning, rent-stabilized tenants would set two DSA ideologies against each other: tax the rich versus freeze the rent."
"There are tens of thousands of tenants earning well into the six figures and paying regulated rents well below market rate. That's not fair to struggling New Yorkers paying market-rate rents or living doubled-up or in shelters. Is the idea enforceable? Yes. The state's Division of Homes and Community Renewal could send its list of rent-stabilized apartments to the Department of Taxation and Finance to cross-check with addresses on tax returns."
New York's rent stabilization system protects both low and high-income tenants, creating inequities where six-figure earners pay below-market rents. A proposed income-tax surcharge on high-earning rent-stabilized tenants would address this disparity while generating revenue. This policy would pit two Democratic Socialist priorities against each other: taxing the rich versus freezing rents. The surcharge would be administratively feasible, using existing state housing records cross-referenced with tax returns. The policy could also apply to rent-stabilized owners with second residences. Rent stabilization was never designed to subsidize affluent tenants, making this approach worth serious consideration despite New York's strong tenant protections.
Read at therealdeal.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]