BNew York's pied-à-terre tax is back on, and the city's wealthiest second-home owners just lost their first round in court.
BA state appeals court reversed a lower ruling that had blocked the rollout. The judges said the homeowners who sued didn't have standing.
BSo the city can keep collecting the surcharge on luxury second homes — five million and up for houses, a million and up for condos and co-ops.
BThis is a big piece of Mayor Zohran Mamdani's affordability agenda. He wants to tax the wealthiest residents to close the budget gap.
BAnd the court didn't even rule on whether the tax is legal. They just said these particular homeowners couldn't sue over the rollout.
BRight. The city sent notices to about seventeen thousand property owners in July. The plaintiffs said that caused mass confusion and unfairly targeted primary residents.
BBut the four-judge panel said getting a notice or appearing on a public list isn't a concrete injury. So the lawsuit's dismissed.
BMamdani celebrated, saying the court rejected an attempt by wealthy property owners to avoid paying their fair share.
BFair share. That's the phrase that always gets me. This tax hits people who own a second home in New York City. Some of them are rich, sure. But a million-dollar condo isn't exactly a penthouse.
BA million dollars in New York is a one-bedroom in a decent neighborhood. These aren't all billionaires.
BExactly. And the city's own comptroller, Mark Levine, estimates the tax could bring in up to three hundred eighty million from about eleven thousand properties. Mamdani claimed five hundred million.
BSo the revenue projection is already lower than the mayor promised. And there's still a separate constitutional challenge coming next month.
BThe attorney for the homeowners, Randy Mastro, called the court's decision a procedural offramp. He says the real fight is the constitutional one.
BAnd that's where this gets interesting. The city needs revenue. But taxing second homes is a blunt instrument. It doesn't distinguish between a hedge funder's pied-à-terre and a retired teacher's small co-op.
BBut that's the whole point of a wealth tax, isn't it? You tax the asset, not the income. And if you own a second home in New York City, you're doing better than most people in this country.
BI'm not saying they're struggling. I'm saying the tax is poorly designed. A million-dollar threshold for condos is way too low for New York real estate.
BSo raise the threshold. But don't kill the tax. The city is facing a massive budget shortfall, and the alternative is cutting services or raising taxes on everyone else.
BOr the alternative is actually cutting spending. But that's a conversation this mayor doesn't want to have.
BNo politician wants to have that conversation. But here's the thing — the court didn't say the tax is good policy. It only decided these homeowners lacked standing.
BAnd the constitutional challenge is still coming. So this fight isn't over. It's just moving to a different courtroom.
BMeanwhile, the city keeps collecting. And the wealthy second-home owners keep paying. Or they sell.
BSome will sell. That's the risk. If enough people dump their second homes, the tax base shrinks and the revenue disappears.
BThat's the Laffer curve of real estate. Tax something too much, and people find a way around it.
BI don't think the Laffer curve applies to penthouses, Brian.
BIt applies to everything. But fine, we'll see what the constitutional challenge says. That's the one that actually matters.
BSpeaking of fights over who pays — there's a post going around claiming the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. was fifty million under Obama and is now over a hundred million.
BA hundred million? That's almost a third of the country. That's not even close to reality.
BThe actual estimate is around eleven million. That's from Pew Research and the Department of Homeland Security. Not fifty, not a hundred. Eleven.
BAnd this post is from an account called Rene Reyna, and it's just... wildly wrong. It's the kind of thing that gets shared because it makes people angry, not because it's true.
BAnd it's not just one post. The same account posted the same false claim twice, just with different tags. Stephen Miller, DHS, ICE — the whole kitchen sink.
BThis is why people don't trust what they read online. A hundred million undocumented immigrants? It's absurd on its face.
BAnd it matters because immigration is a real issue. But when people throw around numbers like that, it poisons the whole debate.
BThe real number is serious enough. Eleven million people is a lot. We don't need to inflate it to make the point.
BExactly. The facts are enough. And when you exaggerate like that, you hand the other side an easy win.
BDifferent world entirely — there's a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that's getting attention. The headline basically says the GOP is a starving, malnourished loser with two black eyes.
BThat's one way to put it. The columnist, Matt Hennessey, says with no real leader, no real change is possible.
BAnd this is after Democrats won both chambers of Congress in the midterms. The Journal's opinion section is basically telling Republicans to look in the mirror.
BIt's a brutal read. But it's also the kind of thing that happens after a party loses big. The knives come out.
BThe question is whether the GOP actually listens. The party had the White House, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court — and still lost the midterms.
BThat's the part that should scare Republican strategists. They had everything, and voters still said no.
BAnd there's a post from a guy named Gary Oak that captures the frustration. He says Republicans had all the power and made our lives worse and didn't make a single meaningful change.
BThat's harsh. But it's a sentiment you hear a lot from people who voted for change and feel like they didn't get it.
BThe Journal piece is more polite, but it's saying the same thing. The party has no clear leader and no clear direction.
BAnd meanwhile, there's a report from Reuters that President Trump is backing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after the midterm losses. But we couldn't confirm that.
BThe Reuters post says Trump called Hegseth's job 'very good' and framed the midterms as voter anger over the Iran war.
BSo we'll treat that as a claim, not a fact. If the White House puts out a statement, we'll know more.
BAnd there's another unconfirmed report — this one from Fox News — about Bret Baier pressing DNC Chair Ken Martin on whether woke politics are making a comeback.
BThe clip supposedly shows Martin pushing back, saying Americans are more focused on rising prices and the economy. But we couldn't independently verify that exchange either.
BIt's a good question, though. After the midterms, is the Democratic Party going to lean into the cultural stuff or focus on the economy?
BIf they're smart, they'll focus on the economy. That's what voters keep saying they care about.
BBut the activist wing of the party always wants to fight the culture war. That's the tension.
BAnd that's a fight that will play out over the next two years. But for now, the midterms are over, and both parties are trying to figure out what the voters actually said.
BOne more thing — there's a report from the BBC about young politicians with African roots making history in the midterms. It's a reminder that the electorate is changing.
BThe BBC says for some young Africans, these victories offer a glimpse of what a new generation of voters could do at home. That's a story worth watching.
BIt's also a reminder that American politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. The whole world is watching.
BAnd the whole world has opinions. But that's a conversation for another segment.