How is This a Bad Thing?

America's lamest newspaper, the New York Times, just bleated their worry that new taxes on ultra expensive 2nd homes might make living in New York more affordable.

The hed reads, "New Taxes Helped Cool London’s Housing Market.Could That Happen in New York?"

That implies that this might help ordinary people looking to live in the city.

The rest of the article is hand wringing about the possibility that this tax might result in losses for the ultra-rich and real estate developers.

To quote Emilio Estevez from the movie Repo Man, "F%$# that."

When these folks win, everyone else loses.

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s plan for a yearly surcharge on second homes in New York City worth $5 million or more could be an elegant political move — one that taxes the rich who don’t live in the city full-time.

If approved, the so-called pied-à-terre tax will be a populist win that avoids levying new taxes on constituents of Ms. Hochul and Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York.

But real estate agents and economists say the tax could be catastrophic for the city’s housing market, hurting not the superrich investors who park their money here, but the very middle- and lower-income citizens it’s designed to benefit.

As to how this would hurt the, "Very middle- and lower-income citizens it’s designed to benefit?"

Crickets. 

The moneybags who, "Have historically made up nearly half of the homeowners in prime London neighborhoods," did not make those neighborhoods more affordable, they made them less affordable.

There is a mention of billionaires leaving London, and that some of said billionaires threw pocket change at charities.

They further claim that, "Smaller landlords threw in the towel, taking tens of thousands of apartments off the market and constricting supply."

Which means that these titans of industry are going on an Ayn Rand style, "Capital Strike," which has never happened in history.