I saw a social media clip from New York City politician Zohran Mamdani announcing a new tax aimed at non-residents. He recorded the video outside hedge fund manager Ken Griffin’s secondary home, which he said cost $238 million. The message was simple: target the ultra-wealthy who do not live in the city full-time. The setting and the framing were meant to stir emotion. The economic math tells a different story.
As a New Yorker and as the CEO of LifeGoal Wealth Advisors, I think about policy through outcomes, not optics. If a policy drives out taxpayers, employers, and projects, it can raise taxes on everyone who stays. That is the risk here. We should evaluate ideas by what they do, not how they make us feel in the moment.
The Proposal and the Optics
The video centered on a plan to tax non–New York City residents who own homes in the city. Ideas like this often get called a “pied-à-terre” tax, aimed at wealthy second-home owners. The argument is that these owners use city services but pay less than full-time residents. At first glance, that can feel fair. The problem is not about fairness in theory. It is about how people and companies react in practice.
“$238,000,000 home? Him. Right? Let’s tax him. That’s not how economies work.”
Standing outside one person’s front door might score points online. It does not answer the central question: Will this tax bring in more money than it pushes away? That is the only test that matters for funding schools, transit, and safety.
View this post on Instagram
What the Numbers Say About One Employer
Citadel and its employees have, by the figures cited, paid $2.3 billion in New York State taxes over the past five years. The firm has also discussed a large-scale Midtown project, described as $6 billion in size, that could bring thousands of construction jobs and permanent roles. A firm like that does not decide in a vacuum. It watches the policy climate. It watches signals sent by elected officials. If the message is “you are a problem,” it acts accordingly.
Jobs, payroll, and spending ripple through a city. Construction workers spend at local diners. Office staff rent apartments. High earners buy services and support local nonprofits. Remove one anchor and the ripple shrinks. Then the tax base narrows. When the base narrows, the rate on those who stay tends to rise.
“As a New Yorker, when your socialist policies push Ken Griffin and you like out, our economy shrinks. And my taxes, they go up because of it.”
The language is sharp. Strip away the heat and the point stands: push out taxpayers and the fiscal burden shifts to those left behind.
Mobility Is Real: People and Capital Can Move
High earners have options. So do firms. Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have no state income tax. Miami, Dallas, and Nashville rival New York in business services, logistics, and lifestyle. Many mayors in those cities court employers. They compete on tax policy and red tape. A modern firm can move talent and capital across state lines faster than any time in memory.
This does not mean New York must race to the bottom. It means New York must compete with a full picture in mind. When we tax, regulate, and message, we should ask how mobile taxpayers might react. If the reaction is to leave or cancel projects, the net effect can be less revenue, not more.
Why Targeting Non-Residents Often Backfires
On paper, a tax on non-resident owners sounds like a fee with little local cost. In practice, it can do damage in four ways:
- It signals that wealth and investment are unwelcome, which can cancel projects or expansions.
- It hits spending in local neighborhoods, from contractors to restaurants and retail.
- It can push transactions into other states or into structures that reduce the expected take.
- It risks lawsuit delays and uneven collection, which weakens budget planning.
For a city that relies heavily on high earners and a small number of large taxpayers, small changes in behavior can swing revenue in a big way. If even a handful of large firms shift hiring or investment to low-tax states, the loss can dwarf the expected gain from a new levy.
The High-Earner Math: Concentration Risk
Most cities collect a large share of income tax from a small slice of top earners. Many states do as well. New York is a prime example. That makes policy choices more sensitive. If one top-earning household leaves, the budget barely notices. If many in that group leave over time, the effect compounds.
We see this in property markets too. High-end buyers help fund new construction and renovations. Those projects employ union trades, designers, and small business owners. If you raise the cost of owning a second home, you can depress demand at the top end. That slows projects and puts some tradespeople on the sidelines. It can also drag on property tax growth, which funds core services.
Jobs, Projects, and the Multiplier Effect
Consider the project figures cited with Citadel: $6 billion invested. 6,000 construction jobs. 15,000 permanent jobs. Whether exact or rounded, those numbers capture a broader truth. Large employers create an ecosystem around them. Security, cleaning, food service, technology support, and transport all grow around a major office hub.
Pull one thread and you do not just lose white-collar roles. You lose hours for the barista. You lose contracts for the electrician. The multiplier is real in both directions. Growth feeds growth. Flight feeds flight.
The Message Matters as Much as the Measure
Policy is substance and signal. Announcing a tax at the doorstep of a single person is a signal. It tells investors the city sees them as targets, not partners. That may feel good for a day. It does not fund a budget for a decade. Leaders should be careful about how they talk about employers and taxpayers. The goal is growth that pays for shared needs.
We can debate rates, brackets, and fairness. We should also be mindful of tone. If we frame success as a problem, success will go elsewhere. If we welcome investment and set clear, stable rules, investment tends to stay.
Better Ways to Raise Revenue Without Shrinking the Base
There are smarter tools than a broad tax on non-resident owners. These ideas raise funds while keeping the growth engine running:
- Focus on predictability. A stable, simple tax code helps firms plan and stay.
- Target vacant-unit policies tightly. Aim at long-term empties, not every second home.
- Use value-capture around transit and rezoning. When public projects lift land values, share in the gain.
- Streamline permits to lower building costs. Cheaper, faster builds expand the tax base.
- Pair incentives with performance. Offer breaks for net new jobs and claw them back if promises are not met.
Each tool acknowledges that the best revenue source is a growing economy. If you grow payrolls and profits in the city, tax receipts rise even with moderate rates.
What New Yorkers Stand to Lose
If enough high earners or firms walk away, everyday New Yorkers pay the price. Transit upgrades get deferred. Class sizes grow. Property taxes creep up to fill gaps. City workers face hiring freezes. Neighborhood businesses lose weekday traffic. The harms land on people with the fewest options.
Wealth can feel abstract, but the budget is not. The dollars that fund teachers and sanitation often start as profits and paychecks from a small group of large employers. Treat those employers as the enemy and they will not play the game here. They will build somewhere that cheers when they arrive.
Location Competition Is Here to Stay
We cannot wish away the competition among cities and states. It is real, and it is not going away. Miami has built a full-service financial hub. Austin and Dallas have deep pools of tech and corporate talent. Nashville has growth, culture, and a business-friendly pitch. If we act as if people and companies are stuck, we write our own fiscal problem.
New York has huge strengths: talent, culture, transit, and a global brand. That gives us pricing power, but not limitless power. There is a line where the next tax or the next signal flips the decision. Our job is to stay shy of that line.
Practical Tests for Any New Tax
Before passing a tax aimed at non-residents, leaders should run a simple set of tests:
- Net revenue: After behavior changes, does the tax bring in more money or less?
- Elasticity: How likely are targeted taxpayers to change where they live, spend, or build?
- Substitution: Can owners or firms restructure to avoid the tax at low cost?
- Signal: What message does the tax send to current and future investors?
- Equity: Does the policy help or hurt workers and neighborhoods over time?
If a proposal fails these tests, it is performative. Performative policy is expensive. The bill shows up in budget shortfalls and higher rates on those who cannot leave.
Respectful Debate, Real Outcomes
We can disagree on how much to tax the wealthy. We should not pretend actions have no reactions. As a planner, I measure policies by outcomes over pride. The goal is more growth, broader opportunity, and steady public services. A tax that drives out key taxpayers misses that goal. It shrinks the pie and shifts the tab to the people who stay.
I want strong schools, safe streets, clean parks, and modern transit. Those things take money. The surest way to get that money is to keep our largest taxpayers and employers here, building and hiring. Focus less on stunts and more on strategies that grow the base. That is how we protect the New Yorkers who need services the most.
New York wins when we welcome investment, enforce clear rules, and keep policy steady. Let’s measure ideas by whether they keep jobs here and bills paid. That is how an economy works.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is a tax on non-resident homeowners supposed to do?
Supporters argue it makes part-time owners pay more for city services they benefit from. The risk is that it reduces investment, home purchases, and local spending enough to shrink net revenue.
Q: Why focus on large employers like hedge funds?
A small group of firms and high earners often supply an outsized share of income and business taxes. Their payrolls and projects also support many local jobs in services and construction.
Q: How can New York raise funds without chasing away investment?
Keep taxes predictable and simple, streamline permits to cut building costs, use value-capture near transit, and tie incentives to verified job creation. Growth-driven tools expand the base and stabilize revenue.
