In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The Lady-Tax

Jill

In an effort to get the city’s budget balanced, New York is developing ways to level taxes on certain services that are disproportionately utilized by the wealthy. And I’m all for that — right up until the point where they level especially high taxes on services that are used almost entirely by women.

As government reports go, it is highly readable stuff. In the soak-the-rich category (our name for it, not theirs), the city could raise $24.2 million annually by slapping a 1 percent tax on those who pay $3,000 or more a month for their apartments.[*] Another $40 million could come from a new tax on dry cleaning, laundering and tailoring services — after all, it’s the affluent who do not wash their own clothes.

Among the more intriguing proposals is a new tax on cosmetic procedures, i.e. face-lifts, chemical peels and dermabrasions, which would generate $65 million annually. However, the report notes there will be opposition from those who see such treatments not as luxuries but as “vital to improving self-esteem and general quality of life.’’

I’m not sure that cosmetic surgery and treatments are “vital,” but it does seem a bit unfair to target women for what amounts to a beauty tax — especially when it’s been shown that a woman’s physical appearance has a direct impact on her compensation and her hiring prospects. Older women are offered lower salaries than younger ones; fat women make less money than thin women; mothers make less money than women without children. It’s economically rational for women to try to make themselves look younger. For a lot of women, it does feel like a necessity, not a luxury.

Perhaps instead they should tax businesses that hemorrhage female workers, or largely higher younger, prettier women. Or companies that air-brush photos. Or “women’s magazines.”

Or maybe just structure the tax system so that it doesn’t disproportionately impact women.

Thanks to Julia for the link.

___________________________
*I can’t stop myself from pointing out that a $3,000-a-month apartment is not a major luxury in New York. A $3,000 one-bedroom occupied by a single person or a couple? Yeah. But simply a $3,000 apartment? I live with two room mates in a three-bedroom, and we collectively pay more than $3,000 a month — we’re two law students and a teacher. My apartment is a fifth-floor walk-up in the East Village (i.e., not one of the priciest neighborhoods). And we’re actually getting it for below market value. I pay less in rent than most people I know. And a tax on my “luxury” apartment would not be targeting rich people.

70 thoughts on The Lady-Tax

  1. I can’t stop myself from pointing out that a $3,000-a-month apartment is not a major luxury in New York. A $3,000 one-bedroom occupied by a single person or a couple? Yeah. But simply a $3,000 apartment?

    Sounds like a proposal that has not been well-thought out. In addition to no distinction between multi-room/occupant apartments, no distinction between luxurious apartments vs “regular” housing.

    Then again, from what little I recall from my econ classes, if the government’s goal is optimal generation of revenue for things such as balancing budgets, the conventional economic wisdom is for the City to target necessities with inelastic demand so the populace are less able to opt out of paying such taxes. According to this reasoning, if they only target luxuries, those with a lot of disposable income such as the wealthy can opt out of paying such taxes by reducing/eliminating their consumption of luxury goods. Of course, these economists are assuming that these tax levies are made for the purposes of optimally generating revenue for the government…not as a means of influencing economic and social behaviors.

  2. The important point isn’t who uses the services, but who pays for them. Women may have face lifts, but if it’s paid for out of a couple’s joint income the tax burden doesn’t fall on them.

    “I’m not sure that cosmetic surgery and treatments are “vital,” but it does seem a bit unfair to target [rich] women for what amounts to a beauty tax — especially when it’s been shown that a woman’s physical appearance has a direct impact on her compensation and her hiring prospects.”

    Why? The counter argument is that using the tax system to prevent the rich using their money to buy an unjust advantage over the poor is a usually thought of as a good idea. Why should rich women be able to use their wealth load the economic dice in their favour and against poor men and poor women.

  3. Not to take away from your main point, but since when is dry cleaning only used by the wealthy? Any woman who has to wear professional clothes in an office setting has a least a few things that require dry cleaning. And we’re not all wealthy.

  4. Yes, I actually think that might be quite regressive, the affluent don’t wash their own clothes by choice. But the sick, the old, and the infirm often can’t wash their own clothes.

  5. The counter argument is that using the tax system to prevent the rich using their money to buy an unjust advantage over the poor is a usually thought of as a good idea.

    You mean like LASIK and orthodontics and cosmetic dentistry? Because to my knowledge, no one has proposed a tax on those.

  6. Is a high tax on cigarettes a tax on women because more women smoke than men? Face lifts and chemical peels are wholly optional. Fat people making less money than thin people is not a problem to be solved by giving everyone luposuction, it’s a symptom of an underlying cultural problem that needs resolution at the root level, and I think a true solution actually gets further away when you start giving credibility to things like facelifts and botox injections as legitimate solutions to income disparities for superficial reasons like gender, race, sexual orientation, weight and height. I guess it feels like you’re saying, or at least partially endorsing, the idea that if you’re heavier or older, the onus is on you to look thinner or younger, wheras I think the problem is on the other side. Following that logic to it’s conclusion one could say that because men get paid more than women, it’s wise for women to disguise themselves as men during working hours. Isn’t a better solution to work towards the idea that women should get paid the same as men?

  8. “I think a true solution actually gets further away when you start giving credibility to things like facelifts and botox injections as legitimate solutions to income disparities for superficial reasons like gender, race, sexual orientation, weight and height.”
    </blockquote

    Good thing she didn’t do that, then.

  12. Minor quibble: the East Village may not be one of Manhattan’s priciest neighborhoods, but if you take all five boroughs into account, it certainly is one of the city’s pricier neighborhoods.

  13. This post is right on. I am always so angered when it is that women especially are expected to live up to a certain beauty standard, in order to maintain a basic level of survival in society. Exactly as you said: beautiful, thin women make more and are more readily hired. However, on the flip side, all of the things women have to pay for in order to meet this standard are considered “frivolous.” These things are associated with women, therefore they are considered frivolous, therefore women who buy them are considered to be making frivolous purchases, but if they do not buy them they will not fit the standard to make it in this society.

    Dry cleaning also angers me. It is very very hard to find professional women’s clothing that is not dry clean only. My boyfriend hardly knows what I am talking about and hardly runs into professional male attire that requires dry cleaning…

  14. Isn’t it a little hypocritical to say it’s all right to tax the rich, then in the next line say the equivalent of ‘as long as they aren’t women’?

  15. These procedures are no longer the exclusive province of the rich. Many middle-class women use them as well. This is simply a punitive measure to attack women for being, as Marissa notes, “frivolous.”

  16. Not to mention the fact that most of the surgeries used on transmen and transwomen are classified as “cosmetic” by insurance companies as a way of avoiding paying for the transitions of insured transfolk. This little tax makes an expensive (but necessary for some) life event all the more expensive.

  17. eh you could always go for what has been proposed in Spain and literally have gender based tax rates, wouldnt that be interesting.

  18. I agree the overall “maintenance” cost for a professional woman is usually higher than for a man but theres a lot of variance in that and a lot of space for personal preference. As far as Marissa’s boyfriend not needing dry cleaning, well some men can get by on an ironed pair of dockers and a nice shirt and tie but that all depends on where he works and what he likes. I know I’ve spent a good deal of money on tailoring, which was mentioned in the article, and nearly all of my work clothes need to be dry cleaned. Thankfully I can shine my own shoes well and dont pay 10-25 dollars a week or more for each pair of shoes I want done like some of my friends.

    Taxing the cosmetic procedures seems stupid to me and while women get the majority of them the % of men who do is swiftly rising. Still an idiotic idea.
    Its the nature of the gov’t though, find out where the money is and make a grab for it.

  19. Why should rich women be able to use their wealth load the economic dice in their favour and against poor men and poor women.

    Except that wealthy women are not competing with poor women or poor men for jobs and advancement; they’re competing with wealthy men who do not have the beauty burden.

    Isn’t it a little hypocritical to say it’s all right to tax the rich, then in the next line say the equivalent of ‘as long as they aren’t women’?

    It would be. Fortunately, that’s not what she said. She said it’s not all right to tax rich women disproportionately more than rich men.

    I hate the rich as much anybody, but I see no reason to hate rich women more than rich men. What if there were a commensurate tax on things largely bought by rich men? Golf paraphenalia, maybe?

  20. beauty burden….id like to ask a question EG. I do believe there is a beauty burden unfairly placed on women but I sometimes wonder, if women can and do willingly reap the rewards that can be attained by beauty can they not also expect to endure the downside of it? I understand as a principle it shouldn’t exist but it does and a lot of women, even feminists, make use of it for their own advantage as it would be folly not to. How to reconcile that?

  21. dan&danica,
    Sure if you want to call being objectified a real reward.. Personally I’d rather be considered human and rewarded for my talents and skills rather than my appearance.

  22. dan&danica,

    Your question also ignores the fact that those who do not fit the beauty standards are punished. Yay I get to pick between being beautiful and using it to my “advantage” to be objectified(regardless of my real skills and talents), or not fitting the standard and not being as successful (regardless of my real skills and talents).

  23. if women can and do willingly reap the rewards that can be attained by beauty can they not also expect to endure the downside of it

    1) Yes. I see no reason why any subordinated group should give up anything it can use to get ahead. Let the privileged give up their privileges first. If men are miffed about it, they’re free to stop using our looks to judge our fitness for professional pursuits. That would take care of any so-called “advantage.”

    2) Really, what rewards? It’s a ton of effort taken away from other pursuits merely to get the level of respect and attention that men get merely by washing their faces.

  24. Dry cleaning also angers me. It is very very hard to find professional women’s clothing that is not dry clean only. My boyfriend hardly knows what I am talking about and hardly runs into professional male attire that requires dry cleaning…

    I would just like to say that the thought of “hardly running into professional male attire that requires dry cleaning” is a bit off……the last time I checked, no one dumped their silk ties and suits into the washing machine. And in most professional jobs, men must wear….ties and suits. Which are, if you check the label…Dry Clean only.

    Any guy who puts his suits into the washing machine is probably destroying a long-term investment.

  25. Hold up—dry cleaning is already more expensive for women; in my area, it’s $2 per shirt more expensive. It’s already more expensive for women’s haircuts; again, in my area, about $5 per haircut more expensive. Having clothes altered is already more expensive for women, as most quality men’s shops alter for free. Not to mention that women’s clothing is not standardly-sized like men’s, and there is still no “athletic cut” for women’s clothing (unlike for men’s), despite decades of Title IX and women working out (hello! some of us have shoulders!!). Ahem.

    I’m with zuzu—tax the businesses that have a disproportionately white male workforce. They get to pay a premium discrimination tax, which is currently borne on the backs of women and others of color.

  26. But the sick, the old, and the infirm often can’t wash their own clothes.

    Yes. And I imagine this cost would probably trickle down to higher-cost coin laundry, too — at the laundromat in my neighborhood, it’s already $5 or $6 a load. Given that if you are struggling, you’re probably less likely to have a machine in your apartment or your building, I might call this a regressive tax.

    But then, I drop my laundry off. It’s so hard to get a POV on this kind of thing, because everyone considers their own economic situation the norm by which to gauge what is a luxury. For instance, Jill lives in a $3000+ apartment with two other wage earners who split the rent per capita, or something like it. I think it’s important to point out that this situation in itself gives you the kind of economic power that most low-income (or even median income) people do not have. A $3000 apartment might seem “reasonable” to J, but to a single mom with two kids making $40k a year, it seems like a distant dream.

    These kinds of young profession roommate situations that break the curve of the housing market are the backbone of gentrification in this city, and I say hell yeah they should be taxed.

    (Oh, and most non-head-hair related services in salons and spas are taxed anyway, already: manicures, waxing, body wraps etc. As the line between “spa” and “doctor’s office” becomes increasingly more blurry, I don’t see why they shouldn’t fall under the same paradigm.)

  27. For instance, Jill lives in a $3000+ apartment with two other wage earners who split the rent per capita, or something like it. I think it’s important to point out that this situation in itself gives you the kind of economic power that most low-income (or even median income) people do not have. A $3000 apartment might seem “reasonable” to J, but to a single mom with two kids making $40k a year, it seems like a distant dream.

    These kinds of young profession roommate situations that break the curve of the housing market are the backbone of gentrification in this city, and I say hell yeah they should be taxed.

    That is a really good point.

  28. A poor person cannot afford $1000 a month in rent. The question is, should we tax certain things that only the middle class and above can afford and promote it as a tax on luxuries for the very rich?

    These kinds of young profession roommate situations that break the curve of the housing market are the backbone of gentrification in this city, and I say hell yeah they should be taxed.

    Young people and renters have very little political power, so I imagine this idea will be popular. I understand why it’s in the interest of the NIMBYs in my college town to oppose rentals with several unrelated people, but it doesn’t make sense why so many progressives dislike this high-density, resource-conserving lifestyle.

  29. Also, note that there is no proposed tax on owner-occupied houses above and beyond property taxes (which renters also pay indirectly). At least I don’t think there is; I haven’t read the whole report. This fits in very well with the thinking behind the cosmetic procedures tax. Women are vain and frivolous; single people and renters are spoiled and irresponsible. A nice apartment is a luxury; a nice house is unassailable because that’s a HOME! I’m starting to think that whoever proposed these taxes was reading a lot of Sex and the City-obsessed antifeminist writing about selfish Botoxed single women and their opulent apartments before coming up with this.

  30. I hate the rich as much anybody, but I see no reason to hate rich women more than rich men. What if there were a commensurate tax on things largely bought by rich men? Golf paraphenalia, maybe?

    Top hats? Solid-gold houses? Rocket cars? Cigars wrapped with $100 bills?

  31. “Given that if you are struggling, you’re probably less likely to have a machine in your apartment or your building, I might call this a regressive tax.”

    That’s what jumped out at me- I do my laundry at the laundromat, because I don’t have a washing machine. It’s a situation that seems common enough to me among my neighbors.

  32. A poor person cannot afford $1000 a month in rent.

    That depends on what you mean by “poor.” In many cases (and it depends a lot on about a million factors, like citizenship, number of kids around, dis/ability, age, etc etc) HRA will usually subsidize some (or in some rare cases, all) of a $1000/mo apartment. Or even a $1000/mo share in an apartment, which is a lot harder to get because…

    I understand why it’s in the interest of the NIMBYs in my college town to oppose rentals with several unrelated people, but it doesn’t make sense why so many progressives dislike this high-density, resource-conserving lifestyle.

    … most people (and I don’t mean, most of the people you or I know, I mean, most people in any given city) share dwellings with their family. When you say “unrelated roommates” to people in city welfare programs, they will look at you like you are from Mars. The reason so many progressives hate on this particular arrangement is not because it is resource-conserving (how is three wage earners in a household more “resource conserving” than a mom and two kids in a household?) but that when several people with this “lifestyle” congregate in any given neighborhood, it drives up the renter’s market and displaces families. Particularly single parents with kids (usually moms), immigrants, and people of color (especially in NYC).

    So it’s not a situation in which NIMBYs are afraid of renters driving their property values down; it’s a situation in which working families are afraid of being displaced by agents of gentrification. I mean, did you see Rent? How do you think “reasonable” rent for an apartment in the East Village got to be $3000/mo in the first place? It doesn’t just happen overnight.

    New York real estate is its own very special awful beast, and probably merits a discussion beyond the scope of comments on this blog entry. Which is about the Lady Tax.

    The question is, should we tax certain things that only the middle class and above can afford and promote it as a tax on luxuries for the very rich?

    Yes.

  33. Oh, and when I said “people in city welfare programs” I meant people who work in city welfare programs. Like case managers and stuff.

  34. Young people and renters have very little political power, so I imagine this idea will be popular. I understand why it’s in the interest of the NIMBYs in my college town to oppose rentals with several unrelated people, but it doesn’t make sense why so many progressives dislike this high-density, resource-conserving lifestyle.

    If the mentality among NIMBYists in NYC is anything like I noticed in one of my former Boston area neighborhoods, part of that is the stereotyped idea that families….especially homeowners promote a sense of community and stability as they have a stake in the neighborhood.*

    Renters, especially young singles of college or young professional age…not so much as they have far more flexibility to pick up and move than a homeowner or family. It also does not help that neighborhoods with a large number of undergrad students have had a poor reputation due to noise, drunken behavior, and vandalizing of public and neighbor property.

    Yes, some of this may be due to the fact they dislike seeing young people enjoying themselves….but another part is the fact too many young adults, especially young adults fresh out from high school fail to show any consideration and sensitivity for the neighbors they live with….witnessed too many instances of this as an undergrad and as a young professional in the Boston area.

    As for the rental question, the most expensive rental apt I’ve ever rented with other roommates was $1725/month in a convenient nice Boston area neighborhood. As with Jill, my roommates and I were fortunate to have rent well-below the going market rates….though the area would be considered a bit too “dead” for some young professionals.

    * One friend examined this idea in his Public Administration Masters thesis on the Boston Housing crisis.

  35. Not to veer too far off the freeway here, but less fortunate people hating the rich is like less educated people hating the educated. Some rich people actually earned their money and some rich people actually use their self-accumulated wealth to assist others. Not every rich person’s a self-obssessed prick snorting coke in their private jet.

    Why is it fashionable to despise those who have done well for themselves? Oh yeah, envy. Kind of like those folks who put down the college educated because they haven’t suffered the blue collar lifestyle. Different strokes, folks.

  36. Sorry, Niki, but I respectfully disagree.

    You’re making a distinction between being rich and being wealthy, but not explaining the distinction with specificity. Let me break it down: Being rich is the result of high wages or high salaries, which denotes some sort of merit – either a knowledge, a talent, a skill, or some combination being honed and then deployed to get the high paying occupation. This is the definition of the noveau riches; people who come by affluence as a result of some sort of work.

    In contrast, being wealthy is the result of nothing more than sheer dumb luck and being born into a wealthy family. This is what people really mean when they talk about “the rich.” They’re referring to people who can afford not to work because they live off investments, usually inherited. These people are the bourgeoise.

    To compare hating on the bourgeoise to anti-intellectualism isn’t really fair and tends to muddy the waters on the issue, because there is still a small fraction of lower-class and working-class people who were able to put themselves through university and graduate studies by their own efforts. What people really dislike are the college-educated who went straight to university after high school and had their family members footing the school bills because they could afford not to work.

    That’s how you tell the nouveau riches from the bourgeoise, but the trouble is when tax policies try to target the net result, without making any accomodations for how those affluent people happened to become affluent. One is obviously more worthy of targeting than the other.

  37. … most people (and I don’t mean, most of the people you or I know, I mean, most people in any given city) share dwellings with their family.

    Exactly. The tendency of some progressives to become family-values conservatives on this issue is very strange. I understand that many people think that roommate households drive up rents; to me, that is more than balanced out by the fact that they consume fewer resources per person than single people living alone. Immigrants are also widely criticized for driving up rents by being willing to live with more extended family members than non-immigrants are; I suspect that you would disagree with this criticism. Single people who enter into creative communal living arrangements should not be seen as privileged agents of gentrification.

  38. Thanks to being male, although I have suits and ties, 90% of my wardrobe is “Machine wash warm (or cold), tumble dry.” Whereas women’s clothes are far more likely to need to be drycleaned than to be washable. Even women’s washable clothing has ridiculous, exacting requirements.

    Men do get plastic surgery so they can look young and vibrant, instead of old and dissipated. A previous resident here was the mother of a corporate manager. I would get mail for her, as well as the occasional letter for him — from his plastic surgeon, apparently trying to drum up some repeat business.

  39. In contrast, being wealthy is the result of nothing more than sheer dumb luck and being born into a wealthy family. This is what people really mean when they talk about ‘the rich.’ … One is obviously more worthy of targeting than the other.”

    I’d be interested to hear if the other commenters in this thread agree with this distinction.

  40. Mezosub, I’m willing to admit there’s a spectrum of difference, but I still think hating on rich folk is a generalized and widely accepted practice that doesn’t particularly make the distinctions you mentioned.

    I went to college on my parents’ bill because they both grew up blue collar (and below) and when my dad was fortunate enough to start and maintain a business that soared, they wanted the best for their kids. That doesn’t mean I didn’t work and have not worked since, or that I deserve less respect than someone who had to struggle to pay their college bills (or someone that didn’t go to college at all).

    I watched all kinds of ignorant people call my father ‘bourgeoise’ simply because he had done well, knowing nothing of his past or how he spent his dough. Sadly, people typically don’t take the time to learn about the individual, they just generalize. And hate upon.

    In addition, I wasn’t grouping anti-intellectualism with less fortunate individuals, I was making a parallel arguement to demonstrate my point.

  41. “james, why do you assume most women are in relationships and that their finances are combined?”

    I’m not doing this. I read Jill as saying the tax necessarily falls on women because they use the services. My point is just that the burden actually falls on the person who pays for the service, not the person who consumes it.

  42. In contrast, being wealthy is the result of nothing more than sheer dumb luck and being born into a wealthy family. This is what people really mean when they talk about ‘the rich.’ … One is obviously more worthy of targeting than the other.”

    Would agree with this distinction…though I would refine it to make distinctions between those who came from inherited wealth, but were raised well to understand they do not deserve entitlements merely for existing and those who were not.
    Unfortunately, most undergrad classmates/co-workers I’ve met from inherited wealth tend to be of the overentitled variety believing the whole world revolves around their immediate desire for a luxurious lifestyle (I.e. Replacing cars, electronics items, furniture every 3-6 months, yelling at parents when they cut off tuition/allowance money for poor academic performance, etc).

    Disclosure: Had a near-full college scholarship to a well-reputed institution with the difference covered by a small loan and money earned from freelance tutoring and computer teching. In some ways, this arrangement was more liberating…especially after witnessing how parents of fellow classmates feel entitled to guilt-trip their children into doing their every bidding by implying “You owe me for not only raising you, but also paying for your university/college education”.*

    * Thankfully, my parents are not the types to do this…..though some older aunts have used the same guilt-trip tactic to varying degrees of effectiveness.

  43. The tendency of some progressives to become family-values conservatives on this issue is very strange

    How so? I think that narrowly defining it this way is to leave out many factors in which people would be “NIMBY” to “non-relative” structures, and it also leaves out the fact that the process of gentrification does have the tendency to screw over families, particularly low-income, immigrants, people of color and female head of households.

    My case for instance: Williamsburg, Brooklyn, a neighborhood that has a high immigrant population (primarily Latinos), primarily working-class, a considerable amount of housing programs (with perhaps less than 1% vacancy), and an undeniable visible amount of gentrification going on.

    You will find that, yes immigrants are more willing to live with more extended family members than non-immigrants. However, it’s not usually an issue of wanting to, it’s usually an issue of having to. The situation is that many long-time residents had few other options but to live here because it’s what they were able to afford at the given time. However, there are many newcomers here primarily for the “name” factor. You have no idea how many times people’s faces have illuminated (and mine’s into disgust) because I have said that I live in Williamsburg: “Oh you must love living there, with all the galleries and restaurants, and such; I would love to live there, it’s so bohemian (or another similar adjective)” as though the majority of the residents here are able to “enjoy” those things in the first place.

    It’s frustrating to see families who need the additional space not being able to do so because trying to find housing within their means would mean moving pretty damn far away from the neighborhood that they have been in for years upon years and affording housing in NY is a joke at this point. It’s equally frustrating to hear real estate agents referring to Williamsburg as the new “SoHo,” the new discovery, when hell, people were already living here in the first place (but, of course they become invisible for marketing purposes). And trust me, real estate agents and developers are not actively trying to draw in low-income families.

    So yes, in comparison to the predominant residents in this case (and many cases in NYC and other metropolitan areas facing these changes), people who do enter into “creative communal living arrangements” at the rate that this housing market is going can at many times be viewed as “privileged agents of gentrification.”

  44. Shankar, I don’t. Wealthy, on my account, describes the state of being able to support one’s lifestyle without income derived from employment; i.e. one who can live on interest or other investment income is wealthy. Inheritance is the single greatest cause of this condition, but Bill Gates and Paul Allen qualify for reasons unrelated to inheritance.

    Those of us who couldn’t pay our mortgages if we lost our jobs, even if we have a lot of disposable income, are merely affluent.

    Rich is a colloquial term, so much so that I think trying to constrain it with a specific definition is a fool’s errand.

  45. Single people generally live with roommates because they cannot afford to live alone in the neighborhood of their choice. To escape the “gentrification” scorn, they could move away from those neighborhoods, but it’s unclear how that would be better than anyone else moving away; whoever moves further out is going to have a longer commute and possibly start driving to work. Or they could start families just to avoid the stigma. Lori Gottlieb would probably approve of the latter solution, but I doubt many here would. Pitting singles in nontraditional households against immigrants and poor families — even if none of these single people were themselves poor, which is certainly not the case, and no matter how gauche they sound gushing about “bohemian” Williamsburg — is a losing strategy that usually ends up targeting single women.

  46. La Labu, I think at least in New York there are regulations regarding sex-discriminatory dry cleaning fees. I don’t know the specifics off the top of my head, but I remember that my cleaner has a sign up about it.

    Regarding the luxuriousness of a $3000-a-month apartment, the linked text does say “those who pay $3000,” which I think implies that one person alone is paying that much. That’s exactly what my rent is in South Brooklyn, but I split it with two other people. I’m not struggling by any means and could always afford to pay a few more dollars in taxes, but New York has such a huge number of truly ultrarich, it seems a shame to look target these middle class “luxuries.” A tax on helicopter rides, please.

  47. James, your point is only valid if you think that a significant number of women aren’t paying for those services becase they split expenses with boyfriends or husbands. I’d point out that even when they do split expenses or combine income, there’s usually some division and balance. What each person spends is considered taken out of their portion of their spendable income.

  48. By the way, Williamsburg has plenty of classic NIMBYs who oppose taller buildings on the grounds that they will “destroy the neighborhood.” I would blame them for exacerbating the housing shortage that has led to soaring rents, rather than scapegoating single people who are just trying to get by.

  49. Bill Gates and Paul Allen qualify for reasons unrelated to inheritance.

    Not sure in Bill Gates’ case as I recalled a computer magazine article from several years back mentioning that his family was well-off and that he had a $1 million trustfund as a child.

    Though his success was largely due to his ability to leverage the idea of the software license and market various operating systems/software effectively, his story is not the rags to riches story many make it out to be. One cannot discount the possibility that his trustfund provided him with a secure cushion to fall back on in case the Microsoft thing did not work out….a cushion most children do not have.

  50. I would blame them for exacerbating the housing shortage that has led to soaring rents, rather than scapegoating single people who are just trying to get by

    There are many factors that has lend to the housing shortage. However, these taller buildings consist of $500K+ condos, not affordable buys nor rentals, and I’m very curious (and by curious I mean I sarcastically already know, since I’ve I seen advertisements for these particular buildings in affluent neighborhoods in Manhattan) who these occupants will be. And no, offering a fraction of the units as rentals to low-income individuals/families through a highly limiting lottery process in order to get a tax break (only if it goes above a certain floor number) is not really helping the problem either.

  52. Not sure in Bill Gates’ case as I recalled a computer magazine article from several years back mentioning that his family was well-off and that he had a $1 million trustfund as a child.

    Wikipedia says no:

    Several writers claim that Maxwell set up a million-dollar trust fund for Gates.[13] A 1993 biographer who interviewed both Gates and his parents (among other sources) found no evidence of this and dismissed it as one of the “fictions” surrounding Gates’s fortune.[12] Gates denied the trust fund story in a 1994 interview[14] and indirectly in his 1995 book The Road Ahead.

  53. What zuzu said. I think that if we take a closer look, we find that even these rags-to-riches stories are not what’s presented to the public.

    Bill Gates likes for everyone to think that he got rich because he was exceptionally smart and talented, when the truth is that he got rich because he came from a wealthy family.

    Granted, William H. Gates, Sr. appears to have ammassed his fortune by working as an attorney, but his undergrad and law school were paid for by the GI Bill, which no longer pays benefits the way it used to in Gates’ time (1946-1950), considering the costs of education have increased expoentially since then.

  54. Don’t forget – many towns have also passed laws that prevent renters from having more than 2 people per bedroom. This effectively means that a single mom with two small children HAS to rent a 2 bedroom apartment. In some places, you can rent a 1 bedroom for as little as $400, but 2 bedrooms will start at $800 even for an unlivable place. And the crazy thing is that the only purpose of those laws is really to keep poor people out of their towns.

    We ran into this when we had a one-bedroom and I got pregnant – Our landlord saw me at 5 months and issued us an eviction notice a few hours later. We had 30 days to move.

    The crazy thing is that our 1 bedroom apt was 1200 square feet – which was actually 400 square feet bigger than the 2 bedroom apartment we ended up getting. Also, our kids sleep in our room, so it pretty much sucked all around.

  55. Magikmama,

    Wow, your story actually blows me away. I knew about the keeping poor people from having a place to live part, but the pregnancy eviction is insane. What an asshole. Are there any legal reprocussions for you, or is the law entirely on assface’s side because your child would have violated the hate-the-poor housing regulation?

  56. Bill Gates likes for everyone to think that he got rich because he was exceptionally smart and talented, when the truth is that he got rich because he came from a wealthy family.

    Absurd. Surely talent had something to do with it. Or are there lots of other people from moderately wealthy families with net worths of $53 billion that I haven’t heard of?

  57. Why not go straight to the source and tax income? Seems like a better way to weed out the rich people than trying to figure out what they and they alone buy.

  58. and I’m very curious (and by curious I mean I sarcastically already know, since I’ve I seen advertisements for these particular buildings in affluent neighborhoods in Manhattan) who these occupants will be.

    I’m curious (honestly curious!) what effect there is on rental prices when there’s an increase in the supply of housing, even if the increase is all condos. I really have no idea, but it’s not inconceivable that the effect could be good.

  59. anna, probably because you cant actually tax the rich unless you have some sort of flat or consumption (on all items over a certain cost) tax and certainly not while you have a republican president. besides, for the truly rich, say warren buffet, his tax rate is lower than his secretaries because of what his income is derived from, even the marginally rich, in the high 7 figures, there are all kinds of tax shelters and tricks to be used. gotta love that.

  60. Wikipedia says no:

    Considering I had to correct several laughable errors in wikipedia pages dealing with Chinese/Japanese history and various computing topics, I will take what wikipedia with a large barrel of salt.

    Not saying that the computer article I read cannot possibly be mistaken….just that wikipedia’s veracity can be quite sketchy. 😉

  61. I’m curious (honestly curious!) what effect there is on rental prices when there’s an increase in the supply of housing, even if the increase is all condos. I really have no idea, but it’s not inconceivable that the effect could be good.

    I’m curious myself, too, what the general effect tends to be. Over here, again referring to Williamsburg and Northern Brooklyn, there are plenty of condo buildings going up (which frankly are not getting filled), but the rent prices keep on going up due to the changes in population demographics.

  62. The rent increases aren’t necessarily tied to population demographics, though. Nor are they necessarily tied into sale prices. The housing market has just been insane the last few years, all out of proportion to what people’s actual income is. Also, those $500K apartments (and that’s at the low end; trust me, I’m in the process of selling my apartment, and I’ve got one of the lowest-priced places in three boroughs, apparently, and I’ve also been searching for a new place to live) are not necessarily going to be cheaper than renting at this point. I’ve been looking into maybe rolling over my equity into a new place, but I can’t come up with any place that’s going to be cheaper than renting in Astoria until prices go down.

    One reason that there are single people (and seriously, folks, do we have to demonize single people? Families aren’t the only households that count), and by single people this discussion pretty clearly means “single, educated, probably with some disposable income,” moving into certain neighborhoods is that they’re priced out of other neighborhoods. The luxury condos are bought by people who are mortgaged up to their eyeballs, and because they can still get mortgaged up to their eyeballs, the prices continue to rise. Everywhere else in the country, prices are falling because the mortgaged-up-to-their-eyeballs people just can’t pay anymore. That hasn’t happened so much here.

    But neighborhoods do change over time. Flatbush, for example, was once a Jewish neighborhood, and now is largely Jamaican. I’ve watched my own neighborhood become much less diverse and much more young-white-couple-affluent over the past 6.5 years. I knew someone whose grandmother was upset that she was moving to the Lower East Side because the family had fought so hard to get out of there years before.

    I’m also not sure how much gentrification really affects existing renters, though, in a city that has rent stabilization and rent control laws. Sure, if people are getting kicked out of their buildings illegally, then there’s a problem, but it’s due to the landlords violating the leases or stupid occupancy rules, not the kine of people coming in. It seems like it’s more a problem for young people who can’t move out of their parents’ places if they want to live in the same neighborhood because while their parents have a rent-controlled place, they will have to get market rates. But that’s a common problem everywhere.

    And people who own — and at least where I live, in Kensington, there are a lot of property owners — may get socked somewhat by higher property taxes as values rise (though tax bills are really low in the city due to the high commercial tax base), but if they want to take advantage of the higher prices, they can always cash out. Someone who paid less than $100K for a house decades ago may find that selling for over a million is worth it.

  63. Why not go straight to the source and tax income? Seems like a better way to weed out the rich people than trying to figure out what they and they alone buy.

    Earned income isn’t the true marker of wealth; interest income, and income from capital gains, is. I remember seeing some tax forms from George Bush, and his entire income derived from the interest from Treasury bonds. Or bills. I forget.

    Anyway, what distinguishes rich people from wealthy people is that wealthy people have one very simple rule: Don’t fuck with the principal. Rich people may have a lot of money, and a lot of stuff, but it’s the kind of money that can go away, as Chris Rock observed, in one year with a drug habit. Wealthy people have investments and assets that are beyond the reach of the beneficiaries; that’s why they set up trust funds.

    The tax code favors interest income, and capital gains, over earned income. Which is one reason that CEOs have so much of their compensation in stock options. There’s a lot you can do to offset those gains, but not so much with the earned income.

    Wealthy people protect their wealth from generation to generation, which used to be easier than it is today. Take any random Jane Austen novel: the heroine was usually in a predicament due to the fact that her family was composed of all girls; there used to be a thing called a fee tail that passed property — all of it — usually to the oldest male heir. This is why the Bennet sisters would lose Longbourn (and all but a small income) to William Collins or why the Dashwood sisters were turned out of Norland when their father died and their half-brother John became the heir.

    It was designed to keep estates together, though of course lines (male lines, at least) could fail, or someone could fuck with the principal. The fee tail is actually responsible for one set of my great-grandparents coming to the US, since my great-grandfather was the second son of a landed family in Ireland and got bupkis. So they started from scratch over here, where the idea really never took hold. And the fee tail was eventually abolished.

    The estate tax, at least before anyone started throwing up family-farmer and small-business-owner strawmen, was designed to be sort of the anti-fee-tail and keep dynasties from forming through inherited wealthy. Mind, the wealthy can pay for good lawyers and estate planners, so a lot of stuff gets around that.

  64. I’m also not sure how much gentrification really affects existing renters, though, in a city that has rent stabilization and rent control laws. Sure, if people are getting kicked out of their buildings illegally, then there’s a problem, but it’s due to the landlords violating the leases or stupid occupancy rules, not the kine of people coming in.

    From what I’ve heard from classmates in high school and before, rent control/stabilized apartments are being reduced and despite the laws preventing this fact, many of them and their families were forced out of their rent controlled/stabilized apartments due to a combination of the landlords finding various sneaky loopholes and/or means to force rent control/stabilized tenants out.

    From what they’ve told me and what I’ve seen when I helped some of them move out after the courts found in favor of the landlords, the housing courts have shown lackluster interest in enforcing those regulations.

    Many of those same apartments are now being rented by more upscale college undergrads attending NYU.

  65. No. There’s a vast difference between rich people and educated people.

    I am of the opinion that knowledge and learning are inherently worthy, admirable pursuits. I see no reason to accord the amassment of huge clumps of money the same respect.

  66. And people who own — and at least where I live, in Kensington, there are a lot of property owners — may get socked somewhat by higher property taxes as values rise (though tax bills are really low in the city due to the high commercial tax base), but if they want to take advantage of the higher prices, they can always cash out. Someone who paid less than $100K for a house decades ago may find that selling for over a million is worth it.

    Well howdy, neighbor! (For the moment.)

    I’ve lived in Kensington for about three years, and wow, the place has changed fast.

    I see a lot more young, “hipster” kids getting off the train at my stop, when it used to be pretty much just my roommates and I.

    Now the place is teeming with folks just out of college, and now there’s a neighborhood blog…it’s pretty wild.

    My employment situation is pretty bizarre, so I can’t afford to move any time soon. I’ve already come to terms with the fact it’s unlikely I’ll live in Manhattan again in my lifetime.

    Housing is fucked.

  67. From what I’ve heard from classmates in high school and before, rent control/stabilized apartments are being reduced and despite the laws preventing this fact, many of them and their families were forced out of their rent controlled/stabilized apartments due to a combination of the landlords finding various sneaky loopholes and/or means to force rent control/stabilized tenants out.

    Welcome to “luxury decontrol,” which takes apartments whose rent hits $2000/month and takes them out of the rent control/stabilization system. New buildings also aren’t subject to the laws, so they rent for market rates.

    Again, though, the main problem is not the people renting the apartments — because everyone needs somewhere to live — but the unscrupulous landlords who game the system, a housing court that doesn’t punish violation, and a pro-landlord rent control board. But those forces aren’t as visible as the “upscale NYU students” (and the school’s not *that* big) moving in next door.

  68. Again, though, the main problem is not the people renting the apartments — because everyone needs somewhere to live — but the unscrupulous landlords who game the system, a housing court that doesn’t punish violation, and a pro-landlord rent control board. But those forces aren’t as visible as the “upscale NYU students” (and the school’s not *that* big) moving in next door.

    Zuzu,

    Neither my classmates, their families, or I are blind to the realities that the larger factors are the unscrupulous landlords, an indifferent housing court, and the rent control board as some of them have dealt with all of them firsthand. Unfortunately, the way it seems to work, the party with the most money/connections ends up winning…regardless of the merits of one’s case or the written laws.

    In short, the view they and I hold is that while those “upscale NYU students” do not bear total responsibility, they are not seen by them as completely innocent either.* Their ability and willingness to pay higher rents was one important factor in those more invisible forces to do the work of shafting my classmates and their families.

    When my friend was doing his research on the Boston housing crisis, he found the same dynamic writ large in many formerly undesirable neighborhoods such as Roxbury and Mission Hill…neighborhoods close to large universities and colleges. He mentioned that before the mid-late 1990’s, very few students wanted to rent in those areas due to the perceived dangers arising from the high crime rates and poor conditions of those areas due to municipal neglect. In fact, he and several longtime residents mentioned that the housing market back then was so bad that some unscrupulous landlords were setting their apartment buildings on fire to fraudulently collect insurance money. Since the late 1990’s onwards, however, the expansion of the area colleges to create additional dorm space combined with the influx of out-of-state and international students means that the rents in those areas have skyrocketed to the point that many low-income families were effectively forced out of their neighborhoods. I was floored when I found many undergrads renting studios and 1 bedrooms for over $1200-$2000/month and two bedroom apartments for nearly $3000/month in the very same areas they would not have been caught dead in just 7-10 years before. Despite promises by the colleges to set aside certain portions of the dormspace for low-income housing, most of the residents realized that was little more than crumbs meant to pacify their vociferous protests against the college’s expansion into their neighborhoods.

    * I do not exclude myself from this analysis when I was living in my first neighborhood in the Boston area. I knew my presence as a young professional was driving an already crazy rental market even more high. Regardless of how much I tried to mitigate that by helping them in any way I could, I was part of the very gentrification that was pricing them out of their own neighborhood. To believe otherwise is to be in denial of my part of this phenomenon.

  69. You honestly said, with a straight face, that your 3K Manhattan is apartment is inhabited by the poor? Give me a break.

    And why does NYC need more tax money? They already have a city income tax from Hades designed to tax the (working) rich.

    At least if you taxed the apartments, you’d get all the people who live on capital gains. No, wait, they own their apartments.

    I guess you’d just be taxing poor people with roommates (gasp!) who pay 3K. Need to think of other ways to soak the rich…. Property taxes!

  70. You honestly said, with a straight face, that your 3K Manhattan is apartment is inhabited by the poor? Give me a break.

    Uh, no. (Reading comprehension skills are the coolest!)

    I said that my $3,000 Manhattan apartment is not inhabited by the rich. We certainly are not “poor,” but we also aren’t the target class of rich and/or wealthy people who these taxes are trying to target.

    There’s a lot of space between “poor” and “rich.” And just because I said I’m not rich doesn’t mean that I claimed to be poor. Seriously, reading helps.

Comments are currently closed.