Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
A unabashed "tax the rich" Socialist wins New York City....
And so it begins.....
The fundamental flaw of such hollow-promise pie-in-the-sky Oprah-hour "elect me and you get this for free, he get's this for free, she get's this for free, YOU ALL GET IT ALL FOR FREE" absolute utter BS nonsense, it's impossibility factor; the "rich" can say "Peace out yall!".
It's been literally hours into this and already REALTORS of FL are reporting being absolutely inundated with wealth clients relocating to, you guessed it, "Freedom" Florida.
The mobility of money.
When your poor, you live where you can afford to live.
When your getting by, you live where works.
When your RICH, you live where you STAY rich.
It's just not complicated. Money = mobility.
"Tax the rich" = send money AWAY!
I am curious, Florida friends, my Miami mighty REALTORS, Jacksonville juggernauts of realty, my Tampa transaction hero's, my Orlando....... ok can't figure anything jazzy that rhymes with Orlando that I can actually spell but ya get the picture; REALTORS what are you seeing on the ground?
Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes
10mo
I don’t see the increased income tax being the showstopper but the increased business tax - that is going to crush small businesses and shutter many as well as cause cost of everything to go up because where does that cost go - it goes to the consumers
I don’t see the increased income tax being the showstopper but the increased business tax - that is going to crush small businesses and shutter many as well as cause cost of everything to go up because where does that cost go - it goes to the consumers
It's going to be interesting to see how many flee, relocate operations, how much tax base leaves by time the spending spree starts, and what there going to then have to impose to infill that ever widening $$$$ gap.
I assume it will be blame campaigns, with every increasing taxation actions.
As they tax more, more flee or shutter, spurring need for more tax which needs more blame to cloak in and round-n-round it goes.
If I were NY I'd be getting out now just for fact of the anticipated tensions and volatility to come. It's kind of simple math at this point. To bet on "yeah they said there gonna do that buuuuut" seems a bit Pollyanna.
I don’t see the increased income tax being the showstopper but the increased business tax - that is going to crush small businesses and shutter many as well as cause cost of everything to go up because where does that cost go - it goes to the consumers
It's going to be interesting to see how many flee, relocate operations, how much tax base leaves by time the spending spree starts, and what there going to then have to impose to infill that ever widening $$$$ gap.
I assume it will be blame campaigns, with every increasing taxation actions.
As they tax more, more flee or shutter, spurring need for more tax which needs more blame to cloak in and round-n-round it goes.
If I were NY I'd be getting out now just for fact of the anticipated tensions and volatility to come. It's kind of simple math at this point. To bet on "yeah they said there gonna do that buuuuut" seems a bit Pollyanna.
I agree. I do not think you will see mass amounts of people leaving because for most who would not live in New York they are not moving there, but for those that are there, they are already taxed up the wazoo so another point here or there is like, who cares for them. Most will say they love it and its worth it. its no different than people who live in pricey area of california. They will say the weather etc. but you could live in another state and fly to the caribbean of an resort island every week for a weekend and it would still be cheaper.
Where i see the bigger impact is on small businesses, epsecially mom and pop restaurants etc. if they get hit with this tax it will shut them down.
Homeowner · Tampa, FL · Member since 2016 · 358 posts · 65 votes
10mo
My parents told me this and they experienced this time: in China’s history known as the Maoist era, especially during the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). During this time, private property was abolished, and families were forced to give up their cooking pans and join communal kitchens as part of collective living under communes. People wore similar clothing (mostly gray, blue, or green uniforms), worked together in fields or factories, and relied on the state for food distribution—often standing in long lines for poor-quality rations. It was a time of strict equality in appearance and lifestyle, but also widespread hardship and famine. Chinese died most during that time than any war on the history of China.
Before 1949 when this government(current government) became the government, Chinese had land or households ownership. Since this communes, all land belongs to one 'PERSON': Chinese community party. Everyone else is renter and can rent one place up to 70 years.
My parents told me this and they experienced this time: in China’s history known as the Maoist era, especially during the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). During this time, private property was abolished, and families were forced to give up their cooking pans and join communal kitchens as part of collective living under communes. People wore similar clothing (mostly gray, blue, or green uniforms), worked together in fields or factories, and relied on the state for food distribution—often standing in long lines for poor-quality rations. It was a time of strict equality in appearance and lifestyle, but also widespread hardship and famine. Chinese died most during that time than any war on the history of China.
Before 1949 when this government(current government) became the government, Chinese had land or households ownership. Since this communes, all land belongs to one 'PERSON': Chinese community party. Everyone else is renter and can rent one place up to 70 years.
Yes, horrible things happened in China. And a lot of people died in the process. However, we have the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, and a lot of people exercise that right. I don't expect to see a communist takeover. It's more like peeing in drinking water, it pollutes what you want and need.
However...... You seriously say "however" to the massacres that happened in China's decent into communism to a person who's parents experienced it first hand and received 1st hand accounting of it......
"Oh yeah, sure, millions upon millions died HOWEVER....." no, there is no "however" for such a thing.
And look, Communism didn't just sprout up and then happen in a month in China. Nor Russia or anywhere Communism came other than invasion like Germany or Poland. Like a frog in a pot, the heat was raised slowly over time until the frog aka freedoms, were cooked.
To say "yeah but it can't happen here" is IGNORANCE. It can happen ANYWHERE that is not vigilant against it's happening.
2nd amendment is a empty argument. Because (a) it can be taken away. And (b) are you gonna go running out and use your weapon to defend liberty? Are ya ready to die for it? Probably not.
Just possessing a hammer doesn't build a home, ya gotta actually use the thing for it to do anything.
The vast majority of people with firearms are good law abiding citizens and that's exactly why they'd struggle so hard to ever actually use them against another human being unless it was a life and death situation, and even then so many can't/don't. And bad-actors know this, take advantage of it, use your humanity against you.
Your #1 BEST weapon against Communism or dystopian whatever taking over is not the 2nd amendment or a firearm, it's your Vote and your Voice. The best cure is prevention.
If you got to a point where using a firearm to protect or secure your liberty is a thing, it's already too late.
My parents told me this and they experienced this time: in China’s history known as the Maoist era, especially during the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). During this time, private property was abolished, and families were forced to give up their cooking pans and join communal kitchens as part of collective living under communes. People wore similar clothing (mostly gray, blue, or green uniforms), worked together in fields or factories, and relied on the state for food distribution—often standing in long lines for poor-quality rations. It was a time of strict equality in appearance and lifestyle, but also widespread hardship and famine. Chinese died most during that time than any war on the history of China.
Before 1949 when this government(current government) became the government, Chinese had land or households ownership. Since this communes, all land belongs to one 'PERSON': Chinese community party. Everyone else is renter and can rent one place up to 70 years.
Yes, horrible things happened in China. And a lot of people died in the process. However, we have the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, and a lot of people exercise that right. I don't expect to see a communist takeover. It's more like peeing in drinking water, it pollutes what you want and need.
However...... You seriously say "however" to the massacres that happened in China's decent into communism to a person who's parents experienced it first hand and received 1st hand accounting of it......
"Oh yeah, sure, millions upon millions died HOWEVER....." no, there is no "however" for such a thing.
And look, Communism didn't just sprout up and then happen in a month in China. Nor Russia or anywhere Communism came other than invasion like Germany or Poland. Like a frog in a pot, the heat was raised slowly over time until the frog aka freedoms, were cooked.
To say "yeah but it can't happen here" is IGNORANCE. It can happen ANYWHERE that is not vigilant against it's happening.
2nd amendment is a empty argument. Because (a) it can be taken away. And (b) are you gonna go running out and use your weapon to defend liberty? Are ya ready to die for it? Probably not.
Just possessing a hammer doesn't build a home, ya gotta actually use the thing for it to do anything.
The vast majority of people with firearms are good law abiding citizens and that's exactly why they'd struggle so hard to ever actually use them against another human being unless it was a life and death situation, and even then so many can't/don't. And bad-actors know this, take advantage of it, use your humanity against you.
Your #1 BEST weapon against Communism or dystopian whatever taking over is not the 2nd amendment or a firearm, it's your Vote and your Voice. The best cure is prevention.
If you got to a point where using a firearm to protect or secure your liberty is a thing, it's already too late.
it's your Vote and your Voice. Uh Huh, that's silly. Tell that to the Jewish Poles prior to WWII. I think you're just a bit too off center to realize what you've said. No matter, the People of New York will suffer the consequence of their vote/actions. Just as Texas recently stood up to be counted, the other states (except maybe Washington, Minnesota and crazies like them) will coward out.
My Grandfather (step Grandfather) is a Pole, one of the last to get out before getting out was impossible. My wife, Ashkenazi. If by saying I am "too off center" you mean equipped and conditioned by those with 1st hand perspectives, yes I am.
The message I received from the people who experienced these things 1st hand was universal; silence & passivity paved the way. All the things, allowed into happening via a silent majority.
Buchenwald. Why did soldiers force local citizens to tour and assist in burials? Because it was their silence that had enabled the horrors.
The kicker is whether the "socialist" tax replaces private expenditure or stops private arbitrage of the expensed program. Without that, you cannot talk about "freedom."
For example: Pre-existing conditions vis-a-vis health insurance have been documented to "chain" people to their current employer.
Look me in the eye and tell me that's "freedom."
Then there's the small matter of Nordic countries -- with all their "socialism" outperforming the US. Remember when Trump said that he could not understand why the US couldn't attract immigrants from Norway (with all its socialism) as opposed to "s**thole countries"?
Do Mamdani et al need a stern lesson in economics? Sure. Do we need need teenagers-who-read-Rand drawing life lessons? Methinks not.
The kicker is whether the "socialist" tax replaces private expenditure or stops private arbitrage of the expensed program. Without that, you cannot talk about "freedom."
For example: Pre-existing conditions vis-a-vis health insurance have been documented to "chain" people to their current employer.
Look me in the eye and tell me that's "freedom."
Then there's the small matter of Nordic countries -- with all their "socialism" outperforming the US. Remember when Trump said that he could not understand why the US couldn't attract immigrants from Norway (with all its socialism) as opposed to "s**thole countries"?
Do Mamdani et al need a stern lesson in economics? Sure. Do we need need teenagers-who-read-Rand drawing life lessons? Methinks not.
Soooo.... I think this CBS headline/article should about sum it up:
Now cross reference that with the campaigned various iterations of "get the rich" which is clear cut classism.
Put the 2 together and what do you get?
Yes, I think using words such as liberty and freedom are aptly applicable when the veil over the communist direction has gotten thin as cheese cloth.
The kicker is whether the "socialist" tax replaces private expenditure or stops private arbitrage of the expensed program. Without that, you cannot talk about "freedom."
For example: Pre-existing conditions vis-a-vis health insurance have been documented to "chain" people to their current employer.
Look me in the eye and tell me that's "freedom."
Then there's the small matter of Nordic countries -- with all their "socialism" outperforming the US. Remember when Trump said that he could not understand why the US couldn't attract immigrants from Norway (with all its socialism) as opposed to "s**thole countries"?
Do Mamdani et al need a stern lesson in economics? Sure. Do we need need teenagers-who-read-Rand drawing life lessons? Methinks not.
Soooo.... I think this CBS headline/article should about sum it up:
Now cross reference that with the campaigned various iterations of "get the rich" which is clear cut classism.
Put the 2 together and what do you get?
Yes, I think using words such as liberty and freedom are aptly applicable when the veil over the communist direction has gotten thin as cheese cloth.
I think you will find the grocery store issue has more nuances than makes the headlines. I think you will also find that nobody wants to give up their "socialist" health care. Why is that?
Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
10mo
I grew up there. All of my family are from there and immigrated through there 125 years ago. I have been hearing about the imminent demise and flight of wealthy NYers my entire life, definitely since John Lindsay in the early 70s. It's never going to happen. NY is, and will remain, the greatest city in the US. No other city in the US - and I've been to most, certainly all of the pretenders to the throne - come even close. NY is one of those places that if you know, you know, and if you don't you're probably never going to understand it.
Not that I agree with a lot of Mamdanis platform. He's going to find out that running a city like NY is a hell of a lot harder than campaigning in it. He won't be able to fulfill a lot of those pie in the sky promises and that's going to be a big disappointment to a lot of people who voted for him.
Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2016 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes
10mo
Until the government stops printing so much money and stealing from non asset owners through inflation, the economic divide will continue to widen, social unrest will continue to accelerate, and populism and socialism will continue to expand.
Until the government stops printing so much money and stealing from non asset owners through inflation, the economic divide will continue to widen, social unrest will continue to accelerate, and populism and socialism will continue to expand.
As disparity gap grows wider and deeper, yeah Communisms pitch sounds better n better, right. Heck yeah it does.
And it's hard wired into humans, we love having someone/thing to blame for our woes don't we. It makes it all so simple, it's ____ fault. And then were in-it-together, us vs them, it makes that pack-animal side of us happy.
Communism really has the best elevator pitch. The reality is atrocious, but ya know what, desperation makes people cling to pitches and long shots.
90's, who thought about Socialism/Communism? Nobody. Times were awesome, at least where I was and all I saw. Blue-collar-rich was the term of the day.
But ya know, thing about Government is nobody want's it to do the responsible thing either. Austerity measures, nobody is voting for that are they. Hell no, they want the oxymoron of economies; wealthy import economy, no inflation low interest easy money economy, high incomes low cost of goods economy......
So Government will keep doing what get's votes. And those actions dig a ditch called disparity.
Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
10mo
I think the weak competition Mamdani faced had more to do with his victory as his extreme beliefs. Disgrace ex-governor from the same party was the strongest competitor. With such poor opposition, he still only received 50.4% of the vote.
I personally think Mamdani is going to face big hurdles implementing his desired policies. He has virtually no experience governing or negotiating compromises.
Investor · Milwaukee - Mequon, WI · Member since 2010 · 5k+ posts · 7k+ votes
10mo
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
when I got into RE sales in the mid 70s there was already talk about how RE in the US is going to follow high priced Europe were so much of the existing properties are simply handed down to the generations.
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
You make some valid points about the history but in my view it does not accurately paint the current picture of home ownership.
2 separate recent national studies both showed 1) that it is initially cheaper to rent than purchase in virtually every large US city 2) that rent has never been lower compared to the cost of home ownership.
This poses the question, will a first time home buyer today see similar net worth disparity versus the renter? I think it is unlikely.
These studies imply most people will be better off renting than owning. The likely exception is someone that knows they can hold the home for many years (likely more than a decade). It is part of the explanation why first time home buyers are buying at such a low percentage and relatively late in life. It makes sense for them to rent until they can set down long term roots and have confidence that they can keep the home long term. The implication is most starter homes are not good homes to be purchased for owner occupied. Starter homes have owners with aspirations to move to a non-starter home ideally in less than 10 years. They likely will be better off financially renting per the studies and factoring in both acquisition costs and selling costs.
I go to conferences (MTR summit was a much younger demographic than BPCon) and meet young highly motivated hustlers. These people do not have the negative outlook of so many young people. Why? Because they are highly motivated hustlers and are confident they will be successful. In other platforms (mostly social media) I see young people who have little hope, but they do little about it. They go to work for their w2 and complain that they are not instantly promoted. They often think the business owner is stupid, but the business owner took the chance of starting the business and look who is the boss. I recently saw a post of someone that believes old people should be forced into small senior living units to free up housing stock. Crazy that he proposes taking and redistributing but does not discuss him going out and earning such a place.
Fortunately for some of these people who do not like work, I believe AI will increase productivity so that the 40 hour work week becomes near extinct. But will that help them achieve the life they desire? Seems unlikely as they want the good life but they want it handed to them. Note I am not talking everyone of a certain age demographics, but more than it was a decade ago.
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
That's deep Marcus, especially to those who know the history of this not so simple board game.
To those who don't know, look it up, it's not time wasted it's actually very interesting and very applicable to today.
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
You make some valid points about the history but in my view it does not accurately paint the current picture of home ownership.
2 separate recent national studies both showed 1) that it is initially cheaper to rent than purchase in virtually every large US city 2) that rent has never been lower compared to the cost of home ownership.
This poses the question, will a first time home buyer today see similar net worth disparity versus the renter? I think it is unlikely.
These studies imply most people will be better off renting than owning. The likely exception is someone that knows they can hold the home for many years (likely more than a decade). It is part of the explanation why first time home buyers are buying at such a low percentage and relatively late in life. It makes sense for them to rent until they can set down long term roots and have confidence that they can keep the home long term. The implication is most starter homes are not good homes to be purchased for owner occupied. Starter homes have owners with aspirations to move to a non-starter home ideally in less than 10 years. They likely will be better off financially renting per the studies and factoring in both acquisition costs and selling costs.
I go to conferences (MTR summit was a much younger demographic than BPCon) and meet young highly motivated hustlers. These people do not have the negative outlook of so many young people. Why? Because they are highly motivated hustlers and are confident they will be successful. In other platforms (mostly social media) I see young people who have little hope, but they do little about it. They go to work for their w2 and complain that they are not instantly promoted. They often think the business owner is stupid, but the business owner took the chance of starting the business and look who is the boss. I recently saw a post of someone that believes old people should be forced into small senior living units to free up housing stock. Crazy that he proposes taking and redistributing but does not discuss him going out and earning such a place.
Fortunately for some of these people who do not like work, I believe AI will increase productivity so that the 40 hour work week becomes near extinct. But will that help them achieve the life they desire? Seems unlikely as they want the good life but they want it handed to them. Note I am not talking everyone of a certain age demographics, but more than it was a decade ago.
I'm not talking about history, this is current data. Renting is certainly cheaper in many of the expensive cities, but the point is that home owners have 43x higher net worth. A lot of that is in home equity, but I suspect that homeownership also makes people think (and invest) differently.
Ideally one should buy their first home at 25, upgrade one or two times and then take the next 30 years to pay it off. If you buy your first home at 40, upgrade into your 50s, you won't have time to generate equity.
Good for us (real estate investors), but bad for the health of our society.
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
.
In Monopoly bad players still eat.
It isn't about real estate, it's about an undeserved easy life. When Momdani(sp) gets his way and the grocery stores are government owned, and short on food, reality will sink in.
For those of you too young to remember, housing was free in Moscow under the Soviets. Poorly built, poorly maintained, but free housing. A nuclear physicist I knew made $100 a month. The standard joke was " we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".
The grocery stores were the size of a one bedroom apartment and very poorly stocked. Since people had no money to spend, it didn't matter. Until it did. It was hunger that drove the revolts, not lack of real estate ownership.
One trucking company has already said they will no longer deliver to New York city until Mondami is Gonedami.
My comment was not about Mamdani and IDK what the issue is with NY grocery stores.
But I want to clarify something, Sovjet style comunism is not the same as sozialism. I grew up in Europe, considerably more social than the US. Even though we have a lot of sozialism in the US too: gov run fire departments and police stations sozialism. Or K1-12 schools, very much socialism. DPW, DNR, HUD, USDA, DMV, DHT, FAA and air traffic control etc - all socialist institutions.
I suppose we could privatize police and make them for-profit making money from speeding an parking tickets. Or private corporations run fire departments. You'd have get get fire fighting insurance and if you don't have it, you'll just burn down. Turns out it's not only better, but also cheaper to have certain tasks done by and paid for by society.
I grew up in Austria with free health care. When you move to the US from Europe, the idea that we have public schools and fire/police departments, but we make health care private and for profit seems really stupid. The idea of extracting profits from someone who needs help is a bit cruel. It's not like they have a choice (which in my opinion is the whole idea about a free market society). How is that in the best interest of us, the people?
Having certain public services done by the US goverment does not make America a sovjet style comunist country, not by a long shot!
For the record, I don't know what the issue is with grocery stores in NY or what Mamdani really wants to do, but I agree, I don't think free food for everyone is the right answer.
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
when I got into RE sales in the mid 70s there was already talk about how RE in the US is going to follow high priced Europe were so much of the existing properties are simply handed down to the generations.
That is true, buying a house in Europe is often handed down. Or typically you buy one house in your life time. But it's not so much the prices, it's more about financing and also culture. Most of the world does not have 30 year fixed rate mortgages (ha, another socialist concept!) It's all ARM's, maybe fixed for 5 or 10 years. So it feels VERY scary to take on so much debt without the mental ease of a 30 year fixed rate (goverment backed) loan.
My mom is a bit of an exception and just bought a house in Austria (in her 70s) in cash and you can get a nice new construction home for 600k in the suburbs. Or a 3 bedroom condo in the city for 500k in a medium size city (not London, Munich or Zurich to be fair). Also interesting, property taxes are a couple hundred bucks, so once you own a home free and clear you don't have ongoing payments like we have here.
One of my best friends lives in an apartment that was built by a something like HUD. Its set up as a trust and a non-profit. So the rent is only driven by the cost of construction and operations. It was built 10 years ago, the build quality is much better than anything we do here for apartment buidings(18 inch brick exterior plus very thick insulation, solid brick interior walls, tripple pane windows etc) and his cost is about 700 per month plus utilities.
Now that is really bad news for real estate investors, cash flow is tough. But it's still over 76% private real estate investors and under 24% non-profit, just looked it up
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
.
In Monopoly bad players still eat.
It isn't about real estate, it's about an undeserved easy life. When Momdani(sp) gets his way and the grocery stores are government owned, and short on food, reality will sink in.
For those of you too young to remember, housing was free in Moscow under the Soviets. Poorly built, poorly maintained, but free housing. A nuclear physicist I knew made $100 a month. The standard joke was " we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".
The grocery stores were the size of a one bedroom apartment and very poorly stocked. Since people had no money to spend, it didn't matter. Until it did. It was hunger that drove the revolts, not lack of real estate ownership.
One trucking company has already said they will no longer deliver to New York city until Mondami is Gonedami.
My comment was not about Mamdani and IDK what the issue is with NY grocery stores.
But I want to clarify something, Sovjet style comunism is not the same as sozialism. I grew up in Europe, considerably more social than the US. Even though we have a lot of sozialism in the US too: gov run fire departments and police stations sozialism. Or K1-12 schools, very much socialism. DPW, DNR, HUD, USDA, DMV, DHT, FAA and air traffic control etc - all socialist institutions.
I suppose we could privatize police and make them for-profit making money from speeding an parking tickets. Or private corporations run fire departments. You'd have get get fire fighting insurance and if you don't have it, you'll just burn down. Turns out it's not only better, but also cheaper to have certain tasks done by and paid for by society.
I grew up in Austria with free health care. When you move to the US from Europe, the idea that we have public schools and fire/police departments, but we make health care private and for profit seems really stupid. The idea of extracting profits from someone who needs help is a bit cruel. It's not like they have a choice (which in my opinion is the whole idea about a free market society). How is that in the best interest of us, the people?
Having certain public services done by the US goverment does not make America a sovjet style comunist country, not by a long shot!
For the record, I don't know what the issue is with grocery stores in NY or what Mamdani really wants to do, but I agree, I don't think free food for everyone is the right answer.
For better understanding Marcus, Mamdami is very much Marxist Socialist, and is dipping into, and in some cases out right promoting, Communist Socialism.
The grocery stores is just 1 example of this. When government enters private business, competing against private business.
I would personally applaud if USA wanted to experiment with adopting Nordic Socialism. I've got high confidence it would fail, but I am biased in my belief it's maybe the best system out there for quality of life balanced with business, and presses a society in right ways.
But Communism.... That's just Monarchy with better marketing. Tyranny isn't just a result, it's a key feature.
I hate Communism, because I hate the tyranny.
Socialism is a necessity of a society. Tyranny is not.
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
.
In Monopoly bad players still eat.
It isn't about real estate, it's about an undeserved easy life. When Momdani(sp) gets his way and the grocery stores are government owned, and short on food, reality will sink in.
For those of you too young to remember, housing was free in Moscow under the Soviets. Poorly built, poorly maintained, but free housing. A nuclear physicist I knew made $100 a month. The standard joke was " we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".
The grocery stores were the size of a one bedroom apartment and very poorly stocked. Since people had no money to spend, it didn't matter. Until it did. It was hunger that drove the revolts, not lack of real estate ownership.
One trucking company has already said they will no longer deliver to New York city until Mondami is Gonedami.
My comment was not about Mamdani and IDK what the issue is with NY grocery stores.
But I want to clarify something, Sovjet style comunism is not the same as sozialism. I grew up in Europe, considerably more social than the US. Even though we have a lot of sozialism in the US too: gov run fire departments and police stations sozialism. Or K1-12 schools, very much socialism. DPW, DNR, HUD, USDA, DMV, DHT, FAA and air traffic control etc - all socialist institutions.
I suppose we could privatize police and make them for-profit making money from speeding an parking tickets. Or private corporations run fire departments. You'd have get get fire fighting insurance and if you don't have it, you'll just burn down. Turns out it's not only better, but also cheaper to have certain tasks done by and paid for by society.
I grew up in Austria with free health care. When you move to the US from Europe, the idea that we have public schools and fire/police departments, but we make health care private and for profit seems really stupid. The idea of extracting profits from someone who needs help is a bit cruel. It's not like they have a choice (which in my opinion is the whole idea about a free market society). How is that in the best interest of us, the people?
Having certain public services done by the US goverment does not make America a sovjet style comunist country, not by a long shot!
For the record, I don't know what the issue is with grocery stores in NY or what Mamdani really wants to do, but I agree, I don't think free food for everyone is the right answer.
Mamdani is not a socialist, he is a precursor to communism, where real estate is not owned by individuals. It is owned by the state, who then provides it to the citizens. At the state's discretion.
Yes, the USA started it's run to communism in the early 1900's. You should read more. First start with Ayn Rand and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Both born and educated in Russia and moved to the USA. They individually detail socialism's rise and completion to communism, while living it.
Anyway, if Europe was such a great place, that's where you'd be living. But, you're not, you're living here, so there is a serious flaw in your belief system. Your comment is "
"But it's still over 76% private real estate investors and under 24% non-profit, just looked it up"
And that is bad. Single families can't afford housing because of government policies.
Yes, DPW, DNR, HUD, USDA, DMV, DHT, FAA and air traffic control etc - All socialist institutions. Yes, the pharmaceutical companies control medicine.
Yes, the USA is overly government controlled, that is why housing is so expensive.
Not all government control is bad. The constitution purposefully and correctly limits government control. It also provides a solution to tyranny.
And if you don't know that socializing the grocery stores in New York is one of Mamdani's campaign promises, you either don't read, or you agree with him and are hiding it.
But, so far, we can still buy properties and buy guns to protect our families and our properties. So, carry on, buy properties.
Where do you get this? Can you show any source that he is a precursor to communism?
Everywhere I read only shows him as a democratic socialist, which is different than the concept of socialism.
Also to know Eurostat stays that 199k moved from the US to Europe in 2024 alone. Definitely preferences, some things are definitely done better in Europe some not.
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
.
In Monopoly bad players still eat.
It isn't about real estate, it's about an undeserved easy life. When Momdani(sp) gets his way and the grocery stores are government owned, and short on food, reality will sink in.
For those of you too young to remember, housing was free in Moscow under the Soviets. Poorly built, poorly maintained, but free housing. A nuclear physicist I knew made $100 a month. The standard joke was " we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".
The grocery stores were the size of a one bedroom apartment and very poorly stocked. Since people had no money to spend, it didn't matter. Until it did. It was hunger that drove the revolts, not lack of real estate ownership.
One trucking company has already said they will no longer deliver to New York city until Mondami is Gonedami.
My comment was not about Mamdani and IDK what the issue is with NY grocery stores.
But I want to clarify something, Sovjet style comunism is not the same as sozialism. I grew up in Europe, considerably more social than the US. Even though we have a lot of sozialism in the US too: gov run fire departments and police stations sozialism. Or K1-12 schools, very much socialism. DPW, DNR, HUD, USDA, DMV, DHT, FAA and air traffic control etc - all socialist institutions.
I suppose we could privatize police and make them for-profit making money from speeding an parking tickets. Or private corporations run fire departments. You'd have get get fire fighting insurance and if you don't have it, you'll just burn down. Turns out it's not only better, but also cheaper to have certain tasks done by and paid for by society.
I grew up in Austria with free health care. When you move to the US from Europe, the idea that we have public schools and fire/police departments, but we make health care private and for profit seems really stupid. The idea of extracting profits from someone who needs help is a bit cruel. It's not like they have a choice (which in my opinion is the whole idea about a free market society). How is that in the best interest of us, the people?
Having certain public services done by the US goverment does not make America a sovjet style comunist country, not by a long shot!
For the record, I don't know what the issue is with grocery stores in NY or what Mamdani really wants to do, but I agree, I don't think free food for everyone is the right answer.
Mamdani is not a socialist, he is a precursor to communism, where real estate is not owned by individuals. It is owned by the state, who then provides it to the citizens. At the state's discretion.
Yes, the USA started it's run to communism in the early 1900's. You should read more. First start with Ayn Rand and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Both born and educated in Russia and moved to the USA. They individually detail socialism's rise and completion to communism, while living it.
Anyway, if Europe was such a great place, that's where you'd be living. But, you're not, you're living here, so there is a serious flaw in your belief system. Your comment is "
"But it's still over 76% private real estate investors and under 24% non-profit, just looked it up"
And that is bad. Single families can't afford housing because of government policies.
Yes, DPW, DNR, HUD, USDA, DMV, DHT, FAA and air traffic control etc - All socialist institutions. Yes, the pharmaceutical companies control medicine.
Yes, the USA is overly government controlled, that is why housing is so expensive.
Not all government control is bad. The constitution purposefully and correctly limits government control. It also provides a solution to tyranny.
And if you don't know that socializing the grocery stores in New York is one of Mamdani's campaign promises, you either don't read, or you agree with him and are hiding it.
But, so far, we can still buy properties and buy guns to protect our families and our properties. So, carry on, buy properties.
Where do you get this? Can you show any source that he is a precursor to communism?
Everywhere I read only shows him as a democratic socialist, which is different than the concept of socialism.
Also to know Eurostat stays that 199k moved from the US to Europe in 2024 alone. Definitely preferences, some things are definitely done better in Europe some not.
Hmmm, you take him at his word, do you? Fair enough, you are young and trusting.
Hitler was voted in. Did you know that???? I won't bore you with the fact that Argentina used to be a very prosperous country until Mudero, the communist, was voted in.
Yes the USSR (USSR stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Russia, was the epitome of Socialism and 100,000,000 people died. Everyone was equal in the state of the USSR, an enemy of the government.
There are many, many more, but this is not a political forum, it is for real estate.
Guess you dudes are not educated in school. Very tragic.
Again, can you show any source that says otherwise? Where are you getting that he is a communist, are you just repeating what Trump says?
If you have every played monopoly you understand what is happening in the US: towards the end of the game most assets are owned by one player and everyone else pays. From there it goes quickly, you have a winner and the game ends. Then you wipe the board and start over.
In real life this may still take another decade or two, but I am braced for more social unrest. It sucks beeing poor.
Homeowners have 43 more net worth than renters in 2025. Only 21% of home sales to to first time buyers. A record low. First time home buyers are now on average 40 and that does not leave them enough time to upgrade a few times and then pay it off before they retire.
.
In Monopoly bad players still eat.
It isn't about real estate, it's about an undeserved easy life. When Momdani(sp) gets his way and the grocery stores are government owned, and short on food, reality will sink in.
For those of you too young to remember, housing was free in Moscow under the Soviets. Poorly built, poorly maintained, but free housing. A nuclear physicist I knew made $100 a month. The standard joke was " we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".
The grocery stores were the size of a one bedroom apartment and very poorly stocked. Since people had no money to spend, it didn't matter. Until it did. It was hunger that drove the revolts, not lack of real estate ownership.
One trucking company has already said they will no longer deliver to New York city until Mondami is Gonedami.
My comment was not about Mamdani and IDK what the issue is with NY grocery stores.
But I want to clarify something, Sovjet style comunism is not the same as sozialism. I grew up in Europe, considerably more social than the US. Even though we have a lot of sozialism in the US too: gov run fire departments and police stations sozialism. Or K1-12 schools, very much socialism. DPW, DNR, HUD, USDA, DMV, DHT, FAA and air traffic control etc - all socialist institutions.
I suppose we could privatize police and make them for-profit making money from speeding an parking tickets. Or private corporations run fire departments. You'd have get get fire fighting insurance and if you don't have it, you'll just burn down. Turns out it's not only better, but also cheaper to have certain tasks done by and paid for by society.
I grew up in Austria with free health care. When you move to the US from Europe, the idea that we have public schools and fire/police departments, but we make health care private and for profit seems really stupid. The idea of extracting profits from someone who needs help is a bit cruel. It's not like they have a choice (which in my opinion is the whole idea about a free market society). How is that in the best interest of us, the people?
Having certain public services done by the US goverment does not make America a sovjet style comunist country, not by a long shot!
For the record, I don't know what the issue is with grocery stores in NY or what Mamdani really wants to do, but I agree, I don't think free food for everyone is the right answer.
For better understanding Marcus, Mamdami is very much Marxist Socialist, and is dipping into, and in some cases out right promoting, Communist Socialism.
The grocery stores is just 1 example of this. When government enters private business, competing against private business.
I would personally applaud if USA wanted to experiment with adopting Nordic Socialism. I've got high confidence it would fail, but I am biased in my belief it's maybe the best system out there for quality of life balanced with business, and presses a society in right ways.
But Communism.... That's just Monarchy with better marketing. Tyranny isn't just a result, it's a key feature.
I hate Communism, because I hate the tyranny.
Socialism is a necessity of a society. Tyranny is not.
. The only reason Nordic Socialism & Canada can exist is because the USA entered the European war of 1939 to 1945 and provided the Marshall Plan in 1948. American tax dollars defended and rebuilt Europe. And continues to protect them.
I can spend my money on candy because your daddy protects me, says the child.
Nope, I don't see any Nordic countries not Canada either
Click on Image to expand
Ok, so let me put this a way you may better connect with Roger.
If my neighbor has the best dang lawn mower $ can buy, and the neighbor is happy to come over and mow my lawn to immaculate perfection. Year after year. Always happy long as I just brag how there the best at lawn care.
So I don't spend any $ on a mower of any quality, I instead get new windows, a hot tub, update kitchen.
So your saying in this scenario Roger that I'm the fool??????
You may want to re-think that math.
I am more then happy to pet the neighbors ego, to free up my $ to make my house so much nicer. Good trade I say!
Developer · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
10mo
OP. Unfortunately this is not about money and wealth. Rich or poor. Not communism or socialism. It's about religious state government. The Pee in a lake picture is wrong. It will keep growing. This isn't a phobia, it's 13 centuries of history. Since this is an REI forum I won't expand. Back to REI.
Investor · Member since 2022 · 157 posts · 162 votes
10mo
Mamdani is a symptom of a greater problem. To focus on Mamdani is to miss the forest for the trees.
He is popular because the pendulum of capitalism has swung too far off center. The income gap has grown, people with money pay lobbyists and have outsized influence on politics, and those paid for politicians enact policies that benefit their wealthy donors. Congress spends an inordinate amount of time needing to fund raise just to keep their positions and the cost to run for president is +500 Million... leaving an over representation of the wealthy in government (Federal/State and local).
This leaves the middle class struggling and falling further and further behind. There are issues with majority public support that cannot get passed because politicians are more responsive to donors than the general public. Healthcare SHOULD NOT BE A FOR PROFIT ENDEAVOR because it incentivizes... profit and so rates go up and quality of care goes down as these for profit industries try to satisfy stockholders, it's not rocket science.
What really gets me is the people who abhor the notion of democratic socialist while cheering on a president who passed tax cuts for the rich... which will be "socialized" to the poor and middle class. Then tariffed penguins and the rest of the world (as earlier posts said, these increased costs will be paid by the general public "socialized" with an outsized impact on the poor and middle class). And his Administration can find funds to hire all the masked police in the world, give billions to Argentina and personally make billions in under a year as president and people complain about Mamdani?!?!?! Make it make sense... Mamdani is a symptom of capitalism run amok. Capitalism is a great system that encourages prosperity, taken to excess, the self interest of the few can trample the millions beneath them.
Investor · Member since 2022 · 157 posts · 162 votes
10mo
@Account Closed money for Argentina, tax cuts for the rich, refurbishing new planes from international governments, hiring masked agents to harass the public, buying bombs and bullets... but not enough money to provide decent healthcare or education. I wonder if the voting public was were to rank the items above in order of importance if healthcare education would be marginalized?!?!
Investor · Member since 2022 · 157 posts · 162 votes
10mo
@Account Closed so is your position that foreigners on Snap and/or with housing subsidies have caused a 38 Trillion debt and the increasing wealth disparity in America? Mamdani is a symptom of the problem and foreigners/Snap/Housing subsides are being used as a scapegoat. The ultimate problem is the aggregation of wealth at the top of society by a limited number of people, who wield outsized influence politically and economically. Mamdani is just a symptom of that and the poor and middle class getting their pockets picked... who vote for and lionize the people picking their pockets is very confusing.
Investor · Member since 2022 · 157 posts · 162 votes
10mo
@Account Closed so am I to understand that Mumdani as mayor of New York is the precursor to the second coming of Hitler and 100,000,000 dead? Lol, he's the mayor of New York and ineligible for the presidency. If you spent more time looking at the circumstances that have led to his election and less time worrying that the mayor elect of NY is going to bring down America I think it may serve you better. Also you may want to familiarize yourself with the term "Democratic Socialism" and come to terms that we have many socialized components of society already (police, fire, teachers, roads, infrastructure etc.) and many states pay more in taxes than they get back from the Federal government... those excess tax payments are "socialized" to many of America's less economically strong states. Are you to advocate that funds from economically prosperous states not be shared with less prosperous states? Intellectual consistency is a virtue...
The "business saavy" love to pooh pooh the socialistic components of our capitalistic system until they need a bailout. Hands off my income and tax money, and then "I need a bailout" out the other side of their mouth... privatize profits and socialize losses. And somehow they find people in the middle class to shill for them...
@Account Closed so am I to understand that Mumdani as mayor of New York is the precursor to the second coming of Hitler and 100,000,000 dead? Lol, he's the mayor of New York and ineligible for the presidency. If you spent more time looking at the circumstances that have led to his election and less time worrying that the mayor elect of NY is going to bring down America I think it may serve you better. Also you may want to familiarize yourself with the term "Democratic Socialism" and come to terms that we have many socialized components of society already (police, fire, teachers, roads, infrastructure etc.) and many states pay more in taxes than they get back from the Federal government... those excess tax payments are "socialized" to many of America's less economically strong states. Are you to advocate that funds from economically prosperous states not be shared with less prosperous states? Intellectual consistency is a virtue...
The "business saavy" love to pooh pooh the socialistic components of our capitalistic system until they need a bailout. Hands off my income and tax money, and then "I need a bailout" out the other side of their mouth... privatize profits and socialize losses. And somehow they find people in the middle class to shill for them...
"...privatize profits and socialize losses."
That sure reads to me as a definition of the '08' GFC in less than 6 words.
Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
10mo
To clarify, Mamdani has declared self a Socialist Democrat. In his campaign he has been promoting Marxist Socialist proposals and theories.
No, Mamdani has not declared himself a Communist, that's simply passing an idiot test, none would as it would be political suicide at this time.
In Minneapolis "Socialist Democrats" clarified this point recently that yes they are in fact Communists but they can not run as such in this prevailing 2 party system, and they need to make themselves "more marketable" to the public.
At this point it is safe to say Mamdani is a Marxist leaning Socialist Democrat. There is numerous indicators of Communist leanings, but no factual declaration of such.
In other words; it's got feathers, waddles, n have heard what sounds like a few quacks, but no we don't have dna result saying it's a duck.....
BUT HERES THE THING, devil's advocate, maybe Mamdani doesn't believe half the stuff he's saying. Remember he is a Politician. It's requisite for the job to lie with a smile. This is the #1 argument I'd buy into is if it's all just BS to get elected because it polled well. Yeah, maybe.
Is he, isn't he, who knows, and really end of day it doesn't matter.
Mamdani's "solutions" are increased taxation based "solutions". Those harm small business. Big Biz rolls' it down to the consumer. So these "solutions" cost jobs, cost innovation, cost small business and that makes the problems more, deeper, bigger. Thus, driving MORE taxing, making more problem, and round-n-round it goes.
To clarify, Mamdani has declared self a Socialist Democrat. In his campaign he has been promoting Marxist Socialist proposals and theories.
No, Mamdani has not declared himself a Communist, that's simply passing an idiot test, none would as it would be political suicide at this time.
In Minneapolis "Socialist Democrats" clarified this point recently that yes they are in fact Communists but they can not run as such in this prevailing 2 party system, and they need to make themselves "more marketable" to the public.
At this point it is safe to say Mamdani is a Marxist leaning Socialist Democrat. There is numerous indicators of Communist leanings, but no factual declaration of such.
In other words; it's got feathers, waddles, n have heard what sounds like a few quacks, but no we don't have dna result saying it's a duck.....
BUT HERES THE THING, devil's advocate, maybe Mamdani doesn't believe half the stuff he's saying. Remember he is a Politician. It's requisite for the job to lie with a smile. This is the #1 argument I'd buy into is if it's all just BS to get elected because it polled well. Yeah, maybe.
Is he, isn't he, who knows, and really end of day it doesn't matter.
Mamdani's "solutions" are increased taxation based "solutions". Those harm small business. Big Biz rolls' it down to the consumer. So these "solutions" cost jobs, cost innovation, cost small business and that makes the problems more, deeper, bigger. Thus, driving MORE taxing, making more problem, and round-n-round it goes.
Again, where is the proof of this? I really don't know where you guys get your sources. I couldn't find any proof of this. Can you point me again to specific Mandami policies that are communist? Again you need sources to prove any of this.
To clarify, Mamdani has declared self a Socialist Democrat. In his campaign he has been promoting Marxist Socialist proposals and theories.
No, Mamdani has not declared himself a Communist, that's simply passing an idiot test, none would as it would be political suicide at this time.
In Minneapolis "Socialist Democrats" clarified this point recently that yes they are in fact Communists but they can not run as such in this prevailing 2 party system, and they need to make themselves "more marketable" to the public.
At this point it is safe to say Mamdani is a Marxist leaning Socialist Democrat. There is numerous indicators of Communist leanings, but no factual declaration of such.
In other words; it's got feathers, waddles, n have heard what sounds like a few quacks, but no we don't have dna result saying it's a duck.....
BUT HERES THE THING, devil's advocate, maybe Mamdani doesn't believe half the stuff he's saying. Remember he is a Politician. It's requisite for the job to lie with a smile. This is the #1 argument I'd buy into is if it's all just BS to get elected because it polled well. Yeah, maybe.
Is he, isn't he, who knows, and really end of day it doesn't matter.
Mamdani's "solutions" are increased taxation based "solutions". Those harm small business. Big Biz rolls' it down to the consumer. So these "solutions" cost jobs, cost innovation, cost small business and that makes the problems more, deeper, bigger. Thus, driving MORE taxing, making more problem, and round-n-round it goes.
Again, where is the proof of this? I really don't know where you guys get your sources. I couldn't find any proof of this. Can you point me again to specific Mandami policies that are communist? Again you need sources to prove any of this.
This is not hidden secret information Daniel, you can use any ai, google, heck google ai, or Mamdani's sited itself, it's all out there for any to find and read.
The very 1st one is a "Rent Freeze". Right away we see a crystal clear example of classism at work, as they call out a NY Landlord at fault for rental inflation. Laying foundation of victimization, us-vs-them, and a "rich" target to "get" ie classism.
#2 "building affordable housing" which if read with unbiased historical context, sounds a whole lot like soviet style housing construction.
#3 "cracking down on bad landlords" now we get into the vail coming thinner and thinner on communist theory/leanings. Starting with a classism, then into "...if a landlord refuses.... the city will do it and send them the bill." and following with "...city will decisively step in and take control of their properties.". It takes a lot of effort in denial to not see the blatant marxist leanings here behind the obvious mindset these policy drafters have that they, there government, controls property, and landlords are only allowed property rights IF and when they comply in lock step with operating how their vision of government works OR ELSE.... is private property rights don't exist, their allowed entitlements that government can revoke and confiscate at will.
Next one were back to classism, again.
"Dept of Community Safety" is a world class spin to the defund police, which Mamdani promoted until it's was hurting him, he then recanted and came up with this wordism that spins it. The result is the same, send social workers to fight/prevent crime. I think that's in similar vein to send peace corp to fight wars.
Then onto the mentioned city-owned grocery stores, "free" mass transit, "free" child care etc etc etc..
All the things mentioned throughout this thread, easily and readily available right from the horses mouth.
It takes some adult interpretation to put things into reality context such as there is no such thing as "free". That "free" means "Other Persons Pay For You", and then asking WHO is paying for that, and how you force them to pay.
Now one can argue it's not Communist theory there flirting with on controls over rental real estate. And I would argue the guy on the street holding a gun demanding your wallet isn't mugging you either, it's just a strongly encouraged impulsive donation to their personal fund.... We can spin words all day long but it is what it is.
A unabashed "tax the rich" Socialist wins New York City....
And so it begins.....
The fundamental flaw of such hollow-promise pie-in-the-sky Oprah-hour "elect me and you get this for free, he get's this for free, she get's this for free, YOU ALL GET IT ALL FOR FREE" absolute utter BS nonsense, it's impossibility factor; the "rich" can say "Peace out yall!".
It's been literally hours into this and already REALTORS of FL are reporting being absolutely inundated with wealth clients relocating to, you guessed it, "Freedom" Florida.
The mobility of money.
When your poor, you live where you can afford to live.
When your getting by, you live where works.
When your RICH, you live where you STAY rich.
It's just not complicated. Money = mobility.
"Tax the rich" = send money AWAY!
I am curious, Florida friends, my Miami mighty REALTORS, Jacksonville juggernauts of realty, my Tampa transaction hero's, my Orlando....... ok can't figure anything jazzy that rhymes with Orlando that I can actually spell but ya get the picture; REALTORS what are you seeing on the ground?
Be heard!
Are ya feeling the love?
Are ya prepping Mamdani thank you cards?
My sister was a NYC resident for 8 years prior to COVID and then went back in 2022, but officially moved back to GA this past month. Her reason was around the Mamdini election but not because of taxes, but because of safety and crime. She would tell me that she used to never worry walking to and from work or dinner or just going from a walk, but now you can sense the tension and uneasiness. Plus, she said firsthand that she has seen people become more embolden and feel like they can get away with anything because they believe he will be soft on crime. My sister is by no means a wealthy person and was in retail management for her job.
Will everyone flee NYC, no, but there will be a quite a few more than most people think. Hopefully this will be short lived experiment that doesn't take root in other places. My worry is that this only the beginning of the rise in Socialism across the country.
Ya'll seem to be dismissing @George Red, but he is saying something very important, revolutions require impoverished masses (or atleast masses who feel like they are getting poorer) and elites who are willing to leverage the suffering of the masses to take power--more specifically frustrated elite aspirants. Mamdani and Trump are symptoms of the fact that America is primed for social unrest and political change. How that will look in the future is uncertain.
Bringing it back home, what does it mean for us as real estate investors:
1. Flee to quality--people who are doing well (and can afford quality homes) are unlikely to be radicalized. Unrest will probably take place close to home. So those class A and B neighborhoods are likely to do better. 2. Stay leveraged--we are likely to see high inflation due to the money printer being used to placate the masses with government programs.
Finally, NYC always comes back, it might take 20 years and probably new leadership, but it will always come back, so if you can find a good deal there, take it.
Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
10mo
Speaking specific to Real Estate, I ask if anyone has bothered to read Mamdani's policies and count how many times it points a finger at Landlords, targeting Landlords......
"Oh James, they just want to help make rents cheaper" No they don't. If they did, that could be done far simpler, quicker and easier.
If you go to hot-dog stands and say your mandating they must lower their price, but there cost's remain as they are, you are simply mandating they go out of business.
When profit margins get expanded, competitors come into space. Competition drives prices down. This is the efficiency component in a capitalistic system. Competition creates efficiency, not government controls.
If you want cheaper rents, simply offer a lowering of cost's for landlords. Lower cost to increase supply. A Marxist answer is Government will be the Landlord.
So when you tell me you believe Government should be the Landlord, you don't need to reiterate your a Marxist, you already told me.
