Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author: shailender

‘We’re taxing the rich’: NYC Mayor Mamdani touts new $500M-a-year tax on luxury second homes

‘We’re taxing the rich’: NYC Mayor Mamdani touts new 0M-a-year tax on luxury second homes

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani celebrated a proposal to tax luxury second homes owned by the ultra-wealthy, a plan expected to generate at least $500 million annually. Earlier in the day, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul unveiled a pied-à-terre tax on luxury second homes in New York City valued at $5 million or more, allowing the city to impose an annual surcharge on ultra-wealthy nonresidents. The proposal is projected to generate at least $500 million annually, according to Hochul. Mamdani praised the plan, noting he campaigned on taxing the wealthy. FROM ‘JUMP ON A BUS’ TO TAX CRACKDOWNS: BLUE STATES CHASE WEALTHY RESIDENTS FLEEING TO RED HAVENS “When I ran for mayor, I said I was going to tax the rich. Well, today, we’re taxing the rich,” he said in a video posted on X. He said the tax is designed for the “richest of the rich,” people who “store their wealth in New York City real estate but who don’t actually live here.” “This is a fundamentally unfair system that hurts working New Yorkers,” Mamdani said. “Now, it’s coming to an end.” STEVE FORBES: DON’T CRUSH HOMEOWNERS TO PAY FOR NYC’S OUT-OF-CONTROL BUDGET He added that revenue from the tax would go toward initiatives such as free childcare, cleaner streets and safer neighborhoods. “As mayor, I believe everyone has a role to play in contributing to our city, and some a little bit more than others,” Mamdani said. “Happy Tax Day, New York.” MAMDANI’S ESTATE TAX PLAN COULD DRIVE WEALTH OUT OF STATE, CRITICS WARN According to the governor’s office, the pied-à-terre tax would apply to residential properties in New York City that are not used as a primary residence. Hochul said the tax would “ensure that those that own luxury homes, but do not live in the City or pay City income tax are still fairly contributing towards the funding of the essential services like policing and parks that make New York City a global destination.” “It is not a tax on residents. That is so important. We’re talking about people who are ultrawealthy,” she said during a news conference Wednesday. Hochul added that the proposal would help generate revenue as the city faces budget constraints without affecting most residents.

Sotomayor walks back remarks criticizing Kavanaugh, says comments were ‘inappropriate’

Sotomayor walks back remarks criticizing Kavanaugh, says comments were ‘inappropriate’

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Wednesday she regretted “hurtful” remarks about a colleague, apologizing in a court-issued statement after seemingly taking aim at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s perspective on immigration enforcement. During a prior appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, Sotomayor, without mentioning him by name, criticized Kavanaugh “for failing to grasp the real-world effects of an unsigned order last year that allowed immigration enforcement sweeps in Los Angeles to resume.” “I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” Sotomayor said during the appearance, noting a Kavanaugh concurrence in an emergency appeal filed by the Trump administration, Noem v. Perdomo. It was a case SCOTUS stayed 6-3 in September, allowing ICE to use “apparent race or ethnicity” language and work location to justify immigration stops in California.  “This is from a man whose parents were professionals and probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WARNS AGAINST PERSONAL ATTACKS ON JUDGES AS ‘DANGEROUS’ AFTER TRUMP COURT TIRADE In his concurring opinion on the Sept. 8, 2025 stay, Kavanaugh wrote that legal residents’ encounters with immigration agents are “typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.” Sotomayor, who filed the dissenting opinion, alleged in her remarks at KU that Kavanaugh failed to grasp that even short detentions can have major “financial consequences” for hourly workers despite him citing the legal reasoning of immigration stops being longstanding and based on reasonable suspicion. JONATHAN TURLEY: LIBERAL JUSTICE’S SWIPE AT KAVANAUGH LATEST SIGN OF SCOTUS’ SLIPPING STANDARDS She added her “life experiences” taught her how to “think more broadly and to see things others may not,” seemingly in reference to racial profiling as the first Hispanic justice. TRUMP REVEALS HE HAS MULTI-PICK SCOTUS PLAN READY AS RETIREMENT SPECULATION HEATS UP In a statement released by the Supreme Court Wednesday, Sotomayor said she “referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case” but “made remarks that were inappropriate.” “I regret my hurtful comments,” she wrote in the statement. “I have apologized to my colleague.”

Bessent says Trump tariffs could return by July after Supreme Court setback

Bessent says Trump tariffs could return by July after Supreme Court setback

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s tariffs could be restored as early as July, signaling a rapid pivot by the Trump administration after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs earlier this year, forcing the administration to turn to other trade authorities. “We had a setback at the Supreme Court in terms of the tariff policy,” Bessent said Tuesday at an event hosted by the Wall Street Journal. “But we will be implementing or conducting Section 301 studies — so the tariffs could be back in place at the previous level by [the] beginning of July.” His remarks come after the Supreme Court ruled in February that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not authorize tariffs. Trump has billed tariffs as “life or death” for the U.S. economy — underscoring the outsize importance the administration has placed on the issue.  TRUMP TARIFF PLAN FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE AS COURT BATTLES INTENSIFY Bessent’s comments also come as the U.S. collected more than $133 billion in IEEPA tariff duties as of mid-December, according to data published by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, a figure that later grew to roughly $166 billion by early March 2026. The administration moved to preserve tariffs in the weeks since the Supreme Court’s ruling to find new ways to implement the import fees, invoking several provisions of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 in order to do so.  Bessent’s remarks, first reported by Bloomberg, are a sign that the Trump administration plans to enact a combination of statutes under the trade law as it looks to move past the high court’s ruling and find new ways to sustain U.S. tariff pressure.  The strategy, long-term, appears to focus largely on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office (USTR) to implement “retaliatory import restrictions” against a country that is found to have engaged in unfair or “discriminatory” trade policies or practices towards U.S. businesses.  Section 301 allows the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate and respond to “unfair” foreign trade practices flagged by the president, though they require a formal period of notice and public comment, delaying enforcement.  Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Trump administration has initiated a flurry of more than 75 investigations under Section 301, according to a report from Alan Wm. Wolff, a senior fellow for the Peterson Institute for International Economics — far outpacing the average annual number of Section 301 investigations initiated during the past five decades. TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA That’s not the only lever administration officials have pulled in an effort to keep Trump’s tariffs in place, however. Trump last month announced new 10% global tariffs — an emergency provision under the trade law that allows a president to unilaterally impose import fees of up to 15% on U.S. trading partners for a period of 150 days, to respond to large and serious “balance of payments deficits,” or instances that risk immediately depreciating the power of the dollar.   The Section 122 announcement prompted a lawsuit from 24 attorneys general, who argued the move was an illegal attempt to “sidestep” the Supreme Court’s ruling. It also prompted another lengthy hearing before the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan Friday, as judges on the three-member panel weighed the legality of Trump’s effort. Lawyers for the challenges told the court Friday that upholding the administration’s broader view of the law would effectively turn Section 122 into an all-purpose trade weapon.  US COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SIDES WITH TRUMP IN TARIFF CASE But Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate argued that Congress had provided presidents with broad discretion to assess economic conditions. “A trade deficit was a large driver of a balance of payments deficit in 1974 as it is today,” Shumate said.  “We’re not on the gold standard anymore,” he said. “We don’t have a fixed currency, but we can still have balance-of-payment problems.”