Having this much when people are hungry is a crime.
27
Our city needs to fight against hedgefund gazillionaires from buying up "islands in the sky." First the hedge fund players bet against our economy and next they are spending disgusting amount on money which goes to the horrible developers who have destroyed ew York City.
Cash Rules Everything Around Me. C.R.E.A.M.
12
I hope his nose bleeds at that altitude but he's not buying the most expensive apartment in Manhattan, he's making an investment which he may want to keep or roll over when he can profit from the property. This is like buying art. It is highly speculative, always risky but highly profitable. Anyone who has profited from real estate, and Trump seems to be the only one who can't make a go of it, Prices at the top always goes up because you don't have to be smart to be rich.
4
Greed at its worst. How much money, how many homes, and how much art does one person need to feel whole and successful? What if he had spent this money on scholarships to help underprivileged kids obtain an education? Or, used it for much needed medical research? Or, spent it to help the families of cops that have been killed all over this country trying to keep their communities safe? Their kids could use help with an education as they get older. Or, to help wounded and traumatized vets who have gone to war and had his back so he could enjoy the lifestyle he enjoys? So many places this money could have been better spent.
28
He donates a lot of money to very rich charities. I wonder if he has ever handed a dollar to a homeless person.
17
I don't know who this guy is, but I wonder how he lives with himself. There are so many people living in squalor, and so many ways to spend this money that would benefit others, or celebrate something, or solve a problem, or even just create a legacy. Why is this fun, or satisfying for him?
24
If there was ever a Single-Doubt in your Mind, that we have come a Long Way from where we began, then you need not look any further.
The entire island of Manhattan was alleged to have been bought (back in the day), for the Miserly sum of $24. Today, a single Penthouse overlooking the Park, Sold for nearly 10 Million times that amount.
This is a story of Gentrification on Steroids, that has gone Wild.
To all you Evictees and Evacuees (not just in Manhattan), who were Victims of this Phenomenon, my Heart is with you.
And Know that you are Not Alone, because we're all in the same boat.
8
I think it's grande. I'd love to have a view like that. I'll bet the view from his future mausoleum will also be spectacular. I wonder will it be looking down... or up?
2
This is obscene. I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money, but when our system is so rigged to favor the wealthy, while many go without healthcare and food, then we need to change the system. Griffin may have made his money "legally" but I wonder how many people (and generations of children) have been hurt in the process. The middle class living in the, now destroyed building, are almost certainly just a small number of those who have been harmed.
19
I'm glad he's rich and successful.
The cream of his profits should just be taxed at the top rate, e.g. 70%. We went to the moon with that progressive tax rate, built the interstate highways, funded a great public school system.
Under the last 40 years of Reaganism, the country's been diving in all categories, though I'm sure the overpaid techies would disagree.
24
I have nothing against this kind of wealth, but these people seriously need to pay much higher taxes. I don’t want their philanthropy, I want them to contribute evenly towards our society. Tax them at 80% then let glorify their real estate choices and ‘philanthropy’.
32
"Mr. Griffin has cited his maternal grandparents as inspiration for his philanthropy. They ran a fuel oil business in Illinois, and when some customers could not pay their bills during the winter, his grandparents would extend them credit."
AT WHAT RATE OF INTEREST ?
12
Did Harvard need an additional 150M to shore up its meager 34B endowment?
I won't spare words here: it is sickening how the filthy rich keep giving to the wealthiest universities in exchange for the glory of having a building - or a room - named after them.
Those gifts are deducted from income, of course, which means no taxes are paid on them, either by the donor or the receiver (a supposedly non profit joint.)
The solution is to force receiving institutions to give 50% of the large gifts they receive to a fund to support the rink-dinky state colleges that get shafted by these financial transactions among the rich.
27
No, the solution is to reinstate Eisenhower’s 91% marginal tax rate.
23
Let me get this straight. I'm supposed to condemn this rich man because he bought a penthouse in NYC, and owns property and art around the world. And I'm supposed to hate him because... he's spending his money on what he wants? And on top of that, I'm supposed to believe that this causes 'income inequality?' Like if he wasn't around, everyone would have more money? This is not news, maybe an op-ed made it to the wrong column? He has NOTHING to do with income inequality. PS there will always be people that have more than others, if you think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, fertilize! Or get over it.
16
In my opinion this man is an utter failure. With all his high priced homes. INDEED! $238 million for a dwelling he will seldom use.
A perfect place for a rally to help the homeless.
We have to be the greediest nation that ever was on this Earth,
and our leader trump is showing the way.
7
Griffin is the poster boy for a marginal tax rate hike.
26
Well, he'll still end up in a box or up in smoke, like all of us.
19
Looks like a terrific place for whole lotta homeless folks to - hang out.
Hedge Fund Billionaire - sounds like a Fox Prime Time show.
We all know how horrible it is to have overwhelming riches.
To paraphrase some inane comment - "...he's free to make as much (obscene) wealth as he wants..."
America is great.
2
Ironic that the Times has this article right above "the neediest cases Fund"? U.S.: Highest income inequality in the western World
8
If he's not around the place much i'm hoping I can crash. I'll restock the fridge.
2
Grotesque.
Not to mention incredibly tacky.
9
If he needs a roommate, I'm available.
10
wonder how much he donates to medical research
3
Just writing to shine a sliver of honest light on one egregiously deceptive part of the written article.
The article says "... the 79-story building where Mr. Griffin’s penthouse will soon exist was built after the landlord evicted dozens of middle class tenants from their rent-stabilized apartments...”. The story then elaborates “A state law gives landlords the right to remove tenants from rent-stabilized apartments if they plan to demolish a building and erect a new one, showing proof of financing to do so..”
So the picture painted is one of a building owner throwing tenants out into the street without any compassion or compensation. Its an incredibly moving story ... except that it is a total lie! Each of those rent stabilized tenants received a six-figure payment as part of their eviction!!
Think about that for a moment. Rental tenants, who did not own their apartments and so never invested even one cent of their own money to purchase them, each received a six-figure windfall, simply because the actual owner wanted to redevelop HIS OWN PROPERTY! Liberals/Socialists had reacted with predictable outrage! How dare the property owner act as if he was actually the owner!
Bottom line: No reason to shed tears for the rental tenants who were able to extort an amount equal to approximately ten years of rent from the legitimate owner!!! Its wonderful being a rent regulated tenant here in The People’s Republic of NYC under Comrade DeBlasio!
14
I am for class warfare. Sign me up
5
These big tall skinny skyscrapers for billionaires are a blight on the NYC skyline, a right in your face, ugly reminder of the wealth disparity that is infecting our country. So, so sad the city is permitting them.
9
When he list this hot spot on VRBO?
1
Think of all the students he could have sent to college for that money, helping to ensure our future. What a bum!
10
So the slant of this piece encourages us to dislike and distrust someone who came from a family that helped the needy, who made his own fortune honestly and fairly and who has given hundreds of millions to the arts and education--and to feel pity for a well-paid TV journalist who lost a $2,000/month apartment with full park views from her terrace.
7
And down below, somewhere not far away, some homeless person is grubbing for food in a dumpster and just trying to stay warm. What an obscenity.
7
Disgusting. Rotten. Shameful.
Our financial system rewards greed and unchecked violence in all its forms.. Therefore, it's the most greedy and corrupt people at the helm of our society.
Griffin's charity is like you or me giving away pennies and wanting to claim fame for it.
I wish Griffin the one and only experience that will make him a better, and perhaps also a happy person; give it all away and only live with the absolute bare minimum of what you need to stay alive until you die.
4
A fool and his money.....
4
Maybe the Times could blame New York politicians instead of Chicago billionaires for New York's problems ?
2
Eat the rich!
7
New York City should pass a tax of 25% on homes that are not primary residents.
That would fix the housing crisis real quick.
Use the tax revenue for schools and the subway.
12
And watch the value of ALL NYC real estate suffer as a result. Would that include rental properties too ?
3
I cannot think of a better reason for reinstatement of the graduated income tax. To deprive Mr. Griffin of these headlines and this ego building by taxing him on 99% of that portion of his income that exceeds 10 million so that any number of socially beneficial programs can be reinstated makes infinite sense.
8
So, effectively what occurred here is that dozens of middle class tenants, most of them likely long-time residents who supported local businesses on an ongoing basis and otherwise contributed to the economic life of this city, were forced out of their homes to make way for a billionaire who lives in Chicago to have a pied-à-terre in Manhattan that he will use a few times a year. And all of this at a time when there is one luxury tower after another going up around the borough, and middle income housing needs go mostly unmet and ever more scarce.
Oh, and I'm supposed to applaud him because he gives a lot of money to charities of his choosing, even though, as a hedge fund manager, he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. Got it.
19
They received six figure buyouts. Under the rent stabilization laws that essentially give tenants property rights without any offsetting obligation.
To understand what I mean by that envision the exact opposite situation - tenants not occupying valuable real estate but instead learning they are on top of a toxic dump. They would leave in five minutes and the owner would suffer alone financially.
8
What did he produce, invent or innovate to "earn" such a large sum of money? I've always wondered that about hedge fund managers and others who have profited by gambling with other people's money. It's nice he gives some money to institutions of learning and art that no one else can afford. It's his right. But who or what does he sponsor with his millions? How many units of affordable housing?
I must have a case of sour grapes. But I see people who work ridiculously hard to pay the rent in homes they actually live in. And people with no homes at all.
8
I agree with Elizabeth Warren's tax on wealth idea: a yearly 2% tax on wealth (not income) over $50 million and a yearly 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion. No exceptions or loopholes.
Her reasoning is that one tenth of one percent of Americans now own nearly as much wealth as the bottom ninety percent. Clearly the economy is working for that class of citizens and not for the rest of us like it should.
I would add to the rationale that yes millionaire and billionaires are often exceptionally creative and hard working (maybe not always), but by virtue of being born into a country (USA) already built by millions of others, this small token invested wisely in our country will help America become a better place for all of us.
9
I agree with Elizabeth Warren's tax on wealth idea: a yearly 2% tax on wealth (not income) over $50 million and a yearly 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion. No exceptions or loopholes.
Her reasoning is that one tenth of one percent of Americans now own nearly as much wealth as the bottom one percent. Clearly the economy is working for that class of citizens and not for the rest of us like it should.
I would add to the rationale that yes millionaire and billionaires are often exceptionally creative and hard working (maybe not always), but by virtue of being born into a country (USA) already built by millions of others, this small token invested wisely in our country will help America become a better place for all of us.
7
@David Seemann
...bottom ninety percent.
1
We get to invent the social systems in which we live. What is the social utility of billionaires? Why do we need them? How does it help our society to have them? I submit that it is they not us, who have shaped the government policies that allow them to thrive. In the U.S., we have an election system in which elected officials essentially have to sell themselves to survive. It's well-known as a legalized system of bribery, and is contributing to the death of democracy.
6
$238 million, hmm. This would buy about 5000 Tesla Model 3's at 50K or 10,000 more modest cars. This would buy 47M Latte's at Starbucks or at least a Latte for every Californian. What would produce more utility for our society, a home that one lives at for a few weeks every year or making the morning of 40M people?
Yes, in the legal sense he did "earn" that money but it is from the backs of your retirement fund and mine we could have gotten a few extra latte's in retirement but we have contributed to the Griffin Decadence Fund instead. Much of trading is just legal gambling! With Mr. Griffin's intelligence, what would have brought society more value? Using it to perhaps cure cancer or a way out of global warming. Oh, I forgot it's fake news and besides the water will not reach the 79th floor.
6
How about feeding breakfast to 4.7 million low income elementary school students or sending sending tens of thousands of poor teenagers to and through community college or state university? How about buying life-saving or life-preserving medicine, vaccinations, and durable medical equipment for impoverished peoples of the earth? Or providing a safe, secure "tiny house" for every homeless mother and child? Just as a start...
10
Hey, hope the $238 million includes a heliport so Mr. Griffin can hobnob and party with his billionaire penthouse pals without any disquieting views of street level.
5
Hedge funds are predators.
6
A common theme here is that his charitable efforts are suspect or even useless cause they’re oriented towards cultural institutions. And would be better off supporting say the homeless.
Seems to me that’s an obligation that falls squarely on NYC and if they are unable to meet it given the $300 billion city budget the mayor and his commissioners are the ones that should be criticized.
3
This is why we need to Super TAX the super rich.]
5
$59,999,999,999.99
The nines help me to grasp the enormity.
Earned not by saving lives, nor by creating life-altering inventions or world-shifting educational tools.
Earned by gambling with other people's money to make more money. This is what is greatly rewarded during our times on this planet. What should we really be thinking about this?
11
Good for him! After making his fortune the good old fashion capitalistic way, I hope he doesn’t become another limousine liberal, lecturing the rest of us on income equality and climate change.
6
The article states that this pig "earned" $1.4 billion in 2017 alone. Earned? Let's think about this. He "earned" in one year 10 hundred millions of dollars plus another 400 million. The median wage for workers in 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics was $44,500. So this pig is worth 31, 460 times as much as people who actually work? A monkey trained to randomly pick stocks could very well have "earned" as much as this pig in 2017. Anything over five million dollars should be taxed at a 100% rate and yes that goes for athletes too. One way or another true earnings, by work, must be returned to those who actually do, in fact, work.
6
Good sir,
While I agree with you in the sense that “how much is enough?”, may I suggest you read about The Laffer Curve. Economical theory you may find informative. Secondly, drawing lines of demarcation is always dangerous. One person’s ideas of fair will always differ from another’s. Who gets to draw all of these lines.
Take care.
1
@James Durante James, $1.4Billion at the 20% carried interest rate hedgies pay is $280Million in taxes. Your 31,460 families pay let’s say $5,000 each in tax, that’s $158million. They also have kids in the public schools, and many have subsidized healthcare. Let’s say those 31,460 families have 10,000 kids, that’s $150Million just for schools; in NYC it’s more like $210Million for 10,000 kids in a school. Throw in subsidized healthcare and you’re at $250million. Tax him at 70% and he will take no income at all - just let his capital ride, a $280Million dollar loss in revenues.
4
The RE agent must of been in a hurry to close, before Central Park Tower finishes rising above that penthouse, stealing half the view and creating (I imagine) an impressively windy airshaft.
Don't look behind you, Ken!
The 1,000 of workers directly and indirectly employed building this building and the 100 union employees who will staff it have been tricked out benefits eligibility with these jobs. Just so a Billionaire has a safe place to park some of his wealth.
2
reference to "rent stabilized" previous building,....
Rent stabilized is development and competition inhibiting....
in all the years of "rent stabilization" how many projects have been prevented that the end result would be MORE housing to satisfy the HIGH DEMAND and the end result would be lower prices....economics 101!
8
This apartment is some sort of LLC, tax write-off.
9
And why do we need to know what this rich man is doing with his money ? Why is that news ?
3
@Joseph Seligson, the purchase of the most expensive home in america is news by any standard. other information including his philanthropy is an attempt to out that in perspective.
3
What is happening in New York City and across the United States is the dangerous rise of the politics of envy, aided and abetted by pernicious politicians.
Two weeks ago NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio made the following STUNNING statement in his State of the City speech:
"Millions of people in this city...are boxed into lives that just aren't working for them. You haven't been paid what you deserve for all the hard work. You haven't been given the time you deserve. You're not living the life you deserve.
And here is the hard cold truth: it's no accident. It's an agenda...
Brothers and sisters, there's plenty of money in the world. There's plenty of money in this city. It's just in the wrong hands!"
Now, tell me, what difference is there between de Blasio's confiscatory declaration and Bane's evil monologue in The Dark Knight Rises below?
"We take Gotham from the corrupt, the rich, the oppressors of generations who have kept you down with myths of opportunity, and we give it back to you, the people."
Spoiler alert: the conclusion of The Dark Knight Rises features Batman saving the day from Bane's calculated declaration of legalized confiscation fueled by jealousy and envy.
Who is going to save New York City and the country from politicians who are ramping up this cynical and dangerous attack on the rich?
Batman...where are you?
7
Clever, entertaining, and germane. Well done. Thoroughly enjoyed.
Regards,
Lou
2
It's good to see NYC fail at trying to control the private property of another, i.e., the original owner of the building who was able to escape the city's onerous rent controls and make a decent profit by erecting a new structure.
5
Investors in hedge funds typically pay management fee of 20%. Even if his funds returns are strong, it's still outrageous. And you see where the money goes John Bogle is spinning in his grave.
6
Typical fee is “2/20”. That is 2% flat plus 20% of profits. And given that the industry has gotten very competitive the 2% is now more like 1% and often 0. The investor keeps 80% of the profit, the manager 20%. What’s the problem with that ?
3
@dave fucio Of course, you could start your own hedge fund if you're envious. I'm sure there's no risk and the returns are guaranteed.
3
@dave fucio
Let me see if I understand:
For Griffin to charge investors in his fund a fee, measured as a percent of the gains he produced, of 20% is too high, even "outrageous"
But it is perfectly reasonable for the government to take a fee of 50%, or 70%, of the money people earn.
Makes perfect sense.
9
I remember the affordable housing act of 1965 passed under President Johnson. Large housing projects that look an awful lot like prisons were built to provide "affordable" housing for the poor. It was a blight on our city and created tenements in reasonably good neighborhoods that have recovered only because real estate has become valuable in those neighborhoods again.
We need progressive taxation to raise the money we need to fund good public policy. We need to first come up with good public policy.
I pay a lot of my income in taxes. Less of it than I paid 40 years ago. Public policy hasn't improved one bit. We keep building more and more advanced WMD's in the name of defense. Walls are being proposed instead of roads and bridges.
I'm not so sure higher taxes should be promoted without much better public policy and priorities. Until we take the money out of politics higher taxes won't fix public policy.
3
"Mr. Griffin has cited his maternal grandparents as inspiration for his philanthropy. They ran a fuel oil business in Illinois, and when some customers could not pay their bills during the winter, his grandparents would extend them credit."
Smart. Dead customers don't keep buying or pay their bills. This is Wilber Ross level of understanding. Being an occasionally benevolent aristocrat (when largess translates to more power, more prestige and healthy write-offs) does not a philanthropist make.
17
Well put.
3
We should thank people like Griffin and NFL owner Dan Snyder, who purchased a 100 million dollar yacht a few days ago while asking for public money to build a new stadium. They, as much as anyone, are responsible for the election of progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and with their obscene displays of wealth, are bringing about their own destruction.
10
@James Mazzarella
The People's Republic of China has 476 billionaires.
2
@James Mazzarella
In 2 years, AOC will be back to tending bar, while Griffin will be living is his $250mm apartment, and Dan Snyder cruises in his $100mm yacht.
3
We need a 1789 redux. soon
3
My first impression when I saw the photo was of the soulless dementors from Azkaban, swooping around the penthouse...
5
Maybe he can help the furloughed government workers who currently can't make ends meet. Just until things blow over. Am I the only one who thinks that this kind of wealth should not be allowed for any single individual? You can't take it with you - so I guess why not spend it on ultra-exorbitantly priced real estate?
5
I totally support K.C.Griffin. I admire his intelligence and dedication in making money. Many people don't understand how wealth makes its way through the world. People like Griffin, whatever his personal views, stimulate a world of circulating interest and confidence. That is how the world engages itself and realizes growth and energy. Taxation dulls these forces. I know nitwits like AOC think otherwise. And I know people like Paul Krugman agree. But wealth creates more wealth. Financials frighten people who are clueless. But money makes money, Get with it liberals. Look down to Venezuela. Governments destroy wealth. When will people on the left side of this world realize this?
8
Wealth creates more wealth for the wealthy. The trickle-down theory has been disproven time after time. It’s ironic that those screaming “Make America Great Again” are harkening back to the decades of marginal tax rates even higher than those proposed by AOC - and supported by many — soon to be a majority — of the citizenry.
12
@Charlotte Yi
Has it really been disproven? That's a sincere question. Didn't 80's trickle down enrich Asian countries? I feel like 80's trickle down economics did work, but just not within the borders of the USA. I feel like it did stimulate business, but that business was in unregulated countries, like Taiwan and Mexico.
3
Venezuela’s government destroyed its economy by focusing entirely on oil.
When prices dropped, the country didn’t have the buying power to import food. Which previously they had grown for themselves.
That country’s poor planning and corruption ruined its finances - not socialism per se.
5
I don't care about the optics, the politics, whether its right or wrong to say it but $238 million for an apartment is beyond obscene. This kind of extravagant wealth is what is at the core of America's problems.
7
Clearly a candidate for a 70 percent marginal tax rate.
8
He worked hard and gives to charity seems to be a common thread here. US values. Not sure what hedge funds actually produce except spectacular gains for the already wealthy.
The construction workers building 220 work hard, teachers work hard. Our public education system is struggling, more than 50 kids per some classes in LA and NY. School districts with +75% free lunch rates. US values. $238,000,000 apartments do no make American strong.
10
Mr. Griffin makes the case that hedge fund earnings like his should be taxed as ordinary income. Why should I and other income taxpayers subsidize his immense fortune?
13
If he is paying the taxes he legally owes and he has been kind enough to give away $700 million dollars to charitable causes, he can buy whatever he wants with my blessing. Why do some people think they have the right to control how much money someone else has or the right to tell them how to spend their money? It is nothing but class envy and a feeling of entitlement!
11
@Sophie
Because, among other rational reasons, much of his wealth results from the needless suffering of others -- both in terms of profits made by shareholders and grossly overpaid execs at the expense of grossly underpaid employees (including mid-level management) AND in terms of the rest of us Americans who, if he and other very rich people paid anywhere near an equitable amount in taxes, wouldn't be faced with crumbling infrastructure, families needing food stamps and even then being given something like just $10-15 per week to feed a family. (Think, Sophie, how much do you currently pay for a single lunch salad or a pound and a half of coffee beans?...). For a perspective from people you may feel more at ease with because they are (or were) part of your milieu, try reaching out to former Bernie Madoff clients who were left to dine-by-dumpster-diving. They can help you grasp the impact of grossly underfunded public services resulting from grossly -- and grotesquely -- over-compensated and under-taxed only-'cause-of-the-tax-break-"philanthropist" men and women like Griffin.
And no, I'm not class-jealous of people who, like you, don't "get it" and whose sense of satisfaction in life comes from having more money than some small countries full of fellow human beings.
6
@Sophie
Regarding you question about why do some people think they have a right to tell other people how much money they may have and how to spend it:
Great question to ask all the corporate board members, senior execs, clandestine political mega-donors, and Republican lawmakers who want to dictate how people spend their public assistance checks and food stamps, not to mention how women are allowed to spend their healthcare benefits (particularly for birth control or abortion).
4
I'm sorry, but if he paid his taxes, the money could go to people with real needs, not just to have his name plastered all over places where rich people go. Raise his taxes.
14
1,000 families could find a decent 3-bedroom home for that amount of money...many families who work ridiculously hard at their jobs, but are, and have always been paid, more reasonably for their efforts. It's incomprehensible to even try to understand the mentality of a person who feels it's OK to spend that ghastly amount of money on a part-time living space...or to even be paid the amount of money he must get just to make money for himself and his investors.
18
Exhibit number one in the prosecution of Senator Warren's wealth tax proposal.
12
I suspect he will depreciate the residence for tax purposes. I would love to see his tax returns.
It would also be helpful to know what his hedge fund does around the world. One way or another his wealth is hurting someone somewhere, if his portfolio is typical.
BTW Harvard doesn't need the money. There are many Republican dominated states with public college systems that are being financially strangled. They could use the money.
20
"What’s more, in a New York tale that is not entirely uncommon, the 79-story building where Mr. Griffin’s penthouse will soon exist was built after the landlord evicted dozens of middle class tenants from their rent-stabilized apartments in what was a fairly modest, white-brick building with 20 floors."
The true symbol of greed in this story is not Mr. Griffin. It's the landlord who evicted dozens of tenants so rents could be raised and the city that doesn't care enough about the middle-class folks who make up it's workforce that allowed it.
12
@West Texas Mama
Why in God's name do we need to subsidize middle income earners with a Central Park South apartment for life?
That rent control entitlement is worth millions. Literally millions worth of government subsidies paid for by us, the taxpayer. We could just pay them $0.50 on the dollar in cash to buy them out (of the government-created entitlement) and let them move to Palm Beach and it would make everyone better off.
4
Since Mr. Griffin is not expected to use this residence very often, he should make sure that it is fully occupied. How many homeless people can fit into this four floor abode?
6
The amount given in charity 1) provides him a significant relief on his taxes and 2) is small compared to his growing savings account. So he will rarely live there and others who lived there full time and have limited means got kicked out for a better real estate deal. We are a sad country.
11
Guys like Kenneth Griffin are the result of a system that has been constructed by people like him. Ask yourself, what value do hedge fund managers add to society, aside from adding to the fortunes of already wealthy people? The adulation poured upon the ultra-wealthy is baffling.
22
I assume that at least some of your readers would like to know how the Republican plutocratic/corporate tax giveaway of 2017 specifically benefited Mr. Griffin. Of course, the longtime favorite of the hedge fund and private equity class of targeted beneficiaries, the infamous "carried interest loophole", was certainly one of the tax devices that was taken advantage of by this voracious billionaire. The democratically dangerous march of mounting income inequality continues apace.
11
Honest question: What percentage of homeless people are homeless due to addiction issues or mental health issues? NYT commenters imply that income inequality causes homelessness. Is that true? I'm sure that income inequality causes income inequality, but does it cause poverty? I've rarely met poor people who don't suffer from drug problems or mental health problems. Perhaps a few suffer from low education (didn't finish high school). I'm just asking about the machinery that causes homelessness. Is it really capitalism, or is it something else? I don't believe that poverty causes addiction of mental health problems. I know a fair number of wealth alcoholics. But it's true that most of my very depressive friends don't have a high income.
6
@richguy
It depends on whether you are discussing single adults or homeless families. Substance addiction is a proportionally large cause of homelessness in single adults (I'm going to leave out percentages because they vary by city). In contrast, income disparity in the form of lack of affordable housing is the largest cause of homelessness for homeless families. (Relatively affordable at minimum wage, that is - a key distinction as we are on a comment board regarding a $238 million home.)
Homelessness is also, sadly, a chicken-or-the-egg situation. Are you homeless because you are an addict, or are you an addict because you are trying to escape the hellish life of being homeless? Are you homeless because you can't find a job, or can you not find a job because of the stigma of being homeless? That makes it difficult to evaluate the cause as it brings subjectivity into the equation, and there is likely truth to both sides.
Consider this, though, before you pass judgment on adults: According to coalitionforthehomeless.com, there were 23,000 homeless children in New York shelters in November of 2018. (In contrast, there were 17,600 homeless single adults.) Those kids have almost no chance going upward in our society. High school? They'll be lucky to make through elementary at a satisfactory level. And without that chance, guess where they will end back up as adults?
2
@htg
Are you homeless because you are an addict, or are you an addict because you are trying to escape the hellish life of being homeless?
I don't believe poverty causes addiction. So, this I don't believe. I would go so far as to say that I don't call myself a liberal BECAUSE I don't believe that poverty causes addiction. I know plenty of poor scholars who are not addicts.
1
Money is simply a form of power which is dangerous and inhumane when it’s distribution Is grossly disproportionate. Nobody needs billions.
7
There should be great tax incentives for those who donate towards housing programs to help those in NYC (and other metros similar) who make an honest living the chance to be able to afford to live there. Not suggesting housing programs to help those looking for a hand out, merely looking to help the next generation of those who make less than $120k/year and currently cannot afford to live near where they work because of a great gap between the super wealthy and the middle class.
4
Obscene. It is time to end the preferential tax rate on capital gains. Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as the rate on wage income.
10
All that wealth is stolen from the billions of people who are poor. To give billions of dollars to established institution for the wealthy is circular, and instead of assisting young artists to spend billions acquiring totally overpriced rarities is the vanity of the wealthy.
4
How exactly did he steal money from poor people? Just because he has money and poor people have less does not mean he took their money. He got his money from people that are far from poor, many of them pension funds working to ensure benefits are there for workers, that were happy to give it to them because he made them much more money. Hedge funds rarely hold investments longer than one year and would normally pay the short term capital gains rate that is the same as the income tax rate. Carried interest did not do much for him and his partners.
9
Although Mr. Griffin donates a copious amount, his donations all seem to be to institutions synonymous with the privileged and the pretentious. It isn't my place to tell the wealthy where to spend what they've accumulated, but the Whitney and the MoMA are both institutions which inflate and legitimize false art (I'm sure many NYT readers will find this sentiment wildly uncultivated, but I've said it nonetheless), so donating to them isn't providing anything to society whatsoever. It's a pity he doesn't donate to the preservation of proper artistic traditions like the Prince of Wales does. As for the Universities to which he has donated, that's all well and good, but it would be nice to see a more even distribution of those funds. It's all so grandiose.
11
Does he give a lot away? He has donated 7% of his net worth (and probably wrote much of it off his taxes).
3
Another article glorifying the gods of gold. I know it will never happen, but think what half a year’s income from all these people, given to honest organizations, could do for schools and low-price grocery stores and construction of decent housing.
10
He gives a large amount to many non-profits, he is clearly very smart, appears to know what he likes and he worked ridiculously hard to get to where he is at. Let's attack him!!
64
@Tyrone Oliwolu. You are actually saying that his labour is worth what he made from a hedge fund? Reminds me of the (very sarcastic) movie "Other people's money", where the protagonist (Danny DeVito) made billions by destroying companies and the lives of those employed by those companies. Humour is only funny, when there is a kernel of uncomfortable truth within.
44
@Tyrone Oliwolu It is NOT an attack on HIM. it is an attack on the fact that his wealth enables the practice described in the article: "the 79-story building where Mr. Griffin’s penthouse will soon exist was built after the landlord evicted dozens of middle class tenants from their rent-stabilized apartments in what was a fairly modest, white-brick building with 20 floors."
34
@Tyrone Oliwolu
People shouldn't be able to amass this much wealth. It's too much power for one person. I'm absolutely certain that if Thomas Payne were still around, he would agree with me.
26
Any comment from the Reagan Democrats who helped start this ball rolling?
5
@RRBurgh - that this guy has achieved the American dream and should be congratulated!!
3
@RRBurgh
Reagan left office 30 years ago... move on
Billionaires giving their money away and having buildings named after them is not out of a charitable heart but out of advice from their accountants and narcissism. There are few billionaires who even see in passing or think of the homeless, the hungry and the sick. And did Griffin think of the tenants who were being thrown out of their apartments for his $238 million penthouse or the environmental impact the new building will have? I think not. And, what is galling, he will rarely live there...if ever.
13
No person should be able to spend this much money on a place to live. Morally, ethically, spiritually....it is wrong on so many levels.
10
Uh, in 1987 personal computers had been in common use for quite a few years; the machine mentioned here would not be “early” or unusual.
1
When the wealth gap became too large, the French killed the rich in the French revolution
Mr. Griffin is inviting a repeat
11
$238 million for a single penthouse... That you won't live at...
I'm sorry, but for everyone saying "it's his money," this is asinine. Outside of nihilism, I can't think of a single ethical doctrine where this kind of spending is condoned. It doesn't help the community at large. It doesn't help the environment, or your family, or your friends, or the poor, or anyone.
Heck, it doesn't seem like it will help YOU! This cannot be a good investment at this price. Double the price of the last record sale? Even assuming a tax abatement, you aren't making your money back. Even hedonists would question this purchase.
It's his money; our system says he's free to spend it. It's our opinion that this is money better spent in a different manner for the betterment of SOMEONE that will actually benefit. Our system says we're free to voice that belief. Loudly, in this case.
5
He is spending it. That means he must have created taxable events at federal, state and local levels to get the cash because no one has that much cash on hand. He gave the money to another firm that has stockholders, likely pension funds that got a nice return that helps firm up workers’ benefits. He will pay property taxes that go right into community. He must finish out the four floors meaning more business for tradesmen and other contractors. I would say he did a lot for the community.
5
Just need to shine light on one grossly misleading part of the story, specifically the bleeding-heart portion about rental tenants of the old building who were evicted to allow the demolition of the old and construction of the new buildings.
The article states “...the 79 story building where Mr. Griffin’s penthouse will soon exist was built after the landlord evicted dozens of middle class tenants from their rent-stabilized apartments...”. The story then elaborates “A state law gives landlords the right to remove tenants from rent-stabilized apartments if they plan to demolish a building and erect a new one, showing proof of financing to do so..”
So the picture painted is one of a heartless building owner throwing aged tenants out into the street without an compassion or compensation. Its an incredibly moving story ... except that it is a total lie!
Each of those rent stabilized tenants received a six-figure as part of their eviction!!! Think about that for a moment. Rental tenants who did not own their apartments and so never invested even one cent of their own money to purchase it received a six-figure windfall, simply because the actual owner wanted to redevelop HIS OWN PROPERTY! Liberals were outraged! How dare he act as if he was the owner!
Bottom line: No reason to shed tears for rental tenants who were able to extort an amount equal to ten years of rent from the legitimate owner. Its wonderful being a rent regulated tenant here in The People’s Republic of NYC!
5
@JR
"So the picture painted is one of a heartless building owner throwing aged tenants out into the street without an compassion or compensation.'
Only if you have your eyes closed. The "evicted" residents received multimillion dollar payments to move.
2
This is the perfect photo for the story.
2
Unmitigated greed
6
Anyone care to comment on what, if anything, this guy paid in taxes on his 1.4 billion dollar windfall in 2017? My best educated guess would be zero.
10
And to think I remember a day when most respectable people in this country frowned upon conspicuous consumption for its own sake!
8
Is it too late to go back to school and become a hedge fund manager?
57
@David Wilson
they do not teach it in school
and actually school is counterproductive for such occupations
3
@Samuel Exactly this!
2
Beyond contempt.
3
Hedge Funds launder money so it's easy to amass that much wealth.
https://www.propublica.org/article/why-arent-hedge-funds-required-to-fight-money-laundering
3
The Tall Poppy Syndrome seems to be alive and well in the USA. Here you have successful guy who gives away millions to Charity and all that is written about him is about what he buys for himself.
The man should applauded for his philanthropy and given the appropriate respect.
35
@James Munro
Selective reading. The article details his many philanthropic contributions (who could forget the million dollar dinosaur) in addition to what he buys for himself. I don't think it's a question of whether or not you respect an individual with enormous wealth, but whether at a time of stifling income equality, the rich should contribute more of their riches to our tax base. When they paid high rates during the Eisenhower and later administrations, the economy flourished. The trickle-down myth is just that. Million dollar paintings don't do anything for anyone else other than the person whose walls are adorned with these masterpieces. Share the wealth isn't socialism; it's sound economic policy.
53
@James Munro
Presumably he gives away money for tax purposes and not just philanthropic reasons. Most people would rather earn a decent wage than have to rely on charity.
25
Sharing/not sharing wealth has nothing at all to do with socialism. Socialism is defined as the system of state ownership of the means of production.
5
Actually, that applause you hear in the background is from J.M.Keynes, whose prescription for a healthy economy encouraged Spending over Saving. The liberal argument for cutting taxes on lower incomes over higher ones is that those in the former category will recirculate the money back into the "real economy" instead of plowing it back into the [stock] market. Isn't this [Spending] what Mr. Griffin is doing? In fact, you'd have a pretty good argument that this purchase did more for the economy than the $150M to Harvard. In fact, let's be candid: the true angst Commenters here are suffering is because...it's Him, not Them.
2
Props to the photographer. That is a haunting image.
2
There was a time when people of fabulous and ridiculous wealth at least built something to make their stacks of cash. Carnegie - steel. Rockefeller - oil. Ford - automobiles.
What has Griffin ever built? Nothing. Hedge Funds don't build, they exploit. They tear apart, devour, and destroy all in their path. A Hedge Fund is simply a gigantic wager. Nothing more. A casino the happens to destroy the very building it is in. And society with it.
Just look at what a Hedge Fund has done to Sears. Sears, an institution of the former, now all but dead, American Middle Class. The Hedge Fund destroyed one of the most long-standing and venerated retail operations this country has ever produced. Why? Because they could, and by doing so, make themselves even more ridiculously wealthy. So they can buy penthouses they will seldom use at ridiculous sums of money.
7
Hedge funds are a key part of the process of raising and allocating capital. And efficiently managing capital - selling stock, paying dividends, buying stock of others - is a key factor in business success. You are oversimplifying things by denigrating business people simply because they’re not presiding over smoke belching, fire breathing factories.
5
I'm just jealous. I wish I had three hundred million dollars to spend on a country estate and the know- how to start a company in my dorm room in college.
3
Who is being harmed here? Not the city, which is going collect a ton of real estate taxes while having to provide little in services. Not the architect, construction workers, decorators bringing it to completion. Certainly not the tenants displaced - unless you foolishly believe that a bargain apartment with Central Park views is a right.
The reality is that folks are threatened by having prosperity near them, which is a totally unreasonable view. NY has been a city of ambition since its founding. Everyone here is a striver. Can’t deal with that it’s not the place for you.
7
Mr Griffin is a perfect example of why the marginal tax rate should kick in at $10 million and be 70%. I would be far more impressed by his philanthropy if it included food banks, habitat for humanity, environmental concerns rather than just the interests of the rich. Hedge Fund managers becoming billionaires is obscene. What do they actually contribute to society?
3
They make money for other groups in society including a lot of pension funds and non-profits that are likely more acceptable to you.
1
Great for him as long as none of my money was used.
Big money gets nastier by the day.
Why Mr Griffin has money to spare. His top federal tax rate is 23.6%. See Woof as to why
1
While the rich get obscenely richer, America's infrastructure and democracy crumble, and Trump shuts the door on the poor and huddled masses, it's great to know that the world is still safe for gross capitalist greed. Make America Godawful Again.
5
Donating to Harvard is just pretentious, it is a university without need. How abut helping the homeless or people that actually need help. This man is not generous is any way.
1
Rich boys with their toys.
The war on the poor is going great.
81
Hedge funds typically are not advantaged by the carried interest "loophole" because they trade frequently and sell out of positions before the 1-year long term capital gains holding period (now sort of extended).
So this guy has made his $10 billion dollars after paying something like 40+% taxes on his income.
You can soak the rich, but in a globalized, winner-take-all world, your are still going to have outsize winners. That's because money managers aren't just glad handing guys at the local country club anymore.
3
Mmm, that’s an excellent argument for a 70 percent or higher tax rate.
2
@Objectively Subjective
But if you think about finance in particular (can be done anywhere), a punitive tax rate may actually cause money to flow to Singapore, Dublin, etc. So there will be rich foreigners instead of Americans. And they'll buy up huge apartments just the same.
In any event, a 70% tax rate is confiscatory and I think just plain un-American. I'd support taking 49.999% but once you are forced to pay more than half of your earnings to others, I think it's just wrong.
2
I wish more billionaires would buy homes and not live thaere. That alone should drive up home prices by 10% & the GDP for 2019 by 15%.
The above is addressed to the liberals who do not like the idea of our rich spending their money.
1
Building such extravagant penthouses and mansions, displaying extreme decadence is unseemly and it should be discouraged with taxation.
Progressive sales taxes on transactions in excess of $1million from say, 1% to up to 50%, in excess of $100million are desirable, also justified - to build this building far too many tenants were evicted and made homeless.
Taxation can have profound impact on social behavior, in addition to raising revenue to spend on public necessities and needs, of course, with unavoidable liberal margins.
Prior to the Reagan era marginal taxes were too high. Since/in this Reagan era, marginal taxes have been far too low - in 1980, top marginal rate was 70% on over about $660million, but in 1988 top rate was 28% on over $65K, both in current dollars! The sad reality was that the tax-reform of 1986 was bipartisan, gleefully joined by liberal Democrats like Sen Bradley. Since then, Republicans took it upon themselves to prescribe tax-cuts for the rich for any financial woes! Contrary arguments are mocked at.
Since the 1980s the total tax-revenue declined but not that much. The tax-burden shifted from the rich to the lower income groups. Sales taxes & payroll taxes are quite regressive; bottom 20% pays 7 times more as a share of their incomes in sales taxes than the top 1% does!
3
@A.G. Alias
70% marginal rate as AOC & Robert Reich suggested in 2012 are fine but may not fly, nor is it that necessary. Instead let us have a top rate of 50%, on the top 0.1% household incomes, from ALL sources. Though many say it won't raise revenue that much, I think it can - the top 25 hedge-fund managers each made an average $550million from 2009-2016. Their federal income tax was 15% until 2012 & 23.8% since then. If they paid 50% on it, they would together pay about an additional $3.3billion annually, by my calculation.
Even more important is to reduce payroll tax on the $10K to say 1% & on next $10K to 2%, to help the working poor. Lift the cap but to be less unacceptable to the rich reduce it again to 1% beyond say, $150K. This will extend SS solvency as well.
1
As long as we lack a true safety net to catch all of our fellow citizens who try, but fail, to make ends meet, I have no sympathy for the rich who complain about about paying their fare share. They should be compelled to do so, without apologies for infringing on their "rights"..
3
We should eliminate property taxes for primary residences up to a certain amount above the median property value in a region, and dramatically increase property taxes on non-primary residences. If somebody pays off their primary residence, it shouldn't be subject to being lost for failure to be able to pay property taxes, while those accumulating vast amounts of property that they will make little use of should pay through the nose.
2
@John Fritschie
"If somebody pays off their primary residence, it shouldn't be subject to being lost for failure to be able to pay property taxes..."
Then how would you enforce the payment of those property taxes?
It is important to know that many hedge funds make most of their earnings managing money for pension funds, most especially large public pension funds. Those pension funds should invest in something that improves the whole society and people life conditions, creates jobs, keeping a strong ethical commitment. This would more profitable for humanity than a too attractive (as long as it lasts) ROI.
1
In a world where many pension funds, e.g., State of Illinois, cannot pay promised benefits, you might want to talk to affected workers before you assume they would agree to a big haircut to their funds’ assets to meet your standards.
1
This would make a fabulous homeless shelter for some of the 63,000 men, women and children in NYC who have no permanent residences this winter. Or we could just let a few wealthy individuals roam through the place whenever their travel plans take them through the city.
4
“Let” them....
Given that occupancy is contingent on first forking over hundreds of millions and then thousands and thousands of $ of property tax, I would hardy consider this letting them.
1
In reply to
Christopher G
Brooklyn6h ago
@bigoil
After WW2 when top tax rates were a tad higher than 90% and then when it was lowered to 70% did the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans etc go broke? No.
In the age of globalization, the mobile rich can move to where they are taxed least. After WW II, London was in ruins, now it is just as attractive place to live in as NYC .
And full of helpful sawyers to stash your money in Crown Dependencies, Channel Islands, and Singapore
Econ 101
In a world of free trade, free movement of capital, and free movement of people the tax rate of the mobile will fall to the global average
Prove: The utter failure of President Hollande to tax the rich at 70%
If you do not like this, complain to the neo-liberal economist globalization would be a win win for all. Chief spoke person: Paul Krugman
4
Ego and vanity on full display. At least he’s a philanthropist. Although it sounds like he could do a lot more for organizations that help the truly needy. Then we have the developer who evicted middle class tenants so this massive edifice to ego and greed could be erected in the first place. It’s way past time to put a hefty tax on the wealthy. Imho.
1
@P
I work with the low-income individuals and families who want to use down payment assistance to purchase their first home and also offering FREE credit counseling as well as provide general I&R at a nonprofit.
I get calls for rental assistance and tell the caller I can refer them to several agencies based on which zip code they reside and many will ask what does your Housing Dept do?
After explaining we're a HUD-approved agency and provide the 8-hour Home Buyer's Education class that is required as one of the steps to meet the eligibility req'mts in addition to getting pre-approved by a lender; they tell me they've not worked in XXX months and their credit is in the low to mid 500s but want to take the class and then give me TWO cell phone numbers as good contact numbers.
The Bling isn't racist, ageist, sexist - its an equal opportunity offender.
Capitalism: Consider Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in business, a Widget Factory, for example:
A major part of the workforce are the Widget Assemblers; then there are the Widget Packers and the Widget Shipping.
Depending on the size of the company/number of employees and shifts determines the number of Supervisors needed (not only do the Supervisors know how to assemble widgets but have additional responsibilities meaning more pay). Each of the Dept. Supervisors may then report to a different Dept. (i.e., Super. of Assembly reports to VP of Manufacturing while Super. of Shipping reports to VP of Transportation and so on).
Then there's Accounting, EVERYTHING has to go through Accounting. Gotta have HR and legal depts. The peripheral staff's a must; admin staff because an office cannot function without these underpaid gifts as well as the custodial staff that do the thankless job of cleaning up after everyone else.
Nevertheless, capitalism functions much like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Lay the foundation and build one's way to the penthouse.
What is the impact of the property taxes to the city? i.e. the total number of families displaced by this change - what is the delta? I am going to assume the tax he pays on the $238M penthouse a year dwarfs the amount paid by the folks that were displaced and could if the city cared to be used on projects specific to their goals. Is this really a bad thing?
What of payroll taxes for any individuals that are part of the staff and upkeep of the penthouse... what is the tax on their salary+social security+health at the city, state, and federal levels? Versus what was being paid by the couple families he displaced? Is this really a bad thing?
If the value of a thing (real estate, living space, a watch, a piece of jewelry, whatever) has a higher bidder - why would an asset holder not sell to the higher bidder? Why should they _not_ sell to a higher bidder? Because one party or set of parties with less money wishes they could have the thing that is private property? Seems like a weird wish to grant to the low bidder.
Why does the NYT buy into this storyline in this way? Because feelings produce ad revenue.
It is simply not possible to have a 1% composed of billionaires and multimillionaires and not have millions of Americans living in cardboard boxes or tents on street corners.
Capitalism is just another name for social and economic Darwinism. And if one embraces capitalistic Darwinism, then tumbrils are not far behind.
Hugh
2
He seems to have done a lot of good deeds with his wealth. Look at all the lives he changed .
1
I applaud the guy. Is he supposed to live like a monk. As a friend of mind who is a broker used to say I didn't take a vow of poverty.
There is always going to be a top earner in every industry. My view is he has truly earned his money by outperforming and delivering on his mission. I have a problem when a hedge fund manager is clubbing his investors like a seal yet earning hundreds of millions. Is he supposed to keep all his assets on a sheet of paper statement- stocks bonds or diversify into high end real estate. I have seen him speak on television and he makes sense and doesn't come off as high and mighty. Good for him. He truly has a gift and I'm sure most of us in college were worrying about where the next party or happening was and this guy was trading and learning his future business. Think about it this way if you have an investment in his fund through your pension would you rather have him or Bernie Madoff investing your money? Is he worth it?
3
I wonder whether some oligarchs also have an apartment or two in this place. Real estate in the West that used to be the playground for ultra-wealthy locals are also fair game for outsiders some of whose wealth may well be tainted by wholesale robbing their poorer countries' assets. What a world where the good and the rotten are inextricably mixed - a highly unsavory aspect of "globalization".
2
Don't you see? This is why the United States must lower tax rates for folks like Mr. Griffin. When he spends obscene millions on a penthouse, that benefits us all. Right?
6
I'm tired of seeing this story on your front page. How many days? Most of us don't care about this man, this story. I'm glad he gives money to the arts. But we have enough issues in this world with wealth inequality, and this story isn't giving us information we need to deal with reality. He can have his money and spend it however he chooses. But do we need to know about it?
Please, enough already.
1
Much of this so-called philanthropy derives from individuals having such massive wealth that there is nothing they can possibly do with it but give a small portion--a small portion of massive being sill large--to advertise their egos.
2
Or maybe some people believe that making art and culture accessible is worthy but that government shouldn’t be expected to fund such projects, since doing so would divert resources from more basic needs.
1
That is indeed their ready-made rationalization.
And where is that wrong?
How about we begin to build a society in which no one can have a second house until everyone has their first one? Excessive wealth is extremely dangerous to a society. We need to take action now to move the money out to the masses to forestall a "peasant" revolution that could destroy us (witness Venezuela). Seems unlikely that the people who won't open their eyes to global warming will pull their heads out of the sand for this one either though.
3
How about you build your society somewhere else? Somebody inherits her parents’s home and she uses it as a rental. According to you, she has to give it up because she has a home in another city.
Big whoop. It's his money, his choice. No different than a brakeman winning Lotto millions and spending it on Cheetos.
1
The guy buying Cheetos helps employ people at the Cheeto factory. This purchase employs no one. (the building was already being built with or without his purchase) This is like taking two hundred million and burning it publicly.
1
Yes the building was already built, but similarly the Cheetos were already on the supermarket shelf.
The point is that in both cases demand was b created that would not have otherwise been there.
1
His purchase was an important piece of funding the building years ago. He only closed on it this week. Also, he will put other people to work finishing out the 25,000 sq ft.
I can't help but note that the recipients of Griffin's largess mentioned in this article are all immensely well-endowed, elite institutions. Griffin seeks the foremost place among his fellow gods at the table atop Mt Olympus. We mere mortals, who find ourselves increasingly at the mercy of these merciless gods, have finally begun choosing champions like Bernie and AOC to bring them back down to Earth. I pray we succeed before the hubris of these puffed up, yet puny Olympians destroys us all in the face of an adamantine Nature, which, with the flutter of an eyelid, can extinguish the human race.
4
The fact that only the wealthy have prospered since the recession of 2007 and that many middle-class people have still not recovered the money they lost in savings and pensions suggests that the economic system and tax laws are ALREADY redistributing wealth to people who make money in the casinos on Wall Street.
Remember when ordinary people could invest their money in a savings account and enjoy the miracle of compound interest? No more. The only place to invest savings that most of us cannot afford to lose is the stock market. Still, ordinary investors don't have access to the real money-makers that are only available to high rollers.
So enough of the boo-hooing about "punishing" people who know how to game a rigged system. Patting this guy on the back for generous "donations" that reduce his tax burden while turning a blind eye to the damage to businesses, workers, and society that hedge fund gamblers leave in their wake is idiotic.
5
Pretty nice for a guy who has contributed absolutely nothing to society.
4
@Frank
Presumably, he made his investors rich too. He runs a hedge fund. He is not a black market arms dealer. At least in theory, a successful hedge fund manager has also increased the wealth of the people who invest in his fund. So, there may be a bunch of investors out there who love this guy and feel like he's been a terrific boon to them.
1
@Frank
This is the sort of economic "know-nothingness" that is driving the Democratic party to the far left, and its ultimate undoing.
1
What exactly is the difference between the conspicuous consumption of Mr. Griffin and that of the Russian oligarchs we see buying up ostentatious properties here in Miami? His ocean views must be better but in the end they are both the epitome of despicable greed.
5
Money of this magnitude is not made through kindness. This kind of money is made on the backs of environmental and worker exploitation as well as not paying your patriotic duty in taxes. NYT please do not call the giving of money to museums and Harvard philanthropy. Egotropy is a better word (from the book decolonizing wealth) or Sinwashing. Isn’t profligate spending of such magnitude a feature of a scam artist whose house of cards is reeling from a breeze (remember Madoff and so many more).
2
I always assume the buyer is invested in the company that built the building. If so, buying the condo increases (his) shareholder value. In that way, spending money would make him richer. If you won shares in BMW, and then buy a BMW, you are (indirectly) helping your investment.
The grotesque income equality that continues to rise is not due to the tax structure. There are two main issues: financial funds and executive pay at publicly held companies.
This is the case if the former. Financial funds are middlemen...they are not creating value through products (eg- Microsoft, Boeing) or service (eg- Amazon). They use other people’s money to invest in these value creating companies and skim off a large portion. It’s great that Americans can invest in companies...not so great that the administrators of this system skim so much.
2
Would Mr. Griffin be receiving all this attention if he wasn't a hedge fund tycoon and had given mega millions to various charitable causes for the needy? Personally, I wouldn't choose to spend my fortune on an extravagant penthouse. However, are we now judge and jury on what wealthy people must do with their money?
1
Ken Griffin runs a business that has been very successful at making money off its investors. That has made him very wealthy. Wealthy people buy things like art and real estate partly to store money.
But say what you will about him, he's given more money away and made more of a difference in people's lives than those authors and commentators quoted here ever will. Some of this whining sounds like it could come straight out of the wonderfully-plotted but terribly written "Atlas Shrugged."
1
A man who moves money around is a billionaire. The men and women who educate our children often work two jobs to survive. We are doomed.
6
Why do I find this all rather obscene? I'm all for people who earn their money having fun spending it, but at the end of the day, how much do you really need? This money could do so much good in the right places. Was there nothing available in the $50 million range. This kind of consumption in this day and age seems not only tone deaf, but kind of disgusting.
7
Nearly all local and state governments, as well as our national government, are collecting more revenue than ever before. The real scrutiny should be on how are government at all levels is squandering this revenue, leaving its citizenry with not much to show for it. Folks forget that even though federal income taxes are at historically low levels, the wealthy still account for over 80% of all taxes collected, while millions of non-wealthy folks pay little to no federal income tax at all.
2
....."You look at these massive purchases. Does anyone think that these rich individuals can’t afford more in taxes? They have been getting tax break, after tax break, after tax break. Before the Trump tax bill they were already experiencing unprecedented wealth and had a whole system of tax policy that was favoring them in every conceivable way,” Mr. de Blasio said. “The Trump tax cuts put that on steroids.”
Mayor DeBlasio, in answer to your question.....for the last several decades, who and what has allowed a "whole system" of tax policy that now exclusively favors corporations and the ultra rich? Other than the Republican Party who always favored big business and the wealthy, it is the Democratic Party, your party, that has stood by, been complicit and voted for the same egregious Republican tax policy, year after year, that has now badly damaged the working and middle classes and this nation.
We need a Democratic Party that represents the people...100%. Not a party that continues to take corporate money and then wonders how we have such a grotesque and unfair tax system.
4
I wonder how many of Kenneth Griffin's dollars can get traced right back to the $1.2 trillion dollar student loan debt. How many Wall Street bankers are living this large off of the backs of our young citizens seeking an education. It's become so despicable.
6
Every empire implodes under the weight of its own excesses, including social inequality and military overreach. Why should the U.S.A. be any different?
7
With so many unused luxury apartments around, will we be forced to become a nation of squatters?
3
The issue is not, and should not be, how much money hedge fund managers make and how they spend it. The issue is whether or not we employ a tax structure in this country that reflects social and national needs in a direct way. At this point we have a tax structure that uses diversion and perverse incentives to direct money away from these needs and into private and corporate wealth, under the false premise that this will provide greater benefits than direct taxation would. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't care how many paintings, houses, cars, yachts or philanthropic donations people like Griffin buy or make, as long as the tax rate imposed on them is a real and DIRECT transfer of money from their earnings as a fair share contribution to the betterment of society and the nation as a whole, based on the understanding that those societal and national structures are the foundation of their ability to earn such wealth. The taxation must be direct, not some convoluted scheme of you give me a tax break and I'll buy a $200 million condo in a project gets a property tax subsidy because it redevelops part of the city making it better for tourists who put money into the sales tax coffers and includes some affordable housing for the construction workers building it.
I'm tired of waiting for these people to "invest" in our nation by donating all their money when they die, or by building museums. We need health care, education and roads. Pay up!
9
In addition to the mind boggling price, I am struck by the statement that he will "barely use" his over $ 270 million dollar place in the city. This shows another important, but underreported aspect of how gazillionaires don't pay taxes like you and I. By spending (at least officially) only a few days of the year in New York City, he avoids paying New York City and State income tax, which, in his case, would be considerable. Thus, he pays less than his fair share of taxes that finance the police and fire departments that make New York the safe and desirable place to own such luxury apartments in. A hypothetical New York based gazillionaire would at least not just pay real estate tax, but also City and State income tax.
I would like to see the new State House and Senate in Albany pass a law that allows New York City to charge a vacation home-type additional tax on residences that are basically sitting empty most of the time. Some resort towns have done so to avoid having their permanent, tax paying residents essentially subsidizing wealthy and super-wealthy out-of-towners.
6
What is interesting about this billionaire is that he isn't hiding behind shell companies to conceal ownership. Obviously, he isn't afraid of being known as wealthy. Not that he should be.
Property taxes are the only true "wealth" tax on the books, next to an estate tax. Income taxes are capped at 30%?? So, in a way it is good that the wealthy buy property, but the tax code is leaving too much wealth in the wealthy hands, and this is skewing property values, especially in NY City.
I agree our tax code is tailored to the uber-wealthy, and that we should return to the income tax rates we saw during the 1950's.
But most significantly, this billionaire makes the case that there is no over-arching need for privacy around owning and holding wealth.
Let his story of ownership transparency drive the end of opaque ownership of property because there is a lot of illegal wealth being laundered through real estate that needs to be uncovered.
2
While donations to art museums and universities is fine, they really are just supporting institutions the wealthy enjoy. And no individual has "earned" $10 billion.
1
I'm not satisfied with charitable giving as a way to distribute extreme wealth. Such wealth needs to be taxed and put to work, not through pet projects, but through agreed upon national needs and goals.
4
@bounce33
Yes, of course. Looking at our government today, I am sure that Bernie, Liz, AOC, Trump, Mnuchin, etc. would do a far better job of managing our money than Griffin would.
People are free to make as much, or as little, money as they want in a capitalist society, the one in which we live.
The fact that the New York Times has jumped on this bandwagon, predictably, of soaking the rich is disappointing, but not surprising.
If the man earned, legally, the money he has then he's entitled to it, who are you, or I to take it away or admonish him?
If I had the money for a $200 million condo, I'd buy it too
63
@There Good for you. If I had the money for a $200 million dollar condo, I do something to help humanity. Different strokes for different folks.
51
@There If legality is your sticking point then I don't understand your aversion to the article. Populist socialism enacted through legislation will simply legally take the money back.
People are free to make anything legal or illegal in a democratic society, the one in which we have.
19
@There: although it may be legal, was/is it moral?
The rules are stacked heavily in favor of the uber-rich, and the wealth-divide in our country keeps growing.
Such wealth, because of our broken system that allows money to greatly influence government and thus financial legislation, essentially buy the rules that benefit them most. This allows them to use wealth to make—not earn— even more money, often without giving much back to society and I don't mean just taxes.
But at what point does wealth accumulation become detrimental to all (not to mention unfair), particularly if this wealth is gained by any means that further damages the environment/earth which belongs to everyone?
The question should be not IF he can afford it, but WHY can he afford it and is this system going to do more harm to our country than good?
If I had the money for a $200 million condo, I hope I'd use the money to make my life a little more comfortable, but not extravagant, and give the rest to others who clearly need it more than me, such as veterans, disadvantaged youth, etc.
48
It always amuses me when newspaper writers , whom the public regard with the same respect as used car salesmen , feel they have the moral high ground.
3
This is more of the usual class warfare being perpetuated by the NY Times. The leftists love to gin up hatred for the rich and powerful as if their wealth is the root of all evil. Has a poor man every employed anyone? Has a pauper every payed 1/2 of your social security taxes? The top 1% pay more taxes than the lower 50% combined. Without the rich we would be in dire straits.
4
That's because the top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% to begin with. They should absolutely pay their fair share.
1
Griffin seems to have no idea how distasteful he is. This apartment, the self serving "philanthropy", the divorces.
What does he want to be known for after he's gone? As the sucker who paid for the most expensive dwelling in America and the one who vaulted to the corrupt pinnacle of the modern art arms race?
1
Divorces are “distasteful”?
This purchase is a symptom of disease that started in 1981.
Follow along-
In 1981, after almost 40 years of unprecedented wealth accumulation that had total middle class assets well ahead of the super wealthy (you could say it was a time when the country was great), Ronald Reagan had a dumb idea.
Called "Supply Side" economics, or "Tickle Down" as it is known.
Slash taxes on the wealthiest by half while simultaneously increasing government spending - mostly on the military.
And, the middle class would reap the benefits.
The result?
The national debt (accumulated debt in over 200 years of America) tripled(!) in just eight years of his administration.
Tripled.
Look it up.
Then, America got less great.
Budgets from federal to local were cut to make up for lost tax revenue.
Hitting the average American hardest.
(Your kid's underpaid teacher in the crumbling school alongside the pothole riddled street? That's a symptom of the disease that Reagan started)
But the rich?
Well, we all know what we see today.
They got fat.
And with their wealth the bought our political system which kept giving them a little more, more, more.
Just a year ago… the Trump tax cut.
40 years after Reagan and it still goes on.
The Russians endured 70 years of a dumb economic idea called Communism.
We are 40 years into an equally dumb idea called Reaganism.
Make the wealthy wealthier and the middle class will prosper!
40 years of bull and budget cuts.
Lookout for the pothole!
4
We work and the parasites take and use what we produced.
2
those who live in the "golden towers", looking down on the rest of the world in their false security, would be brought to their knees with just one event. "Sir, the elevator isn't working".
2
@My Name
Clearly you have never been in an apartment building with hundred million dollar apartments. The elevators ALWAYS work.
Are the $$ amounts in your article correct?
How does he take $1b+ in a year from a fund with $36b in assets?
Madoff method?
Hedge funds traditionally charge 2% of assets plus 20% of gains.
If the 36 Billion rose 20% that year, his company would earn nearly 2 Billion from managing it.
Trump’s right! It is rigged. Rigged in the Trump’s favor and this clown’s as well.
4
hashtag Bobby Axelrod
1
Behind every great fortune, lies a great crime.....Balzac
2
Is this article appropriate or necessary when 800,000 federal workers are going to miss their second paycheck today?
We have a tone deaf president and tone deaf Wilber Ross. Now we also have the tone deaf NY Times.
2
What about giving some of his vast wealth to the neediest schools and communities in America, instead of vanity art work and more places to live in that he can only do so one condo at a time? SMDH!
2
The question i would ask is did he make these obscene amounts of money legitimately? Unless he has a crystal ball, did he have 'help' to beat the market? See link to the SAC insider trading scandel ... https://www.businessinsider.com/ken-griffins-citadel-receives-a-subpoena-2010-11. Just saying ...
2
What is his connection to Deutsche Bank and Russia?
2
Great photo from Jeenah Moon.
2
A few points of interest. Is his redeployment of assets to such expensive real estate a sign of concerns of the stock market? It seems odd he would be buying retail at such exorbitant prices if he felt it would be better sitting in his fund.
Texas which has a home tax rate of between 1.80-2% is double New York's. Of course the wealthy are usually treated to lower valuations (due to lagging assessments to value) to offset the taxes that would normally be due, but it should interest people to know that a state that brags about its low taxes primarily gains revenue from home owners and business property owners at double the rate of NY. At 1% Mr. Griffin will be paying 2.38 Million a year in home taxes. Which at least is one way the city and state are collecting from high valuations and from Mr. Griffin. In Texas it would be double, more like 4.5M each year.
37
@RBC
The NYC “millionaires tax” referenced in the article is only assessed once, when a property is sold. The annual tax in Texas you describe sounds like a property tax. NYC has that too.
12
Thank you for the explanation. It was my understanding that NY has a 1% home tax yearly. Is that not correct? If not what is the rate in NYC for annual property tax?
2
Thank you for the clarification.
They mentioned a wealth tax proposal then mentioned the 1% tax later without defining what it's for.
Do you or anyone else know that annual property tax in NYC? Would be interested to know.
2
I have never understood why it is appropriate to opine as to how a wealthy individual should spend his/her money. "Save the opera, build schools, invest in low income housing..." Money alone doesn't solve any of these issues and others. To expect our wealthiest citizens to spend their money as we see fit is narcissistic. If these causes are important then they should be worthy of our tax dollars in greater proportion. I'm amazed at just how much we have to whine about as Americans.
73
We should tax the wealthy more so that we can give more to these worthy causes.
27
@Patricia
So, in order to spend more for worthy causes, are you saying we should then tax the middle class more? Typically that's what spending more means. All while wealth is concentrated at an exponential rate, in a system that is rigged to reward capital and punish labor.
24
@Patricia Money doesn’t help schools? Exactly what thin-atmosphered world do you inhabit? Are you feeling lightheaded?
14
Giving to Harvard (endowment $37.1 billion) and University of Chicago ($8.2 billion) is not philanthropy. It is a sign of Griffin's vanity and an extension of his branding strategy. For the $150 million he gave, he got a bunch of things named after himself at Harvard. Carl Icahn got a better deal when he bought Mount Sinai School of Medicine's name for his $150 million, so it is now called Icahn School of Medicine (and this is the same Carl Icahn who perfected predatory investment and once famously said "I don't believe in fair"). When people with pitchforks arrive, their "philanthropic" vanity gifts will not save these guys.
247
@Steve
Yes. If you read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, you will see the detailed evidence that the Economics Department of the University of Chicago, heavily influenced by "conservative" economist Milton Friedman other wise known as the "Chicago Boys," has been helping to loot the world for decades.
Milton Friedman coined the phase "economic shock treatment." What it means is that when a country (or a city, like New Orleans after Katrina) is the victim of a disaster, which could be a natural disaster, war, or coup, that the population is in shock and does not have the ability to resist wholesale changes to its economic system, which of course always benefit global corruptions and their investors.
From post coup Chile, to post coup Soviet Russia, to post tsunami Indonesia, to post hurricane New Orleans, the Chicago Boys have always been sent in to rearrange the economy for the benefit of global corporations.
This is the history that Griffin is attaching his name to, for "branding" purposes as you put it.
Thanks to the Chicago Boys, China is a capitalist country without democracy, Russia is a capitalist country without democracy, thousands of miles of fishing villages in Indonesia were cleared away to make room for luxury resorts, etc.
29
@Steve Agreed! A true philanthropist would be using the money for less conspicuous (and more needed) funding for professors and students and not for a state of the art building with one's name blazoned on the top. We all can see why all the top universities are constantly building-- and doing little to support the professors.
14
@Steve
By 'people with pitchforks" I assume you mean the Yellow Vests of America? Where are they, I wonder? Look at how many people in these comments are defending the right of the rich to do just as they please!
8
My legal assistant Katie’s husband Mark is a TSA Agent who’s been going to work for a month now without being paid. Mark cannot fill his car’s tank with gas. They cannot drive anywhere that’s not essential. He and Katie cannot pay for daycare any longer and Katie has been bringing her 3-year-old son Blake to my law office for the past two weeks. That creates some interesting issues for the other tenants in our building since Katie doubles as our building’s receptionist.
We’ve been strapped for cash flow because our client and we cannot get paid on a case we settled in December until the EEOC issues a written dismissal of our client’s charge of discrimination. And the EEOC’s shutdown.
But I’m happy to see that yet another American oligarch whom I’ve never heard of has bought the most expensive residence in the United States and that he probably won’t even live in it. It’s good to know that he’s spending more on that house than 1,500 other working Americans combined will earn in their lifetimes.
Good job Republicans!!
364
@Scott F Republicans had plenty of collaborators.
8
@Scott F
meant to say more than a combined 150 other Americans will earn in a lifetime
8
Ahhh, the American Dream. No doubt the 35% of die-hard Trump supporters envision the lifestyle of Griffin and dream that they, too, can live in a $238 million penthouse in Manhattan. Some day. Dream on.
The kind of wealth and lifestyle Griffin has and lives is a textbook example of excess. "When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer."
Most of us, mere mortals, can only imagine a life with that kind of wealth, and how far removed it is from the reality most of us have to deal with each day.
Who spends $238 million for an apartment? Ridiculous.
80
@Len The question is not who would spend $238 million on a shack but how much did he contribute to the Democratic Republic that made it POSSIBLE. If he is anything like the thing we used to call a President - likely little to nothing in comparison to his "income".
Definition of hedge fund manager: Rich Thief
How about he donate about $8 Billion to our tax base do we can rebuild our infrastructure that make this building a livable structure. Lets see how this works for him with no functioning sewer, water, police or fire department.
No man is an island, even one with $10 billion.
5
@Len
As I tell the low-income individuals and families who want to use down payment assistance to purchase as home being a 1st time homebuyer/not purchased in the last three years, buy within your means NOT your dreams.
If one can afford all the extra bells and whistles, fine; a home is an investment. So what if the bank approves you for $XXX,XXX; make sure the monthly payments all totaled together is within the safety net of one's budget.
3
@Len
How does his purchase hurt you?
I don't begrudge him his "success," although I decry the multitudes who may be ripped off for him to have this wealth. If this wealth is acquired fairly and ethically, I think it's ok. I would like to see people enjoy and rejoice in the fruits of their labor However, the problem is some do it in stupid ways, while supporting policies that hurt their lesser-fortunate neighbors.
This is the problem. The real question is why people stubbornly refuse to be smart about such things! Yes, be wealthy, enjoy yourself. But, when you see the carnage on your neighbors, the sensible thing is to help. And this is probably not only the best thing to do, but its also in ones own interest. When others are happy, you're also happier in your success. Why some extremely wealthy individuals insist on also crushing their lesser fortunate neighbors is beyond comprehension! It's simply not the smart thing to do! I wouldn't rush to condemn a wealth individual from such a report. He probably gives even more to efforts that are unknown. I've personally been the recipient of great generosity once or twice. I see no problem with somebody splashing if they can afford it, I am not envious of them, I think I might do even worse perhaps if i was like him. But i think it is smart and right to do as much as one can to help one's lesser fortunate brethren while enjoying one's own success. It's not necessary to seemingly rub it into the lesser fortunate by opposing policies that would help them.
19
Yes, he can be commended for his donations. But when it's all to Harvard, U of Chicago, and art museums, his donations benefit the wealthy as much as anyone. He's not reaching out to help the disadvantaged and do something about wealth inequality. Unless his donations to the universities are targeted to scholarships for low-income students. But I doubt that's the case.
144
@Angela G
Yes. YES! Donations as self-serving is typical. It is mystification of what is actually going on...raw exertion of power--I can donate where i want. it doesn't matter that it may not be what a country or a society actually needs most. Like infrastructure, social safety nets, opportunity for new small businesses.
8
I've no problem with Griffin buying the PH. In fact, I like that there are people who can afford such extravagance. But it can only be justified after all who need adequate and decent housing can obtain it at reasonable cost. Also, my definition of earn differs from the author's. Mr. Griffin did not "earn" $1.4 billion in 2017. He acquired it. Nobody earns billions of dollars, ever.
133
Quite right. It is to be remembered that to get this money, you have to take it from someone else.
23
@Fern "Nobody earns billions of dollars, ever."
At high leverage, it's just a matter of making the right decisions. Steve Jobs definitely turned Apple around, and he was definitely underpaid.
2
@srutim And it is a privilege to make such decisions, not necessarily earned either. Such "high leverage" is the process of using others' labor and creativity for one's own benefit. A system that provides such wildly disproportionate returns - far beyond any individual's actual value to society - is flawed, particularly when millions of people providing essential services suffer privation and insecurity while the privileged hoard immense wealth.
Whether Steve Jobs was "underpaid" is entirely subjective. Apple has produced high quality consumer products at premium prices, but nothing life-changing or fundamentally unique beyond art.
2
The growing Dubai-like mega-tower skyline along Central Park South and West 57th Street known as billionaire's row was fiercely fought by the community for a host of safety, quality of life, and grave environmental concerns which bear mentioning here. Ultimately, despite protests and town halls, no surprise, the real estate developers prevailed enabled by policies of the Bloomberg administration, and a City Council ultimately unresponsive to the community's justified apprehensions. This quite apart from the absolutely nightmarish disruption caused by not one, but two, Vornado and Extell's, adjacent projects going up simultaneously for 5+ years both preceded by major demolitions. Moreover the response from the Community Board 5's Central Park Sunshine Task Force was late in coming and totally ineffective. Apart from displacing rent regulated tenant and propelling market rent hikes in the entire area, these super towers pose a permanent environmental threat, casting long shadows on magnificent Central Park affecting temperature and vegetation, and stealing light from surrounding buildings, terraces, streets. Mr. Griffin's investment will no doubt grow in value and make him an even wealthier, however those of us living in the shadow of these out-of-scale luxury developments rue the day they forever altered Central Park South 's skyline, having an effect of walling-off the #1 gem of NYC, our beloved Central Park.
142
@Z.M.well said.
4
@Z.M. thank you for the only comment worth reading.
3
I'm sorry but I have absolutely no respect for any billionaires who want me to think it's "generous" of them to "donate" millions to charities. By having a billion dollars, they're taking money that should rightfully belong to the no doubt thousands of workers whose labor earned that money. They take way more financial credit than they deserve for the companies they create and run. If they would just pay workers better wages to begin with, these charities to help the poor and needy probably wouldn't even need to exist anymore!
128
@Lewis that concept of the workers labor was tried before, and it resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions. anyone moving to venezuela these days? my grandparents were dirt poor and spoke no English, but by hard work and education, my brother and i are in the 1%. should we no have to give it away? can i not reward myself with the fruits of my labor, or will some have not tell me i stole it?
2
Our tax system needs to be made far more progressive. Why not a tax rate of 50% for incomes above a million and 60% above 2 million? With the 70% rate kicking in at 5 million, not 10.
And also tax capital gains the same as ordinary income. I am far from a socialist, but income inequality has gotten dangerously out of hand.
11
The GOP tax cut at work here. Worked out beautifully for the 0.1% of billionaires already filthy rich. What to do with that tax cut I don’t need. Buy the most expensive condo I can find and let that investment grow. And be featured in the news.
Well that trickled down real well into the economy.
6
"Mr. de Blasio, who has promoted himself as a national voice against income inequality, has struggled to address the issue."
While Mayor de Blasio was campaigning in our shared neighborhood, Park Slope in Brooklyn, he frequently spoke out against high-rises being built in underdeveloped areas (e.g., 4th Ave.) This is pretty convenient if you live in multi-million dollar brownstones (like the mayor.) The Mayor *has* addressed the issue, he seems to think that building high-rises and increasing density and increasing inventory is somehow bad.
If you want to see what restricted development and low-density housing leads to...look no further than San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you think NY is a disaster, it is nothing compared to SF+.
5
IDK, it is expensive to live in Manhattan. If I could afford such extravagance, I might spend such an amount, but as a pauper in NYC in the 90k range, I pinch pennies.
3
As a low level federal worker on unpaid leave looks out the window at the ground level of his or her small basement studio apartment from which he or she is about to be evicted it gives meaning to gross conspicuous consumption. Something is very wrong with our free market capitalist system and the government that oversees it. I for one have had it with all of these "entitled" princes and princesses.
14
Many of the comments here suggest that somehow 'we' (meaning the American gov't I assume?) should be able to dictate how others spend their money. And that 'we' should also be allowed to set an upper limit as to how much wealth any one person should be allowed to have. Slippery slope if there ever was one... Seems to me that the sentiment is more accurately described as 'envy'.
2
@Bonita
"We" (the American government) have been taxing the wealthy for a very long time - and at a much higher rate than we are today. We've continued to be the most powerful country in the world throughout all of it.
So hardly a "slippery slope."
And a more accurate sentiment than "envy" is "fairness."
10
I'm only suggesting that it seems 'unfair' for anyone to dictate how another person should be able to spend their money, or how much money they should be allowed to make. Who decides what is a 'fair' thing to purchase? Or how much income one should feel it's 'fair' to make?
@Bonita No, it's not envy it's just greed and selfishness of the wealthy who do not want to give to community that help make them rich. When you are that "grossly"(and it applies) wealthy you make it off the back of others, I do not understand hedge funds, but service industry companies, retail, restaurants, owners get very wealthy (Waltons, Bezos, etc.) by paying as little as possible to their employees. I read an article about female billionaires and noticed that in countries where there are high taxes, Norway and Holland etc, the standard of living is good for EVERYONE, the billionaires are only worth a couple of billion whereas in India which has grinding poverty the billionaire there is worth a $150 B, his daughter's wedding cost between 66 and 75 Million dollars and they flew everyone to Paris, so the local merchants didn't even benefit from it. He is in his fifties, and claims he is too young to give money away although his family has contributed to charity.
Rich people don't necessarily work harder than others, some poor people have to work 2-3 jobs to pay their bills, while others (maybe hedge fund managers do a few key strokes and make millions) others are just heirs. And as consumers, a pleasant and helpful sales clerk or waiter is more helpful to a company in making a customer return than some decision by a CEO who wants to cut costs by slashing people's jobs.
Yes, when people are equitably paid, then there is no need for taxation to make things fair.
4
The NYTimes reported this story yesterday with a different spin, just a la di da, there's a new record for most expensive home. Today comes the article about the obscenity of it all.
8
The other article in today’s NYT states that “Mr. Griffin’s financial career began when he was a student at Harvard, where he had a satellite dish installed on the roof of his dorm so he could trade in the relatively arcane area of convertible bonds.“
That’s either a delusional statement or a malicious lie by the reporter. His financial career started some time before that, probably at birth. It takes money to trade. It takes inside knowledge to know where to trade. He wasn’t born at Harvard. Its akin to saying our president is a self made man. Let’s stop with this rags-to-riches baloney.
29
@Scribbles
"It takes inside knowledge to know where to trade"
What? Are you accusing him of the crime of insider trading, or are you claiming that the knowledge required to learn how to invest isn't readily available to any literate person with an internet connection or a public library?
Do you think it's trivial to turn thousands of dollars into billions of dollars? If so, you probably have a few thousand dollars in savings , why haven't you done the same yet?
3
Aw, gee, what a generous guy this Griffin fellow! Giving to Harvard, so the privileged can be even more privileged; giving to art museums so he can see his name tastefully emblazoned on the walls to remind all of us art lovers of how rich he is; giving to burnish his reputation as a giver when what he's really doing is cutting his tax bill, so that working stiffs have to pick up that much more of the tab for government services --- food stamps, pay for our troops, NASA scientists, airport security, medical researchers, park rangers, EPA inspectors. Nah, why would he want to put his wealth toward those boring (and anonymous) things when he can help MOMA acquire more artworks--from wealthy people like him--and get his name plastered all over town as a great guy to the bargain? Why indeed.
23
Griffin is just another piggy at the all-you-can-take trough, courtesy of our corrupt government.
18
Just plain disgusting.
12
There oughta be a law...
3
Mr. Griffin spent a lot of money in a failed attempt to get his pal Bruce Rainer re-elected. Perhaps this is how he copes, buying overpriced real estate. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bruce-rauner-ken-griffin-20-million-met-20170517-story.html
6
Fools’ names and fools’ faces are often found in public places.
5
I'm not convinced that the gov't would spend the $$s in a way that elevated all of us. Would it but health care or a mid-evil monument to an individual 's ego?
1
Ha, another example of some idiot paying way too much for a place to live. This guy paid way too much and the seller is laughing all the way to the bank!
4
Three separate articles on the digital front page on this topic. Is there nothing else going on in the news?
4
Yuck!
4
This guy's vertical commute will be longer than his horizontal commute!
3
This was one of the most petty, envious and pathetic things I've ever read in the NYT. When our country was strong and prosperous, we looked up to our most successful citizens. Now we are a weak, sniveling country of player haters asking government to confiscate wealth from those who have earned it.
This article freely admits that this gentleman is very good at what he does and gains his wealth by making huge returns for those who invest with him. Those investors pay him based upon their perceived value of the service he renders for them. The people complaining about his wealth, if they work at all, are paid according to how their clients or employers perceive the value of what they do. What could be more "fair" than that.
You might celebrate the Robin Hood politicians like Warren, Harris and AOC, but be honest in acknowledging the jealous class warrior that makes you.
3
@AR Clayboy When our country was "strong and prosperous" we had much higher tax rates. We had investments in infrastructure and education. We had families who could live on one income. We had wise leaders who warned about the "military and industrial complex".
Now we have privileged opportunists who have bought the government for their own interests. We have crony capitalism and an oligarchy. We have people like you sneering at those who "if they work at all" are living paycheck to paycheck while Wilbur Ross wonders why they are using food pantries. That's "fairness" for you.
And then we have the "class warrior" comments, which are always brought up by people like you.
Told my savvy, 94-year-old father a hedge fund guy paid $238 million for a New York penthouse. “I’d get out of that fund, he said.
11
City in the sky for the few, the ash heap for the rest.
Growing wealth inequality, overpopulation, while destroying the planet...sounds like a plan if you think living in protected bubble on a dead planet is a good thing. Perhaps living in a space station would offer a better view. Dead planets are so yesterday.
"Here’s a wild statistic: The 26 richest people on earth in 2018 had the same net worth as the poorest half of the world’s population, some 3.8 billion people."
"https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/22/18192774/oxfam-inequality-report-2019-davos-wealth
8
I can’t see the logic of punishing the wealthy for their success
, & pushing them off shore to avoid Taxes. It’s people like Griffin
That have made our country the place to invest, & New York the Place to live.
Making Billionaires villains is counter productive.They do more for the needy than any phoney Politician.
6
@Joe Blow Do they invest here? Or do they merely move their money around, usually offshore?
People who complain about getting kicked out of a central park rent control apartment, where in 2008 people were paying 2000 dollars for a two-bedroom, should wake up and smell the income inequality finally with millions of others anyways. FIRST-WORLD-PROBLEMS!
3
Fortune from finance, a shell game at its finest... Where's the compensation to all the mortgage holders whose loan rates are based on the LIBOR rate from the bankers/firms that manipulated the LIBOR rate. found guilty of fraud and jailed?
4
Let's not forget that Citadel benefited from the 2008 bailout of AIG. Citadel was one of AIG's counterparties. Your taxpayer dollars at work!
8
@John
In the AIG bailout (as well as those for the banks, and GM), the taxpayers made back their money plus billions of dollars in profit.
What a vain and insecure brute, needing to flaunt what he has got, out of an empty spirit 'a la Trump'. What a difference from philanthropists like Gates and Buffet, intent in sharing what they've produced, recognizing that it was possible not only because of their ideas butthe surrounding infra-structure, of other people and lots of luck. This poor rich guy needs a lesson in humility....among other things.
3
@manfred marcus They're no saints either. We have to stop believing in (or at the very least relying on) billionaire beneficence. Anand Giridharadas wrote an excellent book, "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World," about this.
He is widely known in Chicago to be awful.
I wanted to hear more about the house.
4
Hoo boy, that's a lot of laundry being washed in that article. The Feds will come knocking one day.
3
I have one word: taxes
6
"Every billionaire is a policy failure" So true.
6
Spending $238 million for a 24,000 sq. foot apartment.....gross.
4
If his name were George Soros or Tom Steyer, many folks commenting here (read: liberals) wouldn't be nearly as worked up over this guy's wealth.
6
@mpound Except that those gentlemen aren't buying places like this, and they are doing more than donating art collections to museums.
3
SAY you are walking and you see a rich guy or gal driving a luxury car .Do you wish you could also buy such a car or that you could take it away from them so that they end up walking like you.
And spare me the walking is healthier comment.
Hate the system is your god given right. Hate the guy legally thriving in it is called coveting. It ain't illegal just unbecoming. Especially when the guy is not telling you to eat cake...
Though I wish that Jasper Johns could be seen online. And the Cezanne and the Monet.
3
Writing from Chicago, where Ken Griffin is based. Everyone here would, I am sure, be happy to have him relocate to NYC. He’s a scourge on humankind.
9
At 238 million dollars one could buy Venezuela and still have change left over for a Rolls Royce, tickets to a Yankees game, and a mail order bride.
2
Can you imagine what good could have been done with that money......
1
"Mr. Griffin has cited his maternal grandparents as inspiration for his philanthropy. They ran a fuel oil business in Illinois, and when some customers could not pay their bills during the winter, his grandparents would extend them credit."
Yeah, but at what interest rate? Griffin's philanthropy is unimpressive. He gives to *Harvard* and the art world? That's nice if it were balanced with philanthropy to inner city schools, as just one example.
5
This won't end well.
4
Wow. As if I weren't alreayd disgusted by all of the advertisements for luxury products and destinations in the New York Times, I now have to read about a billionaire financier who owns several multi-million dollar homes. If the Times keeps publishing exposes like this, the United States may lurch toward a revolution! Occupy Wall Street will seem like nothing in comparison. Mr. Griffin: Is there no limit to your greed? How much is enough?
4
Around the world many working class people can't afford to live in their capitals or other major cities. They are increasingly taken over by the global rich with their multiple properties, secret international LLCs, sycophant lapdog politicians serving the rich and just enough low income housing for their cheap and often illegal service staff.
1
But there is one thing Mr. Griffin can never buy: inner peace. I have inner peace and you know what? I feel rich.
3
Not begrudging this guy his success if it's earned honestly and ethically, but there's something fundamentally wrong in a society that can create this kind of wealth, and still have homelessness and a multitude of other social problems. I'm all for capitalism, I consider myself a capitalist, but there needs to be a measure of social responsibility.
6
"In 2017 alone, Mr. Griffin earned some $1.4 billion" by gambling with other people's money and argues for lower taxes on his $1.4 billion income. As John McEnroe would say "You cannot be serious!"
It's tax time and Mr. Griffin has just cashed in a portion of his tax cut windfall to buy a quarter billion dollar weekend home in the sky. That is what happens when you give and redistribute free money from the tax payer and evicted tenants to billionaires. Forget 70% tax rate - this character needs to be taxed 100% as he contributes 0% to society he takes so much from (except to his hobbies and ego naming projects). Indeed, 100's of homeless New Yorkers should be able to stay at this obscene place while he is not there.
Evicted tenants should be able to continue renting the first 20 floors of the new building at the former stabilized rent or any building that replaces a torn down building that was their home.
9
This country is now financed on the backs of the struggling middle class and wage employees who can’t move their money to Lichtenstein, pay lawyers to set up complex trusts, or exploit the 27,000 page tax code.
The supperich have amassed obscene wealth and political power to the detriment of the larger society. Most don’t pay taxes, but they have our elected officials on speed dial.
We shouldn’t have to count on billionaire largesse to toss crumbs in the right direction. They should be taxed for the greater good, and WE as a nation should determine how that money is spent. Social security should be INCREASED. It is insuffienct for most seniors. Medicare should be free, no deductibles, and it should be extended for everyone. Senior care MUST be better funded and more humane. We all have a stake in this, dont we?
Tax the rich proportionally. Criminalize their avoidance schemes. They have nowhere to run if we go after them. Elizabeth Warren’s plan adds $3 trillion to our collective pockets in a decade. It’s a start.
13
@A. Simon the woman who falsified her ethnicity, evicted people in foreclosures is our savior?
Nobody was evicted:
After five years of fighting with the building tenants, new(-ish) 220 Central Park South owners Clarett Group and Vornado Realty Trust finally won a sort of victory last week, when they settled with the first round of rent-stabilized tenants. Fifteen residents received buyouts above $1 million for leaving their apartments. Another eight buyouts hit public record this morning, with similarly big payouts in what appear to be standard increments. So how much are 220 Central Park South's tenants getting to clear out? The buyouts, by apartment:
1) #9F: $1,562,500
2) #7I: $1,562,500
3) #13B: $1,562,500
4) #12D: $1,485,087
5) #8I: $1,562,500
6) #6A: $1,562,500
7) #2F: $1,562,500
8) #19A: $1,337,500
9) #9G: $1,562,500
10) #17A: $1,562,500
11) #3G: $1,562,500
12) #19B: $1,537,500
13) #9B: $1,562,500
14) #7B: $1,562,500
15) #7E: $1,562,500
16) #7H: $1,562,500
17) #3I: $1,426,250
18) #10F: $1,562,500
19) #8F: $1,562,500
20) #16AB: $1,562,500
21) #18C: $1,562,500
22) #5I: $1,562,500
23) #11F: $1,562,50
8
For background, worth noting that currently in this area, a 2-bedroom apartment could easily cost $1 million. That does not include monthly maintenance.
3
@crm Sure, and those buyouts, added up and subtracted from what Griffin paid for one apartment equals what?
@LS
" when they settled with the first round of rent-stabilized tenants. "
Renters received millions to move out. Do you think they held out from moving because they really loved their tiny kitchens? No, the longer the holdout and the longer the fuss, the higher the windfall. I'm not hating, but those "evicted" hit the lottery because of people like Mr. Griffin willing to pay $200+M for his apartment.
4
Many have used the term « obscene » to characterize the flaunting of wealth exemplified by this real estate purchase.
I agree. Our country is slowly but surely becoming a plutocracy and unashamed to advertise it.
Tax this type of consumption. And tax it high. In this instance at at least 15 to 20% of the value of the property per year.
Maybe then Mr. Griffin would think twice about what to do with his billions, and find more useful uses for his money.
4
Yes, he's generous but it's irrelevant if all he's doing is buying paintings and giving money to Harvard.
What about the public libraries - across the country, they all need help. Not prestigious enough for Mr. Griffin?
He has no sense of proportion. I just don't see much to admire.
20
@DesertFlowerLV
Harvard already has an endowment of approximately $40 BILLION dollars.
4
The GOP tax cut is making (a very select few) Americans (even) Greater!! mmm .. doen't have the same ring
This pen house was paid for by the 99% who are getting a new shaft.
9
So how much will Mr Generosity pay in yearly property taxes on his new penthouse?
That 1 percent transaction tax must have really stung...
What the heck is New York City getting out of having a bunch of absentee billionaire owners crowding the skyline?
Not much, sad to say. But at least Harvard got some much needed cushion for its endowment. LOL!
12
I bet his income is considered carried interest so he even pays less tax on his income that most Americans,
Trump seems obsessed by his bucket list except for his promise to get rid of the carried interest loophole. It is live and kicking folks. Trump didn't even make a token attempt to remove it. Promise Broken. Funny the one promise our MAGA king forgets is the one that make rich people richer. The white working mans president my backside.
10
This article made me nauseous. Bottom line here, plain and simple: this guy has too damned much money.
Bring on Elizabeth Warren's "wealth tax." Enact AOC's 70% marginal tax rate on those earning $10 million annually. And repeal the 2017 tax cuts for the rich.
There is absolutely NO LOGICAL, POLITICAL OR MORAL REASON - except for the existence of lobbyists and big campaign donations - for this type of excessive wealth to not be taxed at a higher rate.
22
@Marie S who determines what is too much? did you go on vacation this year? there are many poor people who did not, did you lease a new car? shop anywhere but the thrift store? why are people so obsessed with telling others how to live? capitalism, while imperfect has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in this century. tell a newly middle class Indian, or Chinese that the system is illogical.
As a hedge fund billionaire, Mr. Griffin'sfederal tax rate is 23.6% NOT the top federal rate of 37%
The chief defender of this loophole (Known as carried interest) is a Democrat (Yes Democrat) Charles E Schumer.
Leader of the Democrats
From the NY Times
Quote:
"But there is another way Mr. Schumer has been busy with hedge fund and private equity managers, an important part of his constituency in New York. He has been reassuring them that he will resist an effort led by members of his own party to single out the industry with a plan that would more than double the taxes on the enormous profits reaped by its executives."
Why would Mr Schumer do this ?
Here are his top 5 campaign contributors
Top Contributors, 1989 - 2018
1. Goldman Sachs
2. Citigroup Inc
3. Paul, Weiss et al
4. JPMorgan Chase & Co
5. Credit Suisse Group
Stop paying attention to what Democrats say. Pay attention to what the Wall Street Wing of the Democratic Party DOES.
Vote out Schumer.
Vote out the Democratic Party Power structure
26
This man creates no wealth. A skimmer. The billions he owns were taken from investors on the loosing side of any given trade.
14
@Chuck *losing*
1
Just asking--who were the "owners" of this condo who will receive the $238 million? Where did they get the money/credit to get the building erected? Any Russian connection? Any money laundering possibilities? Trump has set precedents for selling his condos for under $10 million. Why not up the ante some 20 times? And, by the way, don't just look to Russia.
2
As long as Mr. Griffin earned his money honestly- and no one has suggested he hasn't- he should be free to spend it as he wishes. That is not in question.
The question is why someone is allowed to sell an apartment for $238 million when there are sixty thousand homeless people in New York City. It looks like a big apartment building. Why didn't Mayor De Blasio claim imminent domain and turn the apartment into housing for the homeless?
Maybe if the Mayor could stop his work out for five minutes, some more real New Yorkers would be able to find places to live.
2
@Neil
It's "eminent domain," not "imminent domain." And it's not a magic wand.
When the government "takes" property under eminent domain, it doesn't get it for free. Rather, the government has to pay the owner of the property for its market value. So if the government wanted to take the property under eminent domain to house homeless people, the government would have to pay for the market value of the building, including the $238mm attributable to Griffin's residence.
Are the people he manages the fund for getting anywhere near the returns he is?
3
No, I guarantee they aren’t.
Is it just me, or does Mr Griffin look like he is 70 years old, not 50? I guess even with all those piles of money it’s still not possible to buy youth.
6
@T. Rivers
I thought the same thing when I saw his age. I had to do a double take.
I sure am relieved that those cash-strapped peasants up at Harvard and Chicago Business School finally received some sorely needed money. How else can they continue to dominate the world and eject the blight of lower and middle class families from their environment. Here's a crazy idea. How about lending a hand to people who actually need it?
10
Its not a crime to acquire great wealth, buy things at obscene prices If you want to arouse change in NYC Mr Mayor, get big and refer to your city as just the "Apple".
Obviously he has worked hard and earned his money, but gosh for $50 million you could get an unbelievable apartment. Just seems like an excessive waste of a choice.
2
Wouldn't it be nice if he donated some of that wealth to charity. He clearly doesn't need it.
1
At what point does this kind of wealth become sociopathic? This horrid building and its ilk tower over all while just below the surface is a nightmare disaster of a subway system for the unwashed. Of course the important people never find their way down there.
New York, San Francisco and other showcase cities are becoming New Age Potemkin Villages. Rather than some sign of economic health it is exactly the opposite.
Don't worry, this too shall pass. And one day we'll be burning monstrosities like this to keep warm.
8
No one should be allowed to be a billionaire.
5
@Jake News then what would all the people employed by them do for a living?
@Dan
they would post whiny, jealous comments on the NYT, in between their shifts at Starbucks.
@Jake News
Oh, okay. When you put it that way, what a compelling argument!
"Mr. Griffin has declined to join other billionaires in a pact to donate the majority of their wealth to charity. Created by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett in 2010, the Giving Pledge has more than 150 signees."
That's all you need to know about this man.
9
Yet another space deposit box where no one will live! Griffin's perch in the clouds won't stop the gravitas and gravity of the runaway economic inequality. Its all beginning to crumble.
The global financial system, powered by computer automated trading that benefits hedge funders like Griffin, has created monstrous inequalities. Oxfam just reported that 26 billionaires have more wealth than half the earth's poorest populations. That's not sustainable.
Our current political system, liberal democracies, which relied on some form of wealth distribution through taxes, no longer works to redistribute as we see in the recent ill advised tax cuts. Government has been corrupted by the flow of wealth to the top--dark money and plain old corruption. Citizens chaff at failures of governments. This has led to a rise of autocrats and strongmen running nations, who have a vested interest in funneling money into their and their classes own pockets--cue Trump, Putin, and host of others liars, thieves, and crooks.
For all of Griffin's and the plutocrats philanthropy: art can't make inequality prettier, education will only shine a bright light on the truth, and you can't hide in the clouds.
2
JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN, DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT.
I look down upon the seller(s) for setting the price, as well as Mr. Griffin for agreeing to buy it. It’s too bad ANYONE would agree to award the property seller with a sale in this obscene deal. It’s a showcase of personal values and lack of regard to the diminishing availability of living space (for rent or purchase) to good people who are not members of the 1% club. Sickening.
6
Did anyone ever think about how much this kind of ridiculous monument to greed is contributing to global warming? Further strain on the water, air etc systems in NYC? Oh well, they won’t be here in 50 years to experience it.
5
I feel like it's time we move away from philanthropy. It becomes cover for the criminal greed of the uber wealthy. They just invest in their egos and in big operations that barely trickle down to the needy while also using it as cover against criticism. "Me, morally bankrupt? I gave millions away!" No thanks to the giving millions away to vanity projects. No more points for philanthropy from me.
3
I'm mostly flabbergasted that it is possible to amass 10b in net worth from a portfolio that has barely grown to 28b. And given that he spends his time with arts and realty, I'm guessing there are many more highly paid employees dipping into the same pot. That is not efficient capital markets, by far.
Aside from the fact how perverse these compensation levels are when looking at the societal benefits these parasite funds provide. That is the same group of people that comprises "activist investors", that deem companies inefficient and dismantle them because they have the audacity to employ thousands of middle-class jobs.
5
I feel sad for Mr. Griffin. He seems to have a small heart.
At the end of the day, relationships and integrity are what matter. His two divorces have been well covered in the media, and his behavior has been dreadful. When the court requires that the children need their own attorney, you know its really ugly. I do not envy those still young children: four nannies does make up for their damaged emotional inheritance.
And Griffin's shameless philanthropy seems to be wielded with taxes and reputation foremost in mind. In other words, not true philanthropy. In his most recent divorce, he made a $10 million gift to Harvard in his wife's name, which he then considered a partial fulfillment of his pre-nup. I know what its like to cash the large check of an icky man who is trying to use philanthropy as a weapon, and it isn't good.
5
Gee, I'd like to see what a $238 million penthouse "apartment" actually LOOKS like -- maybe there will be a follow-up story on the innards when the building is completed? You know, amount of bedrooms (at least 20, right?) -- stuff like that...
1
A good example of conspicuous (promiscuous?) consumption that candidate Warren could use to promote her wealth tax.
3
Does he have the same PR team as Wilbur Ross? Totally oblivious toward the populist movement we’re now leaning towards right now...it’s not the 80’s anymore. Either he needs to fire his publicist or give a raise since $350m for the two homes this week seems like a coming out party for Griffin, Citadel, and opulence.
2
Exposing the ridiculous accumulated wealth of these edge fund type people in an era of staggering inequality is a good thing.
It would also be nice if the NYT and others started writing about the ecological footprint of those uberwealthy with their private jets, yachts, empty vanity citadels etc. People like Mr. Griffin are a one-person ecological disaster when one takes into account the natural resource plundering and carbon emissions that their lifestyle entails.
Kenneth Griffin may be able to afford a sizable chunk of our planet, but our planet can't afford people like him.
4
That guy looks way older than 50. Also these trophy houses where the wealthy park their money should have to pay nonresident non-occupancy taxes. The amount of homelessness and lack of affordable housing these cities face while these gilded boxes get built is obscene and irresponsible city planning. It’s ridiculous to think this can be solved by a skewed market. Housing and health should not be platforms to rake in money, but part of the commonwealth for citizens.
3
The discrepancy between the HAVES and have nots is obscene and morally wrong. Shows with current gov shutdown with drump and his cabinet telling workers to get other jobs or take out loans or work it out with the grocery store! Have the five MULTI billioniare Walton's from Wal Mart paid their FAIR share of taxes when it was their DAD who put the company together? They inherited 100 BILLION dollars from daddy, and now is worth almost 150 BILLION dollars. They have more wealth than 43% of American families combined.
1
Oh stop already! He’s paid what he’s paid because he generates profit for his clients and he’s entitled to spend his money however he wishes.
1
@Jay Profits for his clients are losses for others, minus what he skims off the top. Hedge funds create nothing.
4
@Chuck
economic ignorance
In a city where 75k people are homeless, this is obscene. Yes, Griffin "did it all himself" -- trading stocks from his college dorm, after walking 10 miles through the snow, no doubt. Makes you wonder what high school he went to.
Why are these super-luxury buildings in NYC and not in Newark? Because of the rest of the people who make the city vibrant. Ultra high net-worth people are parasites, living and investing in the vibrancy that (used to be) New York City.
The city tax on this transaction was 1%? When the flip tax in many NYC coop buildings is 2 or 2.5%? NY City Council, NY State Legislature, are you listening?
4
There actually is a thing called TOO much money.
4
“Ken is the role model for the next generation of hedge fund managers.”
Love that quote. I picture that next-generation financial swindler, in diapers now, but already worth billions of dollars.
This country is an obscene third-world-style oligarchy.
4
Griffin said that his class has "insufficient influence" on politics? Truly clueless and arrogant.
So he donates to art museums and Harvard- he thrn writes those donations off as charitable deductions. I am not impressed.
6
Not only is that building an eyesore, the Miami penthouse building is hideous.
Does one's aesthetic sense atrophy in proportion to one's financial means?
5
Congratulations to you Mr. Griffin. Do not allow Liberals to dictate how you will donate your money. Do not be pressured by faux liberals like Gates & Buffett. Giving away $700 million probably ranks you in the top of the country, if not world.
And really, a millionaires' tax? A special tax on a property worth one million? I live in a working class neighborhood in Philadelphia, not Manhattan, and the neighborhood is gentrifying and we have several houses that recently sold for over $1 million, with regular two story, two bedroom, 1 bath row houses going for $400,000.
It's always other people who want to tell you how to spend your money, or want to tax you....rarely it is a wealthy person making this stuff up.
2
Capitalism has created not only the Uber-Rich but a nest of
Vipers so indifferent to the general condition that they have become the despised few.
Thus, “The World is Too Much With Us”.
2
@William Culpeper
"The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;—
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!"
For the who might not know the reference.
What an apt comparison!
29
@Literatelily How beautiful, how hearbreaking. Thanks for sharing!!!
Anyone with that amount of money has not 'earned' it and has succeeded in business without really trying. What's the minimum wage in the USA; this amount of wealth is similar to communist nations where there is a massive gap between the rich and the poor. Don't forget that it's all the rich foreigners that buy up all the expensive real estate in the USA so some sucker from Asia or a communist nation will probably buy that penthouse. It is global wealth that is lowering the standard of living for the working and middle classes worldwide and causing our cost of living to rise.
1
Profit before people is what happens when you don't have government funded public hospitals and Universal government paid pensions. Hedge fund manager - what a rip off!
1
The nouveau riche is well supported by this administration. I hope it makes him happy but it doesn't impress me. So crude!
3
We buy nto this unreality making the sector the sector ultraexpensive when just less that 0.001% can afford it squeezing everybody else making them overcharge to others and so on.. this is the case of the 68 mm at the Faena Miami. Illusion, illusions... I wonder is that fund is overinvested in realstate....
Amazed by the naiveté revealed in the readers comments. Hard working hedge fund managers? Money guys don't work hard to make money. They work hard to steal money. Griffin and his obscenely greedy ilk don't give a hoot about giving back to the country that allowed them to ravage our financial institutions while laundering their money in real estate and philanthropy. Philanthropy, the legal money laundering, tax evading, good deed hoax. Griffin needs to invest in social cache. What better way than to give more money to the rich! Ugh.
5
@Nina if it so easy, why doesn't everyone do it? there are plenty of people robbing banks, that if it was so easy, would be in finance if it was all "theft"
@Dan Well Dan, some of us have ethical standards and moral convictions that would make it nearly impossible for us to become hedge fund vultures or bank robbers. As I said they do work hard at stealing money and making sure the government doesn't see a dime of it. Greed and distain for the very country that has helped make them so successful.
Paying sky high prices for sky high penthouses is the billionaires' game. The guy holding the bag during the market crash will get burned, and play will resume. Let them gamble . What strikes me as hurtful is Griffin's statement about politics. The wealthy do not have enough influence?? That, sir, is outrageous and tone deaf. How about you pay more taxes and then you will be feeling more influence??
6
Remember that we have a billionaire former mayor of NYC who is considering running for president who has homes in multiple cities in multiple countries and, ignoring global warming, flew (and probably continues to fly) his private plane off to one of them every weekend.
And he was called "unselfish" in The Times.
3
Can one spend “lavishly” on philanthropy?
1
Another great example of why index funds have been so popular in recent years. It's great the Citadel did well last year and I suppose the people investing with him are not idiots, but I'll happily pay 15 basis points to own the entire market instead of paying 2 and 20 so that the Ken Griffins of the world can spend hundreds of millions on real estate and prestigious name brand philanthropy.
1
This over the top wealth is a perfect start of some more equality among all people. This is truly sick.
The self justification and rationalization of these masters of greed, predation and acquisitiveness, ie: hedge fund “managers” is breath taking. Not only were middle class people removed from their homes so this financial predator could have another temple to ego and vanity built in their place but we are told that his “philanthropy” makes everything else he does ok. There is never enough for men like this, not enough bling or property or places to splash their names & honor their “generosity”. These are the men who thrive on the poverty and financial insecurity of our time, if they used a gun or hacked a bank we would call them thieves, when they use lawyers and politicians to game the financial system we call them clever and “fund managers”. Yet despite all their “acquired” wealth they also are subject to life’s final answer. If only they took this lesson to heart perhaps so much misery wouldn’t follow in their wake. As Mark Helprin so aptly notes in his novel Winter’s Tale
“Peter Lake had no illusions about mortality. He knew that it made everyone perfectly equal, and that the treasures of the earth were movement, courage, laughter, and love. The wealthy could not buy these things. On the contrary, they were for the taking.”
Long after their dead the wrong they do shall corrupt their legacy and their names shall stand as a monument to ego and cupidity.
5
There are several issues here:
1. Entitlement to rent stablized apartments in
Manhattan.
2. “Income inequality.” This simply means that
some people make more money than others,
and that some of those who make less are
resentful.
3. A cure for affluence might be confiscatory
taxation. Let’s see when Elizabeth Warren
scales down to a 500 square feet apartment,
and buys her clothes at Filene’s Basement.
This is all so depressing. The Times’ editorial staff
will have to repair to the Hamptons this weekend
to restore its collectivist equilibrium.
1
Cue the Times liberals who believe that (I) they can spend this guys money better than he can and (II) they therefore are entitled to his assets and the government obviously has to confiscate it through much higher taxes. I say congrats Mr Griffen for living the American dream!
2
See? Banana Republicans have a point when they say lightly taxed billionaires provide a significant boost to the economy. There's also been a bump in yacht and private jet sales since the GOP tax cuts.
2
Tenants were "evicted," or bought out? Likely the latter, and often for not immodest sums. NYC real estate is a dog eat dog world. Some dogs eat filet migon. Sorry I left my stabilized apartment in '84. Could have funded my retirement.
7
When the wealthy give their money away it is to something that interests them. Usually in return that person becomes appreciated by his peers. They all live on the same top floors.
7
Give more away than just to art institutions, your ego is stroked enough whats the point in having so much without doing a lot of good with it?
He made it perhaps he should get over it and not be addicted to it, he needs to get out in nature before it disappears and assess whether or not his investments are moral and ethical.
4
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know the last line made me cry. Sorry, Cathy Marshall.
1
Ken Griffin will be paying hefty real estate taxes in Chicago, NYC, Miami and London. He will also create jobs for decorating and building out these apartments. How much time he spends in each location is his business.
3
@Ricardo Fulani Actually, he will not pay hefty real estate taxes, at least not in New York.
5
@Dan B - Actually if he owns it he will pay RE Tax on it. What he won't pay is NYS and NYC income taxes as long as he is here 182 days/year or less. But he earns and pays income tax in Illinois... so he ain't getting much of a break
@Ricardo Fulani --- wow! Decorators and contractors for four apartments. MAJOR economic contribution.
3
This line was particularly amusing, "a $59 million penthouse on Chicago’s so-called Gold Coast" especially the "so-called." Not only does that reek of snobbery, as if Chicago can't have nice things, but it's inaccurate. The "Gold Coast" of Chicago is an expensive but lovely residential neighborhood near the downtown area. It's a real thing, not something hypothetical. And he doesn't live "on" it he lives in it. It's not an actual coast, it's a community. Again, Chicago has nice things.
18
@Ryan And again, 99% of "journalists" are ignorant of the subject of which they write.
Where was the mayor when all those people were being evicted? Cashing checks from RBNY I assume.
5
@ProfLady I'm not sure how accurate evicted is. Paid lots and lots of money to leave might be more like it.
3
@ProfLady if you knew how this works, they were paid easily high 6 to low 7 figures to leave.
we watch the Griffin circus in Chicago. it's mostly been about his last divorce because the children were thrown heavily into the mix. seems he wanted custody but it was proven he never saw them when married! he wanted them to stay in Chicago; his ex-wife wanted to move to NYC. didn't happen. so buying this condo doesn't come into the play.
all of that put to the side, I have no problem with people who make a lot of money. I have a problem that people with a lot of money believe they should be able to sway the political and governmental policies of the country more that anyone else. Griffin believes that the "ultra-wealthy" (his words) don't have enough sway in the mix and that the government, since 2008, has interfered. but, you see, they were behind the fiasco of 2008. be the victim and deny being the perpetrator seems to be their common cry. poor babies......
9
There's no such thing as "earning" $1.4 billion.
110
Totally beyond my comprehension all that wealth. As far as I'm concerned this man is operating on another planet to me and most other people.
6
@CK, the man is secondary to the culture and mindset that begets what he's got. Divestment may be similar to public hand washing but a total waste of good clean water when all those around are dying of thirst.
1
This purchase should cause considerable concern for middle class New Yorkers and their elected representatives. New York City has long been ruled by wealthy real estate interests, and not to the betterment of those who live here. Ordinary residents abhor these horrible towers that destroy neighborhoods. They abhor the antics of domestic and foreign real estate investors who rip apart neighborhoods like Yorkville and Washington Heights. They abhor obscene wealth inequality. They abhor the decaying infrastructure that these towers accelerate. They hate when granny is displaced in a coop conversion or building tear down. It's everywhere and this disease keeps on spreading. So, the real question to ask of a true investigative reporter is, if no one like these practices, why do they keep on happening? I'm sure the Empire State Building would have been long gone had it not been for the actions of our elected representatives. And if Mr. Griffin is a philanthropist, how is it that he does not understand how unnecessary this purchase really is? Does he even see homeless people shivering only blocks away?
13
Tax him. The mayor has the right idea; also AOC.
16
@Carol Wheeler
Yes, these hedge fund tycoons are tycoons because they do not pay their fair share of taxes. This needs to end. He is paying less in taxes than the NYC school teacher. End this hedge fund deduction. Elizabeth Warren is right. We need a tax on wealth. Now.
16
It turns my stomach to read this story while furloughed federal workers are scraping by to pay the mortgage and put food on the family table.
Something is rotten in America.
24
@Michael Richter so sell that nice house in ridgefield, and move to Danbury, take the excess cash and help them out! people love to lecture but they need to start the sacrifice on their own doorstep.
With $238M, you could house almost 8,000 families in $500/mo. apartments for five years. Or you could let one guy buy an additional residence he will rarely live in.
"Philanthropy"? His donations are to museums and universities used primarily by the wealthy. It's like calling Andrew Carnegie a philanthropist for building libraries that poor people weren't allowed to go to.
20
@Andrew There aren't any $500 apartments in Manhattan that a family can live in. Maybe in St. Louis, but in Manhattan multiply that by at least 3 or 4. There will also be real estate taxes paid at the time of purchase of over $5.2M to the City and State. Maybe take some of that money and use it to help the 20 displaced middle class families.
3
@Craig G The 20 displaced middle class families were likely bought out by the developer for enough that they're no longer middle class.
1
@Andrew and does the $238mm vanish? no it goes to the workers who built it and the developers who created it, the architects who designed it, the moving companies that bring the furniture to it, the city that taxes it etc. does anyone know basis economics anymore? i grew up lower middle class, i worked hard, paid my way through public school and now am in the 1%, is that wrong? do i have to give it away for being successful? this sounds like Das Kapital
1
A graduated income tax of 70% for the uber wealthy is a modest proposal. Donald Trump neededn’t worry, I doubt he would even qualify. It may be inevitable that a Park Ave apartment at $2000 a month is not going to last, but this article doesn’t go into the multi-million dollar condos purchased by anonymous LLCs, often for the purpose of laundering money which has also feuled this market, or the broad effects this is having not only on the price of real estate in cities for average people, but on urban policy. The matasticised condo market has given undue influence to the real estate and development industry who profit from it to lobby, fund and influence local, state and narional politics. A look at that market in Miami in the recent PBS “Sinking Cities” series was very illuminating about the broader effects, particularly on public policy to mitigate Climate Change effects.
9
I don't want to speak out of school here, but I don't think Mr. Griffin is seeing an accurate picture of the precariousness of our economy - nor the state of the nation - though he seemingly knows a lot about how to make money...
With all due respect sir, that new penthouse of yours will only go down in value from here.
Perhaps you could put those funds to use for the betterment of our society? Eradicating poverty? A living wage? health care for the poor? Legal aid? Improving our schools?
11
This article kind of loses it's edge when you realize that regardless of who bought this property, an article would have been written about it/them. What is the alternative? That the penthouse remain unoccupied for years or forever? These property developers didn't build the building thinking that no one would have bought that space. They built it precisely because someone was going to buy it. The City doesn't discourage this either; all DCP cares about is expanding the tax base and that's exactly what this property does! It creates millions of dollars of property tax out of nowhere. We can't live in a progressive Utopia unless billionaires contribute millions upon millions in tax dollars.
6
@Peter
A couple of things. First, as I understood this purchase is actually combining two apartments. Second, these apartments are being built because it is worth it for developers to do so, because of tax incentives. I am not a hundred percent in the know of real estate influencers, but from as much as I do get glimpses to how this works, realtors of luxury condos have a lot of money to give to politicians, and they are able to pull a lot of strings to their and their customer's advantage. It's a win-win for politicians who get funding and to realtors and clients who get to buy extremely extravagant homes. The people who lose are THE PEOPLE. Almost all of us.
This is not the wealthy investing in communities; it's wealthy rigging the system to have their cake and eat it too. The proof is in the results of extreme economic disparity.
2
"Regular" people (some long-time residents, some elderly) lost their housing. They are unlikely to have found comparable affordable housing in Manhattan. If they found affordable housing in the boroughs or NJ, they now have a much longer commute to work. Further from family and friends.
The "new billionaire's" building and others such as One57 (with tax subsidy BTW) which have gone up over the past few years have completely and overwhelming impacted the neighborhood - more "middle class" residents may lose their housing as their buildings are gobbled up for luxury real estate. Commercial rents have risen too - longtime/local stores have closed, replaced by chain stores.
Not understanding how it is OK for wealthy people to trample basic housing for regular people and destroy neighborhoods?
20
@LS. These are all fair points, but the Rent Control/Stabilization of so many NYC apartments is also largely to blame. I have friends who have fantastic apartments that they pay next to nothing for because of rent control/stabilization. Their children, who have not lived in NYC for decades, will "inherit" these apartments later on. The rest of us will subsidize their rents forever.
I would love to see the top tax rate move up to 70%. But to ignore the rent control piece of this is to be blind to an enormous part of why NYC is so ridiculously expensive.
1
I would like to understand more clearly and transparently how earnings are made by hedge fund managers. If all it takes is a computer and a good algorithm and a skim off the top of each trade, these Harvard finance grads are nothing more than micro real estate brokers. They add nothing of value to the larger picture of capitalism and are slowly but surely sowing the seeds of its destruction. If not by misdirection of capital, by undermining collective support for capitalism.
17
@Patricia J. Much of the money that Citadel manages will be on behalf of pension funds, foundations and endowments. So when his fund is up 15% it is generally facilitating retirement, helping charities and universities, etc. Private individuals now make up a much smaller percentage of the assets managed by these firms. I dont think the comparison with real estate brokers is apt. I do agree that this guy probably has more than he needs.
2
@Patricia J. as you acknowledge, you should understand more clearly how funds like Mr. Griffin's function and the important role they play in the markets before making your assessment of their value. Those funds play an important part of creating liquidity in the markets, which are necessary for strong markets, which are vital for business growth, which creates jobs.
1
@Informed Voter
Hedge funds don't create liquidity. The federal Reserve creates liquidity by creating new money and giving it to global banks.
Liquidity is not value. Value is created by the people that actually do the work, not hedge fund managers, getting investment dollars from global banks that can't be bothered to invest in actual small businesses that actually do things.
By the way, when Treasury creates a trillion dollars, that money belongs to We the People, not global banks, but the Federal Reserve lends it to global banks for almost nothing, so they can make money on it. They are not even American banks but global banks whose interests are not even aligned with the citizens of the U.S.
The Fed just spent ten years giving away a NET of $3 trillion (out off a total of $19 trillion lent) to global banks, which comes to about $9,000 per citizen or $36,000 for a family of four. Don't tell me there is no money to spend on U.S. workers. There is plenty of money going to the wrong people for the wrong reasons to be spent on the wrong things, like luxury apartments.
While Trump's base is screaming about "open borders," they are all for the productive capital of the U.S. flowing out of the country over the borders, and never consider closing borders to capital, only humans.
1
The news just keeps hammering the super wealthy in this moment of hardship for the working people affected by the shutdown. The stories of Trump's callous, quasi- criminal billionaire crew, shooting from the lip about "loans" and Trump's fantasy about Safeway letting people just pay later for groceries are infuriating the public.
I absolutely love the "gang that can't empathize straight."
And now this.
Evictions of middle class folk (I thought NYC was a progressive city) so some loser can augment his huge ego (and probably other less huge parts of himself).
Under the wealth tax plan that Elizabeth Warren has proposed, 3% of his $10 billion wealth - $300 million, about what he paid for his new place (the infamous NYC cockroachs don't care, they'll be all over the place) - would be taxed.
So, instead of an apartment, he'd be contributing to America in myriad ways.
Helping the next generation of Americans achieve a middle class life that is the backbone of the very economy that spawns billionaires.
$Billions?
Sure.
Just pay the new tax to help keep the fabric of American society from fraying more than it has.
If he has to pay that tax, he may think twice about creating demand for unnecessary opulence or spending on corrupting our political system awash in billionaire cash.
On both sides.
Tax and spend it on the people who make the nation hum.
The everyday working American and family.
13
@Paul King
Hedge fund owners accumulate this level of wealth because they only pay long-term capital gains on their earnings through the carried interest loophole. Eliminating this obscene loophole would be a good start in a more equitable tax system.
11
When those among a country's wealthiest individuals produces nothing of value, and gets paid billions to do it, that is indeed a sign of serious trouble for that country.
19
I would be more impressed with his philanthropic efforts if he wasn't being taxed at the capital gains rate for his "carried interest" hedge fund earnings. I am a unapologetic capitalist but that provision of the tax code could not possibly be more grossly unfair to the whole rest of America who pay income tax on their income. It is difficult not to resent the billions we always read about with regard to hedge fund managers.
102
@Charlie
Exactly. If more taxpayers understood how the "carried interest" dodge worked they would be outraged. It's even worse than taxing capital gains less than wages earned for work.
40
@Charlie. Well said. The carried interest loophole is criminal. Bought and paid for by billionaires. And I say this as an ardent capitalist.
6
I don't know that giving millions to Harvard and the University of Chicago - both well endowed institutions that largely serve the well to do - should be counted as philanthropy. How about giving some millions to the struggling colleges that are cutting out their humanities programs? Or to homeless shelters or habitat for humanity? Seems like this guy likes to give his money to institutions that benefit people like him.
277
I agree 100%. Harvard could have funded scholarships out of its endowment with no issues.
15
@Michael Perot
100% agree. Giving to these already extremely wealthy institutions is about status and ego not philanthropy.
35
@Michael Perot
That was my first thought, too - exactly.
13
Please tell me again how raising the taxes on the super-rich like this would be "bad" for society? The plutocrat class now has more combined wealth than they know what to do with, while our roads, bridges, schools and general society continues to go underfunded. Then conservatives tell us we have to "tighten our budgets" because as a nation we are "broke."
It is time to bring back FDR's New Deal, because the current situation is untenable. You cannot have a plutocrat class with virtually all the power and most of the wealth, and also have a democratic republic with a strong and thriving middle class.
86
@Raindog63
Yes a few thousand people now control literally half of the world's wealth, while they encourage the other 7 billion of us to fight our the other half of the world's wealth.
A few thousands people did not create half of the world's art, books, machinery, buildings, land, etc. They came to own it by manipulating markets and governments.
But, they have also bought controlling shares in ALL global mass media, or own it outright (like Besos owns the Washington Post). They use this media to call themselves "wealth creators" and "job creators," trying to convince the rest of is that everything good in the world flows directly from them, and that the rest of us should only be grateful that they let us work for them for peanuts.
They also use the media to attack "centralization of the economy under the government," (which is how democracy gets things done in Our Republic) while they centralize the world economy under their control.
And they spend their money making bribery of government officials legal, making corporations into "people" with all of the rights of Citizens.
2
These numbers are obscene. A net worth of $10 billion? Earning $1.4 billion in one year? Buying property worth $238 million to live in part time? There is no job, set of responsibilities or skills that is worth this sort of money. Isn't that nice that he's given away $700 million - some of which appears to have gone to institutions like Harvard that have plenty of money, and are perhaps more for self-aggrandizement so that he can have his name on buildings. And as an art collector he is spending a small fortune on art that will most likely never be seen or appreciated by the public. The disparity between people like Griffin and the rest of us is a huge problem and one of the reasons why we have Trump, our so-called "populist".
43
@LHW yes, yes, and the true obscenity is that so many Americans wannabe like Griffin and Trump, that’s who the populists you speak about are!
3
You know, there comes a point when you have to say enough is enough. These Uber rich people are so disconnected from the real world around them where most people struggle mightily just to survive. It really is time to bring back the 70% wealthy tax rate. The low taxes for the rich experiment has failed greatly. The income gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ is now a chasm. The problem is that no one is worth the amount of money that some of these people make. I don’t care how good they are at what they do. No one is worth a half a billion dollars a year in reality but there are people who make that kind of money. We are long overdue for a redistribution of wealth through taxes. Let’s got on with it!
140
@Mike L
As a hedge fund manager he is only paying 20% in taxes on his income, if that. Nice loop hole if you can get it.
9
It's almost amusing that this article cites two numbers that are the same. $700 million spent on art, real estate, etc. and an equal amount on charitable contributions. So his "crime" is that he gives away as much as he spends?
How about the jobs created by the construction of that building? And yes, how about the crazy NY rent control laws that make housing scarce and drive up housing costs. Meanwhile the mayor thinks the city should control all the buildings. Remind you of any other countries you probably don't want to live in?
It seems to me that much of what I'm hearing is that "the people" think they have the right to spend money they haven't earned. Transfer payments just spread money around They don't increase the wealth of society. And why should we trust politicians to determine who gets how much? They're already corrupt. Don't give them more money to be more corrupt.
13
@Steve Struck
So your argument is essentially that a plutocrat class which has rigged the system to ensure it receives virtually all the new wealth created in our society over the past 30 years is a just and fair way to conduct a modern society.
And you're asking us to "trust" the private sector, as opposed to the government, to do the right thing. The trouble with your proposal is that since Capital has come to dominate our society, the vast bulk of Americans have watched as the middle-class has declined, while the 1% live like kings.
Even Fortune Magazine has just put out an issue on how the middle-class is disappearing, and how American capitalism must change. You can either accept reality, or watch the pitchforks come down Wall Street. Your choice.
48
@Raindog63
Yes. But the pitchforks will not be limited to Wall Street.
Your right, I would rather they weren’t allowed to steal the wealth in the first place. The apologists, sycophants and those who profit from financial predation will always seek to justify their behavior. It’s still ego and cupidity. Even the bank robber thinks they “earned” the money. Oh & rent control has nothing to do with this fool and his money, but nice attempt at redirection.
2
Property speculation is not economic growth and just causes the cost of living to go up for most people who have to take out bigger loans to buy a home because of speculators. Renters don't get an opportunity to own as they get priced out of the market. Real economic growth has its foundation in export orders, research and development, patents etc. Property prices can't keep on climbing forever and at some stage the bubble will burst. It's fake economic growth and a Ponzi scheme.
9
@CK , very perceptive analysis, property speculation creates exchange value, not use value. That’s the measure of fake growth.
1
A net worth of $10 billion, from managing a $28 billion portfolio? Somebody is paying a bit too much in management fees, but hey - it's probably just other billionaires.
61
@Jim Demers Pension funds, insurance companies, public retirement funds, ... The mayor himself may be invested indirectly.
How much housing elsewhere would the property taxes alone buy?
1
If he manages public pension funds, then the taxpayer has funded his fortune.
3
The super rich should be taxed progressively in line with our country's policies for many decades but they should not be vilified. Many, not all, but many earned their net worth fair and square and after they have paid their fair share of taxes, should be allowed to enjoy their money without being pilloried by the press.
10
@R. Anderson
I agree that people who pay their fair share should be allowed to enjoy their money (and I'm a socialist!). The problem is that these people have not paid their fair share and are doing everything they can to make sure they never have to, and that meanwhile, the rest of us have to pick up the slack, and that ironically -we- are the ones who get vilified for complaining.
It's also hard to argue that moving money around constitutes earning money fairly. They're middlemen for middlemen.
3
@R. Anderson
Goodnress gracious. It must be awful to be worth 10 billion dollars AND to have to "suffer" from bad press coverage. Whatever shall the rich do?
1
I have no objection to anyone making and spending a lot of money. This is an example, though, of why the carried interest rule needs to be revised.
38
Agree.
1
@JJ as someone who benefits from the carried interest rule, i too think it a terrible rule. impossible to justify
"Mr. Griffin has cited his maternal grandparents as inspiration for his philanthropy. They ran a fuel oil business in Illinois, and when some customers could not pay their bills during the winter, his grandparents would extend them credit."
Where are you now, Mr. Griffin, during this government shut down? What can you do to follow your grandparents' example?
30
@Sakuntala
It's not philanthropic to give someone a loan. Philanthropy is giving; loaning is asking for something in return.
2
Nothing wrong with making money and doing well but this kind of income inequality is obscene. The billionaires in this country need to be taxed more. Even with higher taxes they will still be billionaires.
175
There is something wrong with billionaires. AOC is correct. A society that tolerates billionaires and families with two breadwinners who still need food stamps is immoral.
16
Kenneth Griffin has doubled the previous record for a New York City home purchase. I fear this may prefigure his throwing down to fight unions in New York -- as he did in Illinois.
As reported by this news organization, Griffin's activist history means he's not "just another hedge fund billionaire." As the richest person in Illinois, Griffin funded Bruce Rauner's war on unions, organized other uber-wealthy, right-wing activists, and prolonged a devastating, two year budget stalemate. Griffin also demonstrated his ability to influence across party lines by feeding Illinois' then chief DINO Rahm Emanuel.
While its common for the uber-wealthy to own multiple, outrageously priced residences, Citadel's founder establishing a high profile camp on Central Park South seems more a public statement and a base to influence "other Uber Yorkers" than a housing investment.
I'd be glad to be wrong about anti-union intentions, but I don't find much solace in thinking he's there to stabilize NYC's luxury housing market or recruit investments from Russian oligarchs.
32
Good for him. He made a ton of money. No problem with that. He's spending some of it too. Great. Donating to art institutions. Also great. Putting his name on things. OK. Now, how about putting his name on some new affordable housing projects he's built in his so-called home town.
18
@DR
You may reconsider whether it's great that he made all that money when you figure out just how much of yours he stole to do it.
Instead of spending 230+ million on yet another apartment, wouldn't it be great if a guy like this used his wealth to help pay down the enormous student debt problem we have in this country? Unfortunately, that would take a person who is more concerned with the health of our society than his or her own ego.
39
Great idea. I was just thinking along the same lines.
6
He has done something to tackle the student debt problem: made the largest gift in Harvard College’s history ($150 million). The result is that 55% of undergrads receive need-based scholarships, 20% pay nothing to attend, and 90% of American families would pay the same or less to send their kids to Harvard than they would a state school.
I know it’s only one college and it’s easy to scoff at Harvard for being elite enough to afford this, but it’s inspired other similar gifts (like Bloomberg’s at Johns Hopkins) and it does make a difference in students’ lives.
12
Griffin giving $150 million is like me giving $50 if you look at it as a percentage of wealth. I wouldn’t be so quick to praise him for what was, in fact, a small donation compared to his total wealth.
17
Buy low cost, low fee Mutual funds and give yourselves the money and not guys like this.
17
Obviously he can do whatever he wants with his money, but giving money to Harvard or art museums is only benefitting the haves. The rest of the world hates us because of oblivious folks like Griffin.
65
“Currently, buyers of homes that sell for $1 million or more are required to pay a 1 percent tax. The tax, the mayor said, needs to be adjusted to “explicitly” target “high-value purchases” to generate extra revenue that could be used to create affordable housing.”
So is he saying that practically every single property owner in the city has had to cough up at minimum 10,000k for the privilege? The idea that a family or individual that has managed to save enough to buy a home in the NYC area has to account for an extra 10,000k for the “privilege” of buying at the lowest end of realty here is ridiculous.
When they make this readjustment they need to raise that minimum. What an obvious money grab.
6
@Christie I'm sure it will affect sellers as well. Not all people who sell a house for $1 million is a plutocrat. There's nothing wrong with rewarding folks who bought early and sat on their properties while contributing to community stability.
6
He, and his fellow billionaires, can spend whatever they want BUT they can also pay more taxes. I’m with ACO - tax rates on the part of a person’s income over (let’s say $500 million) should be at least 70%.
90
Don't you people read the news? The main problem with taxation of the wealthy is not the top income tax rate (which is already over 50% in NYC, and nothing to show for) but the loopholes.
His personal revenues will not be counted as income but as capital gains or pass through. So that already qualifies for a max rate of 15%. Shuffle around some more, and you can lower that even further.
Buffett mentioned that his aids were paying a higher tax rate than he does, remember? If everybody making over 300k were paying the full income tax rate, we would not need this discussion. And screaming for a 70% income tax is uninformed. Their revenues are NOT income under current tax law to begin with. THAT'S the problem.
57
$50 million? Way too high. But most of these guys don’t have income. They have gains. Tax wealth, not income.
13
Beyond repair:
A 70% rate matters because of what it says symbolically, and a smart legislator like Elizabeth Warren can and will fix the system so that it responsively and responsibly captures all the eligible revenue.
4
Seems like an outrageous and over-inflated price. He mustn’t be thinking of resale right? Not many people could or would be willing to spend that much. So what was he thinking? What does this say about our economy and the inflation of real estate?
9
He did this to have news articles written about him with his face all over. Otherwise he would have bought the place with an anonymous corporation fronting him.
Pure vanity. Low class.
You don't get that sort of wealth in NZ because the government runs the public hospital system and our retirement pension system. (National Superannuation). We don't pay anything into it and it comes out of the Central government tax take. Government manages the funds.
74
@CK
Is there a single innovative product or service to have come out of NZ in the last 100 years? Ever wonder why?
1
Obscene. We need a comprehensive wealth tax and massive Green New Deal, Medicare For All and affordable housing investment immediately.
236
@Tony Cochran
Let me suggest that Oregon establish this utopia for you, and the rest of country can wait to see the results.
4
What’s obscene about someone spending their own money? Any why do you feel that you have a right to it?
2
Agreed.
Part of the problem is the rent control and building restrictions that restrict supply in coastal cities. People trying to preserve their property prices fight new development.
1
Trust me, in NYC, high rises are still going up everywhere. No one is restricting them.
11
Maybe the answer to the tax problem is a flat tax on Corporations and people. No loopholes for anyone
If you are at poverty level no tax.
I am sure some Economist can figure it out.
8
@Jean Steve Forbes has been a perennial pitch man for a "flat" tax but it has never gone anywhere because financial experts say it's a giveaway to the rich.
@Jean "I am sure some Economist can figure it out."
Not if it's a U. Chicago economist.
I can see the investment value in commercial real estate or even owning whole an entire apartment building, but these multi-million dollar properties seem like dubious investments.
They come with maintenance fees, taxes and owner maintenance costs (cleaning, etc) which can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. And there's an extremely short list of people who you can sell them to should you want to. Even assuming a continuation of our inequality trends, is a $238 million penthouse expected to increase in value enough to offset its cost of ownership (fees, taxes) over 5-10 years?
10
@Mobocracy
Do you think that Ken Griffin hasn't thought about that? Do you think that a guy that successful hasn't taken that into consideration before making this purchase?
3
''On Thursday, economic advisers to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for president, said that she would propose introducing a new “wealth tax” on the richest Americans''
2 % on over 50 mil
That is Silly.
Greed is serious.
3
I sincerely hope we move toward more sensible RE taxes in this NYC.. especially for non full-time residents. I don't begrudge his wealth - even if I find his choices incredibly distasteful - but he needs to contribute his share to this city.
And as a sidenote, if you donate enough to have a building/wing named after you and accept that naming, it is no longer charity; it's marketing.
254
Actually it’s exhibitionism.
6
@AB
Your comment about charity becoming marketing is spot on! Thank you.
9
@AB, Like Zuckerberg FaceBook Hospital in SF.
2
This is becoming a problem around the world with wealthy people buying up real estate and holding onto it for no other reason than Capital gains. All these ghost properties around the world are causing housing shortages and changing the landscape of cities and communities. People have to travel further to work because they can't get accommodation near where they work because of all these property speculators. Same applies to commercial buildings that are unoccupied as that affects other businesses nearby if the building isn't leased out or used for the purpose it was built. Globalism is great for the wealthy but no good for people on low wages who have to compete for jobs with illegals or foreign workers bought into the nation. The UN was the idea of billionaires so they could import cheap labour and lower wages. Globalism has ruined our standard of living in the Western world but raised the lifestyles of all the wealthy people around the world and made them richer.
25
@CK
There is just no way that Griffin (a /finance/ guy) spent that kind of money (more than any other residence) so that he can wait for the price to go up(...) and make money on the "Capital gains."
I know nothing about tax law, but I do know that there was something special written into the new tax package they passed in December of 2017 that gave special treatment to real estate investing and write-offs (because you *knew* that there would be some extra special provisions figured into the law that Trump would personally benefit from).
Griffin did not just look around for the most expensive piece of real estate he could find on a whim--he is parking money there for a specific reason.
5
@CK
There was an earlier NYT piece which estimated that these luxury apartments were unused and vacant about 35% of the time. That means that other than property taxes, they contributed nothing to the city's economy.
3
@MRM. It's difficult to believe he didn't overpay, since this was well over twice the previous record and the ultra-luxury market in Manhattan is soft. I don't know if it is all ego, but it is difficult to understand the purchase price.
2
When a smart, ambitious individual who is successful in finance, makes a lot of money, should he NOT spend it? He has given hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, and continues to give money, especially to universities that provide financial aid to students who otherwise would be unable to attend those institutions. What do liberals want, exactly, from folks who are successful? Should they keep their money in a savings account? Under the mattress? Just give it out to the homeless on the street? Try not to be so successful in the first place? WHAT?
54
@RE; A successful society needs not wealth redistribution but wealth equity to secure a safe and long future. The nation has been stolen by the uber wealthy starting with the Reagan presidency. Wall Street from the 70's on has stripped the middle class of America of their pensions, their healthcare, and their financial futures, all with the help of a Congress that is paid for by the uber wealthy. If you buy the lawmaker, you write the law!
386
@Dave k - my issue is with people criticizing individual wealthy people for their very wealth. The system may be flawed, perhaps even broken, but individuals who make a profit on the basis of founding successful finance firms are not the problem. They do however make a convenient target.
24
I think it’s great how successful he’s been as an entrepreneur and that he has amassed a fortune from it. But I think he does need to pay a bit more in taxes for the greater good of the society he has benefited so much from. I think many people agree with that since they know that even if he has to pay more, he will still be a billionaire many times over.
97
Maybe the new Dems can curb this kind of wealth. The kind that threatens democracy, prevents rational economic growth, incurs income inequality and gives rise to oligarchs. AOC, and many others, are right, we should be taxing these people at 70% marginal rates.
166
@Dean
We also need a wealth tax, as advocated by Thomas Piketty, and now endorsed by Elisabeth Warren.
11
Nothing wrong with Ken choosing to spend his hard earned money as he sees fit. If others don't like it, I could not care less.
The people who got evicted, after applying the rule of law, can go to Queens. It is nice, not that expensive and very close to Manhattan. So what is the problem?
De Blasio, Elizabeth Warren, Ocacio Cortez and Bernie Sanders should all move to Canada
25
@Juan Briceno "If others don't like it, I could not care less."
If you're not super wealthy yourself, frankly I find that a little sad. Ken Griffin likely views all humans not as wealthy as he is (i.e., everybody) as nothing more than potential sources of revenue extraction. I don't assume anything better about a person working in hedge funds. Really not all that different from how King Leopold II of Belgium viewed black natives in the Congo region of Africa.
A person who views you as nothing more than a source of revenue extraction does NOT deserve your admiration and respect. For non-rich Americans, this seems like such a basic factor in terms of maintaining a bare minimum level of self-respect that I'm surprised it needs to be pointed out again and again.
12
@Juan Briceno
Oh Please. There is no value in Manhattan becoming a food court and shopping mall for the uber wealthy. This was Bloomberg's urban vision. He whined that NYC needed more Russian oligarchs to move here. Geez a group of Russian thugs who are as interesting as your typical hedge funder or NYC real estate developer. Trump has educated the public about the crassness, the insufferable arrogance, seemingly poorly educated, and criminality of the NYC real estate developer. He has also introduced us to the felonious crudely socialized qualities of the Russian mob referred to as business men.
Maybe De Blasio will provide a 421-a tax exempt status to Ken. De Blasio struggles because he is such hypocrite and sullies the concept of progressive. He has no credibility. He is the boy toy of NYC real estate developers. That homelessness has increased 33% under our boo hoo affordable living mayor says it all. Once the American public becomes familiar with the hollowness of his politics, the feebleness of his character, and his insincerity he will be a flash in the pan unless Trump's current base is looking for another false prophet.
The very qualities that have made NYC so interesting: the diverse ethnic neighborhoods, the home to a wide range of artists, and the civic engagement of the middle class are the very things that have been undermined by the uber wealthy.
“To be wealthy and honored in an unjust society is a disgrace.”
― Confucius, The Analects
7
@AR
"Ken Griffin likely views all humans not as wealthy as he is (i.e., everybody) as nothing more than potential sources of revenue extraction"
Talk about a ridiculous assumption to make about someone you surely don't know
5
Next time no need to wonder what happens to all retirement funds and savings of millions on another financial crisis. If there is earning rewards such as for these folks, human creativity goes over the top of any regulator who gets paid average salaries.
22
thanx to a free enterprise system, non-confiscatory tax rates, creative thinking and hard work, Mr. Griffin (and I, to a significantly lesser extent) advanced during our lifetimes from the bottom to the top 1%... redistributionists such as Ms. Warren - who apparently know better than we do about how our money should be spent - would not only deprive us of our wealth but would also deprive those at the bottom of the opportunity to advance by virtue of their own efforts... so what if Mr. Griffin owns a bunch of expensive real estate ?... that's his and nobody else's business
45
@bigoil
"..What’s more, in a New York tale that is not entirely uncommon, the 79-story building where Mr. Griffin’s penthouse will soon exist was built after the landlord evicted dozens of middle class tenants from their rent-stabilized apartments in what was a fairly modest, white-brick building with 20 floors."
So, Big Oil, a bunch of folks minding their own business ( many of them probably Republican voters) were evicted.
Individuals such as Griffin invented the term "redistributionist" long before Elizabeth Warren came along.
86
@bigoil
After WW2 when top tax rates were a tad higher than 90% and then when it was lowered to 70% did the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans etc go broke? No.
314
@Kevin O'Reilly...the developer, not Griffin, replaced the older building - with the approval of city gov't... if Griffin et.al. don't buy units in the new building, it becomes an empty shell ... is that what you would prefer ?
and no buildings should ever be replaced ?... great, an urban world of multitudinous, centuries-old slums ... is that what you would prefer ?
2
When people outside of the United States talk about their countries becoming "Americanized," they usually don't mean it in a good way. Not hard to see why with stories like these.
196
I’ve traveled extensively and strongly disagree with this opinion about Americanization.
7
@Nyalman To each her or his own. I'm fairly well-traveled myself. My general impression is that a good number of people outside of the U.S. now believe that "Americanization" is synonymous with, to put it crudely, "crap-ification."
In other words, for non-rich people the really important things in life in America are all turning to crap: Affordable housing, mass transport, public education at the primary and secondary and post-secondary levels, health care and insurance.
From my perspective, after reading this story I can only concur and conclude that America's ongoing transformation into a "palace built upon a dung heap" (to use the evocative phrase of Indian independence activist B.R. Ambedkar) is proceeding at full speed.
81
@AR
Agreed. Many people in other countries admire some aspects of the U.S., but they certainly wouldn't trade passports.
The most frequently heard sentiment goes something like "for such a great and rich country, why don't you have health care for all (or more accessible education, or better infrastructure, or better protection for workers, etc.) They can't understand how the vast majority of citizens have allowed themselves to be deprived of many of the things that make for a better quality of life.
31
nothing wrong with not pretending you don't have immense wealth. it's just as weird to be a billionaire who still buys his shoes at kmart, or whatever, in a feeble attempt to make some point about his relationship to his money. it's all PR, on some level, regardless of how you spend it.
18