https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/zohran-mamdani-nyc-mayor-budget/New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled his preliminary financial plan Tuesday on the heels of the announcement that the state will give the city $1.5 billion to help fix a massive budget shortfall. His tax-centric new fiscal plan seeks to close a multibillion budget gap with two choices: sock it to the rich or sock it to property owners. Mamdani says his new spending plan is the truth, gimmick-free. To some, however, the threat of raising property taxes if he doesn't get a wealth tax from Albany is the biggest gimmick of all. "As the mayor of New York City, I have a legal obligation to balance the budget. I will meet that obligation," Mamdani said. "When we took office, we inherited a historic budget gap." Mamdani said that what had initially been a $12 billion gap was lowered to $7 billion due to steps his administration has taken, as well as incorporating income from Wall Street bonuses. That gap has since been lowered even further to $5.4 billion due to an infusion to New York City of $1.5 billion from the state, thanks to Gov. Kathy Hochul."While considerably less, it is still a significant chasm," Mamdani said. "There are two paths to bridge this gap. The first is the most sustainable and the fairest path. This is the path of ending the drain on our city and raising taxes on the richest New Yorkers and the most profitable corporations. The onus for resolving this crisis should not be placed on the backs of working and middle class New Yorkers. If we do not fix this structural imbalance, and do not heed the calls of New Yorkers to raise taxes on the wealthy, this crisis will not disappear. It will simply return, year after year forcing harder choices each time." Mamdani said the only other option - a so-called "second path" - is the city would have to raise property taxes and raid its reserves.
"The options of the second path are the options of last resort," Mamdani said. "Options that we will only employ if there is no other means of arriving at a balanced budget." Mamdani said he will do everything in his power in the coming months to work on a solution with lawmakers in Albany to avoid raising property taxes locally. Mamdani might have some trouble getting taxes on the wealthy approved since Hochul has repeatedly said no to the idea."Part of our ability to shrink the gap has come from incorporating higher-than-expected revenues from Wall Street. Wall Street profits are at a record high, surpassing any projections and allowing us to incorporate more revenue than anyone anticipated. Those record profits translate into increased tax revenue," Mamdani said. He said Wall Street's hot streak means $2.4 billion in more revenue in FY2026 and $4.9 billion in FY2027."But responsible governance is not only about revenue. It is also about discipline. That means finding savings across city government, reducing bureaucratic waste, and rendering agencies more efficient and cost effective," Mamdani said. Mamdani said he's created chief savings officers in every city agency for the purpose of identifying ways to streamline their organizations. Mamdani called for a 2% raise on the personal income tax of the 33,000 New Yorkers who make more than $1 million a year, along with raising corporate taxes, to help close the ongoing budget gap. "As we know, New Yorkers contribute 54.5% of state revenue, but receive only 40.5% back," Mamdani said. "Once again, I am calling on Albany to end the drain."
Mamdani said if Albany doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy or corporations, that leaves the city with only one option - raising property taxes. "At the heart of this path is a property tax increase. This would effectively be a tax on working and middle class New Yorkers who have a median income of $122,000," Mamdani said. "The second path also requires us to raid our reserves." "The property tax increase, if the city was forced to do so, would be at a 9.5% increase. That is something that we do not want to do, and this is something that we are going to utilize every single option to ensure does not come to pass," the mayor added. To some, however, it was a cynical attempt to wring more money out of Albany. Hochul, who is facing re-election, has already ruled out taxing the rich, even though by Mamdani's calculations it is only 33,000 New York City residents. Tuesday, she said she was against a property tax hike. "I'm not supportive of property tax increases. I don't think that's necessary. But let's fund out what's really necessary for him to close the gap," Hochul said. Mamdani said this is not an issue of ideology versus reality. "This is not a conversation on the basis of ideology. This is a conversation about a fiscal crisis," Mamdani said. "And when faced with this crisis, the question is who should pay these taxes? I believe that it should be the wealthiest New Yorkers, the most profitable corporations." City Council Speaker Julie Menin immediately called a property tax hike a non-starter. "At a time when New Yorkers are already grappling with an affordability crisis, proposing significant property tax increases should not be on the table whatsoever," Menin said.
Mamdani said the budget crisis he's addressing today "did not materialize overnight. It originated with Mayor Adams' 2025 November plan."Mamdani said that the Adams administration "significantly understated" the deficits of its budgets, totaling a $12 billion budget gap. Mark Levine, the city's comptroller, said in January that the city is facing its largest gap since the Great Recession.Both Levine and Mamdani partly blame former Mayor Eric Adams, saying the crisis stemmed from a pattern of underbudgeting essential services. "This crisis has a name and a chief architect. In the words of the Jackson 5, it's as easy as ABC. This is the Adams budget crisis," Mamdani said in January. "He systematically under-budgeted services that New Yorkers rely on every single day." A spokesperson for Adams said the former mayor inherited a $10 billion debt that was compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic.Mamdani also blamed former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. A spokesperson for Cuomo said Mamdani could've fixed any inequities during his time in the state legislature.
NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE RICH FUCK 'EMYOURE CLOSER TO BEING HOMELESS THAN YOU ARE TO BEING A BILLIONAIREAFTER YOUR 999,999,999TH DOLLAR, EVERY SINGLE PENNY YOU MAKE SHOULD GO TO SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND WE NAME A DOG PARK AFTER YOU THAT SAYS "I WON CAPITALISM"
>>1490452>Hmmmm>We can make it better for literally 95% of the population>But it'll cost that remaining 5% slightly more money>Decisions decisions...
>>1490452Will someone please think of the heckin billionaires?
>>1490471Haven't you heard? The DOW is over 50k, so pedophilia is legal nowIts true!
>>1490472The DOW JONES is hitting new records so why do you keep talking about Epstein?
Fell for it again award. Spoiler: The wealthy will have tons of exemptions and won't be paying anything and it will all be the middle class
>>1490501>Fell for it againNo, I know exactly what I'm doing.Pain and suffering for the common folk.Tricking them into voting against their interests.Acting like I have some moral superiority.I am the evil empire. I am Prince John in Robin Hood's clothing.
This Mamdani guy seems pretty smartHe tricked Trump, thats not a low bar
>>1490452Woohoo! We won Demobro! Higher rent in NY! Surely this will help the poors!
>>1490506I STAND BY WHAT I SAID IN MY FIRST POST FUCK THE RICHBUT YES HES SMARTIN REALITY THERE ARENT ONLY TWO SOLUTIONS BUT BY FRAMING THE ISSUE AS "TAX THE ULTRA WEALTHY" VS "TAX EVERYONE WHO OWNS PROPERTY" HE IS ATTEMPTING TO GET THE MIDDLE AND UPPER MIDDLE CLASSES ON HIS SIDE
>>1490509LEAVING THEM TO TEAM UP AGAINST THE ULTRA RICH
>>1490509...what about the people who rent the property that they're raising taxes on?Lowering taxes and deregulating to allow small business to thrive is the only solution. But that goes completely against the Democratic platform which is pretty much, "Raise taxes to extortion levels and laundering it like mafioso so I can get a new car or if I'm not corrupt give it to billionaires for services".Dems are fucking retarded fucking fuckers and they're starting to make me physically ill.
>>1490516PROPERTY OWNERS ISNT JUST LANDLORDS, ITS ALSO THOSE WHO OWN THEIR OWN HOUSE/PROPERTY. THAT IS THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO MAMDANI IS PRESENTING WITH THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF "IM GNA TAX YOU, OR THE BILLIONAIRES, WHICH DO YOU PREFER".OF COURSE NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES, THE POOR AND RENTERS WILL BE FORCED TO SHOULDER AS MUCH OF THE BURDEN AS THEY CAN BEAR, AND THEN SOME. THATS CAPITALISM, BABY!!!
>>1490518That's not capitalism. That's Democratic politics.Calling excessive taxes to pay for retirement funds capitalism is ridiculous.And it's not either or, it's both will happen because Democrats think everything can be solved by raising taxes.I think you need to do some fucking reading.
>>1490458And what will you do when that 5% becomes 1%?
>>1490520"THAT'S CAPITALISM BABY" DOESNT REFER TO THE POLICIES PROPOSED IT REFERS TO THE FACT THAT THE POOR AND RENTERS WILL PAY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE NO MATTER WHAT. WHICH THEY WILL. INCLUDING THE SMALL BUSINESSES WE LOVE, THEY ARE RENTERS TOO.ALL AMERICAN POLITICIANS REGARDLESS OF PARTY ULTIMATELY SUPPORT FUCKING OVER THE POOR. THEY ARE HEAVILY INCENTIVIZED TO.
>>1490521Race to the bottom until everyone starves.
>>1490452Well well well, if it isn’t the “Idea Party” rearing it’s ugly head again!
>>1490452Okay, so sock it to the rich. What’s the problem?
>>1490525>What’s the problem?The rich won't be able to afford as many child prostitutes
https://wbjournal.com/article/report-millionaire-tax-not-causing-ultra-wealthy-to-flee-state/There's already recent proof taxing the rich won't cause them to leave
>>1490537The all time high record for millionaires in New York is broken every year, no matter what tax policies are handed down.
>>1490452he'll pay his taxes though right?
>>1490537>P-paper say, p-paper sayDem paper be showin' dem losin' the middle claws dough.Also MA sucks shit. What are Dems doing with this excess wealth?>Laundering it through daycares!Probably. Progressive thieves are always so proud of their stacks of extorted cash.
>>1490545Let's not forget the recent revelation liggerals have had regarding taxes due o their hate of dRumpf--they're passed to the consumer. Therefore, taxing the rich has drained the working class dry.
>>1490545>>1490546>Data doesn't matter, just listen to our liesConservicope strikes again
>>1490521the wealthy are of course well known to choose to live in the cheapest tax havens which is why 3rd world shitholes are full of them and they are rare commodities in the worlds most liveable/taxed cities.
This is about Governor Hochul refusing to consider a 2% wealth tax for billionaires.
>>1490558show proof of that statement or gtfo>everyone knows>it's well known
>>1490558Not 3rd world but there are numerous examples of billionaires moving to places with lower taxes. Ken Griffin was Chicago's richest resident (and paid the most in taxes) and moved to Florida to avoid the high taxes>>1490561>missing obvious sarcasmGo back to r*dd*t
>>1490562>Not 3rd world but there are numerous examples of billionaires moving to places with lower taxes.Exceptions, not the rule. Usually they just shrug because the one thing they hate more than having to pay taxes is the inconvenience of not living where they want. The big flight of the rich after Mamdani got elected never actually happened.
>>1490546>Local anon doesn't realize the difference between specific taxes on the rich and general tariffs that make things more expensive for everyone to acquire
>>1490546Sounds like we need to tax the rich even harder then. I for one favor additional wealth and luxury taxes
>>1490575Wasn't the Luxury tax a failure?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States>In November 1991, The United States Congress enacted a luxury tax and was signed by President George H. W. Bush. The goal of the tax was to generate additional revenues to reduce the federal budget deficit. This tax was levied on material goods such as watches, expensive furs, boats, yachts, private jet planes, jewelry and expensive cars. Congress enacted a 10 percent luxury surcharge tax on boats over $100,000, cars over $30,000, aircraft over $250,000, and furs and jewelry over $10,000. The federal government estimated that it would raise $9 billion in excess revenues over the following five-year period. However, only two years after its imposition, in August 1993, at the behest of the luxury yacht industry, President Bill Clinton and Congress eliminated the "luxury tax" citing a loss in jobs>Total Revenue vs. Projections: The tax, which applied to cars, boats, aircraft, jewelry, and furs, was projected to raise $9 billion over five years, or roughly $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion annually.>Actual 1991 Collections: In its first year, the tax only collected about $16.6 million, with some estimates placing the total revenue from the boat tax component at only $3 million to $7.3 million for that period.>Net Loss: Due to the devastation of the luxury boat industry (with sales dropping by roughly 70%), the government lost more in income and payroll taxes from unemployed workers and paid out more in unemployment benefits than it collected in taxes. The tax was considered a net loss of over $11 million in 1991.
Criminalize offshore holdings.
>>1490597I stand corrected and remember this now. Honestly maybe a wealth/net worth tax is needed to discourage hoarding stocks and properties.
>>1490603Wouldn't that discourage people from starting new companies?The Dutch are coming up with a wealth tax of 36%. I can't imagine a startup like Microsoft or Amazon starting up there when they have to pay 36% every year, diluting their company and their capital.Doesn't Europe have a fraction of the Unicorns compared to America or China? Doesn't Europe make more money imposing fines on American tech companies then all the taxes levied on European tech companies?
>>1490606>Taxes discourage growthAs long as revenue opportunities exist, someone will take themAnd america has a lot of revenue opportunities, we can tax our rich and have commerce too
>>1490607Cuba had a lot of revenue opportunities until they ate the rich and seized all their assetsFor some reason not many people invested in Cuba after Castro took power. They didn't take advantage of all those revenue opportunities "for some reason"
>>1490609>The only options are don't tax the rich or become CubaSpurious.>For some reasonYeah it was called the cold war, and it perverted a lot of economic incentives around the globe.
>>1490611The options are being Europe, or being Americahttps://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/1prigoq/unicorns_in_the_us_china_and_eu_number_and_total/The US now has over 6 TIMES more startups than the EU with a combined value that is $2.2 trillion higherI don't think there are 6 times as many revenue opportunities that exist within the United States compared to Europe, so why are there 6 times as many Unicorn Startups in America? Is it perhaps the high taxes of Europe are discouraging founders from starting their companies there?
>>1490614US is also currently rotting from within due to blatant corruption and greed.
>>1490614>My source is redditImmediately sus>Reddit infographic compares unicornsUnicorns aren't the economy. The middle of that bubble graph is a bubble You should stick to reddit
>>1490619What a worthless reply
>>1490606The secret is to make actual growth a mitigating factor. The taxes on hoards should always be much higher than the taxes on productive money that flows through other entities in the same country. Also stock buybacks should never have been legalized.
>>1490639What is the difference between "hoarding" money and "saving" money?
>>1490614The EU makes more money fining US companies than they make from the tax revenue of all every EU business. The EU would actually collapse if every US business pulled out. The inverse isn't even close to being true though
>>1490647These are economic terms.From an economic perspective the difference is as follows:Saving can be defined as "the amount of an individual's production which is not consumed but rather invested". Think secure investment funds, CDs, bonds, things of that nature.Hoarding can be defined as "money which is retained purely as a store of value."Think gold and other precious metals, real estate portfolios beyond your own needs, or actual money retained due to fear of Deflation.Hoarding is rare in modern economics. You almost always want your money to be actively accumulating capital or being "put to work". When a society hoards too much, it's a big red flag. When an economy "hoards" too much, it has a hugely negative impact on the system. When a person saves too little, it can have hugely negative impacts on them when unexpected expenses occur.Here's a short article:https://iconeconomics.com/the-difference-between-saving-and-hoarding/Hope that helps!
Land-value tax best taxthere, I said it
>>1490571>>1490562>>1490558Norway lost money by raising taxes:https://citizenx.com/insights/norway-wealth-exodus/>Norway's wealth tax increase, expected to raise $146M, led to a $448M net loss as $54B in wealth left the country, reducing tax revenue by $594M.
>>1490650>From an economic perspectiveNeoclassical and/or neoliberal economics exists to tell entitled plutocrats what they want to hear. It is the justification provided for why it's a-okay that the vast majority of Americans have seen flat real incomes since the seventies whilst the already privileged take all of the profit. From *your* economic perspective, you should ask:>Are things getting better for me each year in this country?>Are they better for me now than they were for my parents at my age?>Why are the most coveted consumer products I can afford actually third-party tools for my surveillance, which I am voluntarily acquiescing in?Hope that helps!
>>1490654Nothing cool happens in NorwayRich faggots already pay a premium to be as close to wall street as possible. They won't leave NY
>>1490572>anon doesn't realize the difference between specific taxes on the rich and specific tariffs on rich corporations
>>1490659>specific tariffswell they're not very fucking specific for one. There's a difference between "This millionaire has to pay X more taxes than this mom and pop shop" and "This millionaire and this mom and pop shop have to pay the same price for this tariffed good".
>>1490572Hmm, I thought the tariffs moved Dems past one dimensional thinking into a place where they could understand taxes a littler better. Maybe the liggeral moniker fits you perfectly.There's no hoarded wealth. There' no stacks of cash to steal from wealthy people, or very limited.The wealth comes from businesses and investments. For instance Elon Musk probably has very little liquid cash to spend compared to his net worth.If you tax his stock holdings you're taxing his business and increasing the price of all of his products. Who pays for his products? The wealthy? No doubt you live in a tent behind the dumpster Starbucks so any guy with a $10 latte has more net worth than you so it may seem like a lot of money, but it's not.Then what do you think the taxes will be used for? To help the poor? LOL, lel, even.The taxes are used to pay pensions that blue states are literally drowning in. These pension go to the real leeches: the government workers who can literally vote themselves more money.Your thought processes are fucked up, and you're retarded. Yet you want to hold power?Why? You're a fuck up just like most liggeral scum. Fully wagged and ready to do the bidding of whoever buys you ass with a feel-good story.What fucking scum.
>>1490660Cool story, now implement it, dipshit scumbag whore.Mom and pop pay more taxes price of mom and pop's shit shop go up.Why this not apply to rich guy?You're a fucking retard. Total fucking retard in a a pool of retarded fucking retards. Dems need their retirement pensions! Get that money, faggot.
>>1490655How much silver do you own?
>>1490654>>1490656America had a tax on rich people for a while in the '90s, specifically we had additional taxes on luxury goods... But as with every measure that harms rich people, Democrats came up with an excuse to end it>In November 1991, The United States Congress enacted a luxury tax and was signed by President George H. W. Bush. The goal of the tax was to generate additional revenues to reduce the federal budget deficit. This tax was levied on material goods such as watches, expensive furs, boats, yachts, private jet planes, jewelry and expensive cars. Congress enacted a 10 percent luxury surcharge tax on boats over $100,000, cars over $30,000, aircraft over $250,000, and furs and jewelry over $10,000. The federal government estimated that it would raise $9 billion in excess revenues over the following five-year period. However, only two years after its imposition, in August 1993, at the behest of the luxury yacht industry, President Bill Clinton and Congress eliminated the "luxury tax" citing a loss in jobs.[6] The luxury automobile tax remained in effect until 2002.[7]
>>1490680lol>>1490597
>>1490680>At the behest of the luxury yacht industryFuck 'em
>>1490680Both are the party of the rich but Dems manage to still be worse. Republicans still try to help normal people sometimes. Only Trump has had his eye on helping true Americans.
>>1490661This. We need to shut down or privatize all public goods. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in particular are huge drains. Trump has made movement on getting rid of the VA, a major font of waste, which will catch him some flack but will be good for the overall health of this country. The VA has a shit ton of useless employees just collecting paycheck for a service that should never have been socialized, but nobody but Trump was willing to take it on since we all brainwashed by leftists to think veterans are a sacred cow or something.
