"Threatens." Oh, they mean "proposes as an alternative."
Fuckin' NYT.
Threatened makes him sound way coolerI
Honestly, it does.
yeah. status quo bias
This is how you do it when you're serious about achieving what you promise for your constituents. Use your tools as needed, demand cooperation, when you don't get it, use your tools as leverage. Even if you fail, people see you did what you could and then they're ready to punish whoever stood in your way at the ballot box. This is why the oligarch class is so afraid of Mamdani who's just a mayor.
I'm a NYC resident, and I pay property taxes. If this is the stick that will (hopefully) get us the carrot of a wealth tax, I'm all for it. If property taxes end up going up, and we can use it to make the city better with the services Mamdani wants to get going, well then let's go. I will figure out how to pay the additional taxes somehow. With that said, let this be a bargaining chip. Working with the rest of NYC's political class is like a bunch of toddlers. The best thing you can do is give them two options, one you want (which they won't like) and one you don't want (which they really won't like). And make them pick. So they feel like they have agency, it's their decision, don'tchaknow?
It’s a little bit misleading to refer to as any mayor of New York City as “just a mayor“.
It's just a tiny little financial capitol of the world with a measley population of only 8.4 million people.
If NYC was a state it would be between the 11th and 12th most populous state.
And California is the world's 4th largest economy, behind only the entire rest of the United States, China, and Germany. New York State would be 8th.
The Democratic states and cities are economic and sociopolitical leaders for a reason. Don't listen to the bullshit calling them socialist hellholes. The evidence suggests that taking care of your people (and maybe even having illegal immigrants too gasp or better yet legal immigrants) is actually an economically sound, and maybe even economically preferable strategy overall.
Illegal immigrants are one of the strongest boosters of the economy, since they are a source of cheap skilled labor. You’d have to be totally stupid to intentionally throw away that advantage.
I agree that it would be better to make them legal however. I believe in free movement and commerce.
I love when people say the us should get rid of CA. Yeah let’s just throw away the worlds 4th largest economy because you’re anti woke 🙄
Its so funny the NYT has like half a dozen quotes about people opposed to the tax hikes but not a single one has presented a real idea for alternatives.
"Why can't we just continue as normal and keep pushing the problems down the road for someone else to figure out?" - New York's comfortable masses who are already older than dirt and have no stake in the future, and basically all of America's financial policy for the last hundred years.
Please tax the people taking us for a ride as much as possible
They've had it too good for too long.
It's not just the billionaires.
"I will tax the rich, even if I have to tax the poor to do it."
This statement and the article title are disingenuous. Mamdani wants to avoid increasing property taxes and drawing down city reserves to balance the budget here.
New York City is legally required to balance its budget. This is the reality of that.
And this will also still affect more wealthy than not as it’s not poor people that own multiple properties, or even one property.
Ideally I guess you could apply this kind of thing to anything that isn’t the primary residence or base it on size.
But I don’t profess to know the ins and outs of property management in general let alone in New York.
If a rich person own a building where they are renting units to the average joe making the median wage, they pass the cost of that tax increase down to the renters; which makes it a regressive tax in a round about way.
You can use that circular logic for all taxes. If a CEO pays more taxes they are just going to make up for it by raising prices or cutting employee wages
"We are either going to get the money from the fat cats or from you. Your choice.". I'm waiting on pins and needles to see where the money comes from.
Both of those hit the fat cats
I mean property taxes and wealth taxes are essentially the same thing.
Only if the wealthy have their money invested in real estate, right? If they're invested in stocks and hedge funds and such, then a property tax increase isn't going to cost them as much as a straight up wealth tax.
Better pass a rent freeze first or that property tax increase will just get passed on to the people who can afford it least.
It's as if he's right.
Why not both?
You use the carrot or the stick. Using both at the same time makes no sense.
The suggested 9.5 percent increase would affect more than three million single-family homes, co-ops and condos and over 100,000 commercial buildings, Mr. Mamdani said as he delivered his preliminary spending plan.
The mayor acknowledged that his proposal would not merely force the wealthy to pay more taxes, but would also be a “tax on working- and middle-class New Yorkers,” and stressed that this was not his first choice.
Welp.
Too bad Billionaires' Row is already cutting out a big portion of that tax revenue with a loophole.
Solution is to tax the land instead
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.