772
Mamdani Threatens 9.5% Property Tax Increase if Wealth Tax Is Not Passed
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
772 points (99.2% liked)
News
35962 readers
3331 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
thats a good idea. A progressive property tax. I sorta can't believe it never occured to me and I never saw it mentioned previously. Would encourage affordable housing building I think to.
There'd likely be a lot of ways around it. Large plots would be broken up into smaller legal boundaries, parts would be owned by shell companies, parts would be loaned out and rented back at low rates, etc. etc. They'd find a way to take advantage of it to pay less than anyone else.
A straight-up land tax with no frills does the job. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Again this happens with all taxes and yeah you would need to deal with shananigans. shell companies in general are a problem. I feel we should actually not allow companies to own companies and im not sure we should allow companies to be in multiple markets.
Not with a regular property/land tax. There's essentially no way to game that.
My point is that adding frills to a tax (like making it progressive) usually just enables the people with the means to do so to take advantage of provisions protecting the poor. A property tax is effective because it is inherently progressive and doesn't need to be tweaked much.
It's not "inherently progressive". The rate is flat and therefore not progressive in the technical sense, though the result can appear that way. People tend to self-select into the highest tier housing they can afford. So, the tax can feel progressive even though structurally it isn't.
To see that it isn’t truly progressive, consider someone buying property with accumulated wealth. The tax only increases proportionally with the property’s value; the rate itself never rises.
property tax is not inherently progressive any more than any other tax. Taxes are either flat or progressive. Not having provisions to protect the poor just fucks the poor. Of course what really protects the poor is to just have a large enough standard deduciton to not be pulling income when people are at a level where none of their income is disposable or going further and having a citizens income. Can't be gamed because it applies equally to all. Of course part of graduated system is not to make such a jarring increase that its avoided at all cost. If each stair goes up only one percent then its hard to point to a particular step below as being better than the step above.
It's inherently progressive because it counteracts the inherently regressive distribution of property in a capitalist economy.
Taxes are not either flat or progressive. They are flat, proportional, or progressive. This is a proportional tax which targets unequal distribution to achieve progressive results.
If you mess with the rate, the system will be more easily exploited by the ultra-rich.
Taxes are either regressive, proportional, or progressive; flat and progressive are the same thing. While some (many?) consider proportional to be a separate category, I would argue that it’s inherently regressive, as any fixed percentage is going to come disproportionately from non-disposable income for any lower income individuals. Sales taxes are considered regressive because of this and they are a flat rate for most purchases.
You can make the argument that people have to buy stuff to exist, but they don’t have to purchase a home, but given the alternative is renting which impacts lower income people even worse, this seems like a specious argument.
Even with property tax, insurance, repairs, and mortgage, I’m paying less per month than people renting much smaller apartments in my area. Thats neither fair nor right.
wait wait wait. are you saying a flat tax is like a fee because that is not how its used. a flat tax proposal is for one percentage. Like sales tax is flat. But it still various by amount being taxed. Im not quite getting what you mean by flat proportional and progressive.
Companies definitely should not be allowed to own companies.
yeah there is far to much companies owning other companies owning other companies. the whole point of stock was individuals investing in a company that did something
A large building with a lot of rentals would be taxed at a high total value, and this increased cost would be passed on to renters, thereby defeating the purpose. It should o ly apply to unrented properties.
Side note, I know nothing about rent control though.
Wrong. Renters are already paying the most the market will bear.
In many places residential is already taxed less but you are right it would likely have a negative effect at high density. My guts says it would push more toward the 4 over 2's that are already prevelent due to their cost vs return. Possibly rentals would get assesed like condos and then added together. I could see that.
No, it wouldn't. It would discourage development and would encourage people to let their properties languish to lower their assessed values.
The current system works because generally you do not pay more for more expensive property, you pay a flat rate based on the assessed value. And there are abatement for certain identity and income groups already that serve as a progressive measure. Low income and senior residents most typically get the biggest tax breaks already.
It does?
for the vast majority of people and situations, yes.
Well I'm convinced.
this is the argument about all taxes. rich people will leave. corporations will leave or people won't invest. companies won't look to make money because they more they make the greater the rate of tax even though they will still get return. people won't want to get paid more becuase that more is taxed higher. you already pay more for more expesive property this would just slowly graduate the rate as it goes up just like income taxes.
I don't get any abatements or lower rates. I think the wealthy should pay a higher rate in some circumstances. If they aren't paying federal taxes we should make them pay more for local taxes. Every time they are taxed they threaten to leave, or not invest, and it's all bullshit.
If they do leave, that's the best case scenario, nothing good comes from billionaires. Nothing good comes from half billionaires either, 100 millionaires, they are all a drain on society. Both in making their money, and in not paying taxes and contributing to the society they live in, then in perverting our governments, and actually getting tax dollars. We end up paying them, in tax breaks for their business, to say nothing of the bail outs both the last times we had a recession.
How is that possible for assessed value to be one way but not the other? Assessed properties have to do with the value of the property. It's not 1:1 but it is definitely correlated.
because people are not rational. they are emotional.
and they are VERY emotional about taxes to the point they do stupid crap. a lot of people are very fearful of taxes to the point they make really crazy choices based on that fear.
my own sister is going to move to some rural shitty state, because she is so afraid of paying taxes once she retires. especially property taxes. and when i point out the irony of that when she gets sick there will be zero medical services... she tells me to go fuck myself. she has this delusional belief that if she lives in a cabin in bumfuck nowhere then her life will be amazing because she won't be paying taxes as much.
I don't like people like your sister. She benefited for her entire lives by people of all ages paying taxes for social local services she consumed growing up, going to public school, driving on maintained city roads, being protected by fire/police services, and using local libraries. The moment its her turn to pay for the younger generation then suddenly that spending she considers wasteful and ducks out of that society.
You correctly pointed out many of the difficulties about old age in rural environments. I hope she doesn't die because she has a health event, and the closest hospital is an hour away in the closest big city, and the ambulance service may take an additional 45 minutes to arrive.
I don't like her either, she is classic greedy rich person. She thinks all of those things are evil that she is forced to pay for by lazy poor people. She is not very grounded or educated, she went to business school and worked for a corporation her entire life and basically thinks anyone who isn't rich like her is a pathetic loser.
But I'm sure she will move to this rural place, and vote to defund the schools and hospitals because it's for poor people and her kids weren't raised there so why should she pay any taxes for other people's kids? She already 'paid her dues' by raising her kids in a city with high taxes.
Your argument is based on the likely false premise that she can pay and is choosing not to, that she will always have money to pay. It's the attitude of society to the poor in this country. It's not that they don't have the money, they are choosing not to pay. It's not all that true.
Nevermind they lose the property if they can't pay property tax, that costs are going up, and fixed incomes are not. Real inflation is higher than stated inflation increases are based on, thanks to a half century of cpi changes to understate it, 5-8% to 2-3%. They might need a car in the country, with it's many costs, you certainly need one for dignity in almost all of the country. Food, bills. Medicine, co-pays for medical. All of those go up more than her pay, but you "don't like" people like her because she's loath to live in an area that has a tax that will seize her property if she can't pay it, leaving her to die penniless on the street.
Society having nothing but contempt for her, and everyone victim blaming, courtesy of fox news and their war on poverty.
Your attitude is wrong-headed here.
My sister has about 50 million dollars.
Yes, she very much believes she is poor and can't afford to pay taxes. She is poor just like Jeff Bezos is. Bezos also believes taxes are unfair and cruel and he can't afford them.
But Texas often has higher property tax because they have relatively low sales tax and no state income tax.
Yeah that's what happens in every state with low sales or no income taxes. That or they have usage fees.
The point I'm making is that you said people will tank their property value to lower their assessment, but in the same breath said that assessment has nothing to do with property value if it's expensive.
That's not at all what I said.
If you don't have money to pay property taxes they seize your property and auction it off. All while costs are skyrocketing, and people on fixed incomes aren't getting more money. To dismiss your sister's fear is wrongheaded, she's right on this unless she has a lot saved up, social security is worth less in real value every year, as real inflation averaged 5-8%/year under the old, and more honest, standard, just by 2008 for the 50 years prior, and stated inflation in the cpi that it's all based on had it's formula changed several times to keep it around 2-3%. The difference is 1,300 dollars a month social security recipients are now denied from those changes to the cpi, on average.
So costs can go up so they can't afford to eat and pay bills and keep a car, and pay property taxes. Plus the county/township can come in and change the valuation of the property, raise the millages, etc.
Losing your property as a retiree is catastrophic, I would say you are way off base scorning your sister's very real concerns here.
Yeah, none of that is true. My sister is objectively an idiot, she has millions of dollars and her fear is founded by 'taxes are theft' beliefs. Her SS benefit will be like 5-6 grand a month no top of all her already crazy money. she is a millionaire.
I worked in tax policy. It takes years of willful neglect to get your property seized. Like 10 years of not paying your taxes, and even then most municipalities have programs to make payments on tax debts.
It takes 3 years here to get your property seized and auctioned.
And not making enough money might seem like "willful neglect" to you, reared on fox news campaigns blaming the poor for getting cheated by society out of a dignified life, one they had before the 80s.
But the jokes on you, and all of us, because they are coming for all of our money, you just didn't see through or care when they manipulated you into supporting it.
Even as they cheat you every day in the understated inflation, unless you have investment income. It's your own fault I'm sure. Stupid others, not having enough money, it's clearly a choice and a personal failing they are getting cheated by a society seized by big business and run by nihilistic lawyers working for billionaires.
Dude, i worked professionally in tax policy for awhile w/ the people who write the laws and enforce them.
But please tell me how my talking points are from fox news... lol
How is your employment at all applicable to your attitude that the poors that lose their houses from property taxes had it coming?
Please forgive tubulartittyfrog, as you can plainly see, they are emotional and get angry when math doesn't match their stupid crap feelings