"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.
Freeze rent prices then
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
9.5%? Couldn't go for an even 10%, just to make the math easier? Oligarchs are going to have to break out their old TIs.
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.
Based king
It's as if he's right.
"Threatens." Oh, they mean "proposes as an alternative."
Fuckin' NYT.
Threatened makes him sound way coolerI
Honestly, it does.
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
Here is a thought experiment:
- What happens if it's cheaper to invest in getting individual like this (who passes this kind of tax) not elected next time (elect someone who removes this tax and helps me any my friends), than to pay the tax? My conspiracy theory brain says in a decade or two the government will be filled with rich people and friends et al.
- Search for 'McCutcheon v. FEC ' Is there a politician, senator, congressman (congress person?), governor in the US who is not a Millionaire?
I raise that conspiracy with this one: What is an OK amount of money to be lost on taxation for the rich that will cause political divide among the plebs that rifts forms that they treat each other like different species and bicker and fight among themselves in the name of the banner they stand for, mostly on the pure hatred for other banner and people who stand for that?
My conspiracy theory brain says in a decade or two the government will be filled with rich people and friends et al.
Oh no, don't threaten me with... the status quo! 😱😱😱
Let me try to understand if I got this. When you say this:
I raise that conspiracy with this one: What is an OK amount of money to be lost on taxation for the rich that will cause political divide among the plebs that rifts forms that they treat each other like different species and bicker and fight among themselves in the name of the banner they stand for, mostly on the pure hatred for other banner and people who stand for that?
I take it you mean that as taxation of the rich falls, living standards decrease, intra-pleb bickering increases to find a pleb target to blame for the falling standard?
You do provide an interesting scenario, but my thoughts and reasoning aren't that coherent. I meant, as a non USian, I feel people really buy into the 'American Dream' that I'm gonna be rich one day. So if we start taxing the rich now then I'm gonna get taxed when I get rich. At least some people do, hence taxing the rich on itself is going to cause a divide. Not just that taxing or not taxing the rich usually comes with package deal with other issues which some one might be inclined to.
If rich people control the government, then rich people would never be taxed. Unless there is an amount that can be allowed to tax, and for the reason above people will divide themselves into two clubs and fight between each other worse than British football fans to the point that one club's fan won't recognize fan of other club as equals. Neither intellectually, nor as a member of the same species. This will ensure that nothing will ever happen to the status quo as in a decade or two, each club's identity will be solely about hating the other club and their fans or whoever is even slightly pleasant to member of the rival club, and that is what all the fans from both sides will spend all their time doing. The only time both fans seem merely united will be when someone says the game sucks or it's called soccer, but only for a fleeting moment.
So if we start taxing the rich now then I’m gonna get taxed when I get rich. At least some people do, hence taxing the rich on itself is going to cause a divide. Not just that taxing or not taxing the rich usually comes with package deal with other issues which some one might be inclined to.
Oh got it now.
If rich people control the government, then rich people would never be taxed. Unless there is an amount that can be allowed to tax, and for the reason above people will divide themselves into two clubs and fight between each other worse than British football fans to the point that one club’s fan won’t recognize fan of other club as equals. Neither intellectually, nor as a member of the same species. This will ensure that nothing will ever happen to the status quo as in a decade or two, each club’s identity will be solely about hating the other club and their fans or whoever is even slightly pleasant to member of the rival club, and that is what all the fans from both sides will spend all their time doing. The only time both fans seem merely united will be when someone says the game sucks or it’s called soccer, but only for a fleeting moment.
Yeah. That's where things are now. The government is full of rich people and often these rich people are working for even richer people. The workers are already divided along the one-day-I'll-be-rich line. What you're describing is what's been happening for decades now. Unfortunately this state doesn't reach a stable equilibrium. Capital always looks for higher returns. Decreasing taxes is one way to increase returns. Depressing wages is another. Unfortunately for capital, at one point higher returns come at the expense of decreasing standard of living for workers. Through crumbling infrastructure, removal of safety nets, decreased purchase power (increased cost of living). The division among the workers protects capital's ability to increase returns over time. But that only works to a point. As more and more workers hit new standard of living lows, fewer and fewer buy the narrative that they will one day be rich. These same people begin seeing the correlation between their falling standard of living, and the capitalist class having it better than ever. At some point so many have crossed into the we're-getting-fucked-today side of the one-day-I'll-be-rich line that there's too few left to prevent change from happening. The we're-getting-fucked-today side has multiple options to force change. One's voting, which may or may not work, depending on how taken over the system is. The other is more or less foolproof - collective labour action - stop working - company strikes, or general strikes if all else fails. If no one is working, there are no profits made, bribes stop flowing, security stops protecting, drinks aren't being served at Mar-a-Lago and Davos. Then we make significant demands.
So yeah, you're right, but that's a transient state that eventually leads to a pre-revolutionary environment. The election of people like Mamdani when NYC capital spend enormous amounts of money to defeat him is an example of a time and place where enough people have gone beyond the tipping point.
Scale the property tax exponentially based on the valuation of the property. Make sure the wealthy land owners pay more. Much, much more.
News
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.