“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.
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.
It’s as if he’s right.
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.
NYC has some of the highest taxes in the country. The alternative is less taxes.
The problem is that all those services that people like and rely on? They cost money. Inflation and dipshit tariffs are eating into everything, so new revenue is required.
How are you gonna do less taxes when your guy left office with a 12b shortfall? My understanding is that NYC services are already running pretty lean as it is. What are you gonna cut?
New York has some of the highest wealth in the country, but woe and damnation if we suggest that maybe they should consider helping us out with shit like roads and garbage and sewers. Nah, let’s let the people working two jobs pay for all that.
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
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?
Don tchak now
Don Tchak never! The dude is completely corrupt, and I hear he has some very nasty sexual proclivities.
Uh doesn’t this just inflict pain on the middle class if it ends up passing?
Does the middle class own property in New York at all? I thought most just rent apartments.
NYC is 5 boroughs a lot of it is single family or 2 family housing.
And you think land lords won’t pass increased property taxes on to their tenants?
I don’t live in NYC so I won’t give an opinion on this but landlords won’t just eat increased taxes.
Property taxes are paid by the renters. Landlords don’t have any money other than rent. This is a tax on tenants with extra steps
Landlords don’t have any money other than rent. This is a tax on tenants with extra steps
The landlords that this is targeted against are not the slightly rich guy who owns an apartment building, it’s people like Citadel LLC who has nearly $70 Billion dollars of assets under management, a large portion of which are rental properties.
Those landlords have the money to pay the taxes. They own much more expensive properties, many of which are held empty and are limited in how much they can raise their prices indirectly, due to them already charging as much as the market will bear and also directly by Mamdani freezing rents.
In addition, many wealthy people in NYC own expensive housing (including Trump) that they use and do not rent.
Most people dont make over 1,000,000 a year. A millionaires tax, like the one passed in Washington state, only taxes 9.9% of every dollar OVER ONE MILLION. The first million has the same tax rate as everyone else.
They still keep 90.1% of every dollar over one million. It is not as if it is forfeit. They will still be making a shit ton of money.
Talking about the property tax, not the wealth tax. And even though it’s lower than other parts of the country, a third of NYC denizens own their homes, so a property tax increase seems like it’d have a lot of collateral effects on the not-so-wealthy.
I feel you there. Washington state has no income tax, so there are so many levers we can pull to raise revenue. Property tax is one of the big ones. Every time I get a ballot to vote on, there is some new levy they want to add. I generally vote yes, because I want schools to be funded and parks taken care of, but it does get to a point where our tax system is regressive.
Wealth taxes make sense. Those who can afford to pay a small amount more should step up. Mamdani’s plan of raising taxes on wealthy New Yorkers by -2%- is even less than what was passed in Washington state.
“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.
Better pass a rent freeze first or that property tax increase will just get passed on to the people who can afford it least.
He’s working on it. Link
Better pass a rent freeze first
Renters are already fucked in NYC. Stop making their lives worse with proven failures like rent control.
Rent control works in specific applications. First, it must be short term as a response to market shocks (like a sudden tax increase). It also must have a graduated taper off period where prices are allowed to gradually increase to meet the market rate. With the dramatic increase in work-from-home, office spaces are going empty. This creates an opportunity to counteract the usual reduction in the quantity of rental units that comes with rent freeze. Reductions of red tape and streamlining conversion of office spaces into apartments would stabilize or even increase the number of rental units.
The entire point is that there needs to be a comprehensive strategy, not just a simple tax.
it must be short term as a response to market shocks
NYC has had rent control for decades. If we are talking about short-term rent control working, we are necessarily talking about removing rent control from NYC.
Talking about adding more rent control in NYC is doubling down on failure, doubling down on fucking over NYC renters.
I’m not necessarily saying rent control is the best response. It’s just that raising property taxes is going to raise rents which is exactly what the city doesn’t need.
Rent freezes make landlords only do the bare minimum maintenance required by the law since they can’t increase rents when doing any remodelling.
Yah you’re right, all these poor, hard-working Landlords who serve the people must be protected at all costs, they do so much for the average renter, we can’t dare touch their clockwork perfect system that SOOOO many people love.
Jesus christ, grow a clue.
Another way of looking at this is landlords won’t be able to fancy up units and jack up prices which push out low income renters. Also, if landlords can’t make a profit, they will sell which will allow more people to buy rather than be forced to rent. This does decrease the number of rental units in the future which could drive up prices, but it could be combined with a plan to renovate office spaces into apartments to counteract this.
We want landlords to do this to serve the renters that want to pay more. Office spaces will be renovated to make apartments when rents are high enough to pay for this expense. You don’t need a plan when market forces cause people to make sound business decisions.
The only thing you need to fix is zoning
That assumes market forces are doing what you want. There are always levers that can encourage the market to move where you want it to go. For example raising property taxes but giving a 10 year tax break to converted office spaces (and changes to zoning of course).
That makes markets less efficient in the long run. It might cost less in rent, but your office is far away and you pay for it in commute time. You didn’t even know that in a parallel universe your company moved to a better office space that’s in your city
Efficiency and resilience are opposing forces. Think of the spare tire on a car. Is it efficient to carry around a fifth wheel all the time? No. But it is resilient because it will make it possible to quickly recover from a disruption (i.e. a flat tire).
The housing system needs a certain degree of resilience or people end up homeless. If that costs landlords money, too damn bad. It’s the job of government to force them.
