President backs Cuomo in election eve Truth Social post as Mamdani hits back at Trump’s ‘threat – it is not the law’

On the eve of New York’s well-watched mayoral election, Donald Trump issued a threat to its voters: stop Zohran Mamdani or pay.

“If Communist Candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the Election for Mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “I don’t want to send, as President, good money after bad.”

Trump’s comments echo those broadcast on Sunday during his appearance on CBS’s 60 minutes, in which he said: “It’s gonna be hard for me as the president to give a lot of money to New York, because if you have a communist running New York, all you’re doing is wasting the money you’re sending there.”

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 121 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I'd love to see NYC set up a voluntary escrow account for federal taxes.

You don't have to pay shit till taxes are due, have NYC sit on their withholdings and trump won't be able to build any ballrooms.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The problem is employers take taxes directly out of paychecks and send directly to the federal government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Pretty sure they don't have to, you can opt out and pay the full bill come tax day. That would certainly put sand in the gears.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    You have to pay quarterly if your withholding doesn't match you tax burdon. That's oversimplified but in general you cannot wait till tax day or else everyone would. You would just self withhold, leave the cash in a safe money market fund and make 4% on it till tax day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Illegal if a few thousand people do it, but defacto legal if a few million people do it.

    We need a 2025 word for illegal things getting a pass due to systemic chaos in the same way we had truthyness in the early 2000s. I propose "derelegal" to mean technically illegal but unenforced due to systemic chaos or legal rot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    If withholding doesn’t match tax burden

    AND difference exceeds the $1500 quarterly buffer. That is, you only owe penalties if your withholding is more-than-a-little off in your favor.

    I mention that because it’s an important detail for a useful tip re: filling w-4s. Since the withholding percentage is just an estimate based on that form, including the number of allowances you specify, it’s usually a good idea to “tune” that number to prevent over-withholding and, preferably, err somewhat in your favor.

    It’s better to owe taxes on your return. If the IRS owes you, it means you inadvertently gave them an interest-free loan last year.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 104 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Good thing it is legal for Trump and only Trump to meddle in elections. Yay.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    How the fuck...

    When the ever loving fuck are people going to wake up and remember their government/civics lessons??

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Those teach how things are supposed to work, not what to do when things don't work as they should. I'm willing to wager no government willingly teaches people how to coerce it into working for them, but at least America definitely doesn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I may be wrong, but isn't NYC more of a money generator than it's a receiver? If that's so, I don't see how NYC would suffer, but it would widen the divide between such areas and poor dotational ones, making their people possible maga recruits.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Most blue areas produce money, most red areas (excluding Texas I think) are leeches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    T*xas very much does too, despite how much they like to act big and bad and independent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    i think people are still expected to pay federal taxes. even if trump blocked funds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 39 points 1 year ago

    I really can’t think of higher praise.

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Hilarious watching these idiots call literally everything they don't like "communism".

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 99 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Other states should protest by withholding taxes, as well. United, yes?

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    That's not really how it works - there's no one big sack of cash that gets handed over by the state, individual businesses (and people) pay their taxes to the IRS directly, and then separately to the state tax agencies (obvs leaving out some of the draconian nuance here). States don't have a practical method of withholding taxes short of going to every business and demanding they stop paying the feds. While hypothetically possible at some point, it's not in the short term feasible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 27 points 1 year ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    In comparison to all federal taxes payed out by people within a state, that's a pretty miniscule sack of cash. The government is among the largest employers in every state true, but their payroll contributions aren't anything compared to the whole and they're paltry compared to things like business-derived tax revenue. States could withhold them, yes, but it wouldn't do much if they did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    It's not nothing, but it's really just not very much in context. Together those make up around the same amount trump is causally refusing to release from the SNAP emergency funds (~$33 billion) and that shortfall is being mitigated. Not trivially, it would be awesome to have that cash and people will feel it, but cutting those funds off for a full year would result in something like two weeks of reduced SNAP benefits or a couple days of federal furlough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Alright, the scope of this discussion is creeping pretty drastically. There's still no one big sack of cash, and while yes california could save some money by not paying out their payroll taxes (btw where did you find the state payroll amount? I've been looking around and can't find it reported anywhere) it's still not very much money, especially as they would then be required to cover that portion of the budget that was once covered by the federal government ($600 Billion) who doubtlessly would stop funding California in response to blatant secession...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I disagree. I think having everyone send their federal taxes to a state entity for leverage purposes would be an interesting development. The individual is protected, and the state holds the bag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    How would the individual be protected from the IRS if they are penalized by the IRS for non-payment of taxes. Just because you sent a check to some state entity doesn’t mean those federal taxes have been paid, and that state entity likely wouldn’t have the authority or resources to protect you from the IRS.

    It would be kind of like sending your mortgage payment to your lawyer when you have a dispute with your bank. You still owe that money to the bank, and they can take action for non-payment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Some jurisdictions allow escrow payment when in a legal conflict, in which case you actually might be sending money to your lawyer instead

    ... Probably doesn't apply for US taxes, but it's a thing

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It would be kind of like sending your mortgage payment to your lawyer when you have a dispute with your bank. You still owe that money to the bank, and they can take action for non-payment.

    Well, kinda. But in this example, you've put the money in escrow, which gives you protection while everything plays out in court

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But you as an individual won’t be suing the IRS so escrow makes no sense in this case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yes, but you've also separated the money and put it under the care of a third party. And presumably, you'd do this as a matter of state law

    When the IRS comes knocking, you can say "sure thing, your money is over there, as according to local laws". The IRS can then sue you, but you followed the law and set the money aside - clearly you weren't attempting to avoid paying

    Which realistically means the federal government needs to sue the state, either to overturn the state law or collect all the money

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Tbh one of my main takeaways from this presidency is that states send too much money to the federal gov and have to ask for it back. It feels like having more local control of how these dollars are spent would maybe even be bi partisan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Agreed, but GQP gaslights this general idea all the time at Fed level.

    “Let’s leave abortion up to the states…” as they come up with a plan to do the exact opposite and parrot the same lies over and over again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago

    lol NY doesn’t need “his” funds. Trump needs NY funds though.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    At this point there's little reason for blue states to remain. The US federal government is too far gone to fix and the kinds of ass wipe Democrats who would get elected certainly are going to do anything like expanding the Supreme Court or her tailing the power of the president so we might as well start from scratch

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    As somebody originally from New York State, I firmly believe that we could render the Federal government irrelevant simply through economic means alone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Actually, given how America works the only thing that would be necessary to completely destroy the federal government would be to have 40 senators, easily achievable, refuse to pass a budget. As we've seen without a budget everything grinds to a halt and eventually the federal workers are going to leave for other jobs. This might have already happened by sharing competence and the need to suppress the Epstein files but you could do it intentionally if you so desired

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think food and having belligerent neighbors might be a problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    1: who do you think is buying the flyover crops

    2: blue states grow plenty of crops, the largest agricultural producer is California

    https://www.farmprogress.com/management/what-us-states-produce-the-most-food-ranking-1-50-

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    California is really interesting actually. Yes over all they are a blue state. But the blue comes from exactly where you think it does. The metropolitan centers of the state are where the majority of people live. But the majority of agriculture comes from the valleys where people are much more right leaning. California is so politically diverse that there is regular infighting about breaking up into multiple states. One really commonly petitioned and proposed split is the creation of the State of Jefferson.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)

    But also, Northern California and Southern California regularly are seen as in opposition to each other. Central California feels completely different than any of the aforementioned regions. Then there is the desert area.

    The real reason it could stand on its own as a country is because of that diversity. Not to mention, if California split from the Union, in theory, the USA would have to continue to import goods from them because of how reliant we are as a country on that singular region.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The billionaires don’t want you to know this but you pay taxes to the states your business is located in. You don’t just “leave” because taxes. The businesses these billionaires own in New York are still subject to taxes.

    What’s crazy is the right has “donated” more money to supporting cuomo than Mamdani would have even taxed them.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Businesses already set up headquarters in Delaware for tax reasons. They're not going to leave New York City, one of biggest markets on Earth. This argument from conservatives was always stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Trump has a lot of property in New York.

    Sure would be a shame if he finally saw some consequences and lost a few dozen of them.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Does the cityhave the right to seize property or is that the state that would have that authority? I suspect it's at the state level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I'm not sure why you think that.

    Eminent Domain works just fine for both cities & states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Because this isn’t eminent domain. They wouldn’t be taking Trump Plaza to widen the street. This is Albany’s job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Are you telling me that you honestly believe that the City of New York (via the state of New York) can't use eminent domain to turn that plaza into a park, school or subway station.

    Because they absolutely can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yes, last I looked they don’t have the right to seize property on that scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Uh huh. Meanwhile, back in reality, New York City is currently demoing an entire neighborhood for part of a subway line.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Which was done under the MTA. The MTA is a NY State organization not an NYC one. Again this is all the role of Albany.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    You're conflating the initiator with the mechanism. I literally said "through the state", in my previous response.

    A park wouldn't have anything to do with MTA at all, yet that is also a common usage for eminent domain.

    You're purposefully missing the point & I think we are done here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    Go ahead TACO.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    The second act begins.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Idk man, I see a lot of red caps at a certain party's rallies

    red = obvious communist symbolism

    I think those caps even say "make america great again" which obviously sounds like a communist slogan

    I'd say we arrest these filthy communists 😏

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    sounds like a communist slogan

    I've always been amused by the fact that "gung ho" (which in Mandarin means "pull together", as in pulling on a rope in unison) started out as a slogan of the Chinese Communist Party under Mao and then migrated to the US during WWII because of an openly-communist Marine. Its real meaning is more like "be a team player" but it was somehow transformed into "eagerly shoot brown people".

    Also, the Marines' "ooh rah" chant sounds exactly like the Soviet Red Army's chant. More weird shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    “gung ho” (which in Mandarin means “pull together”, as in pulling on a rope in unison)

    I'm a native Mandarin speaker and I'm so confused what ur talking about lolz.

    You mean like 共和? "together in unison/harmony" aka: "republicanism"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung_ho

    The wikipedia article doesn't mention the "pull together" (as in rope pulling) interpretation. That was from a book about Mao that I read a long time ago, I can't remember what it was. The book had a bit about Evans Carlson traveling with Mao's army and meeting him. I am certainly not a Chinese speaker so I'm happy to have my inaccuracies corrected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    So that would mean that New York could stop paying federal taxes, no? I'm sure it contributes more than it receives

    I always find it hilarious how red states and their leaders are all about cutting off funds to the blue states that fund their miserable existence. "We will secede from the US!" Ok Boomer, good luck with funding yourself as all of you are so mismanaged that you would fail to feed your own population within the year.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    You have nothing to lose but your chains.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is impeachable ... par fot the course with Trump and MAGA. So sick of injustice.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    how many times do you think any other president would have been successfully impeached for trump's roll of crime? 50? 100 times?

    to me, the confidential docs debacle and j6 are the worst of the worst; the docs one stings especially because I know what it takes to obtain and maintain a security clearance and wonder how much he put at risk - both human assets and strategic plans - in his fucking bathroom - knowing that similar behavior in the military would get you a nice stretch at leavenworth federal correctional facility and you might see freedom in a few decades. maybe.

    dems should enumerate the list and use it any time someone talks about presidential fitness. "Oh you're worried about a woman president, but this fuck did treason after treason and that's fine?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›