top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 346 points 8 months ago (30 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 107 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 8 months ago (14 children)

    It’s a little bit misleading to refer to as any mayor of New York City as “just a mayor“.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 75 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    It's just a tiny little financial capitol of the world with a measley population of only 8.4 million people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    If NYC was a state it would be between the 11th and 12th most populous state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago

    I agree that it would be better to make them legal however. I believe in free movement and commerce.

    100% Nobody wants to be in this situation.

    The system simply doesn't allow for people to enter 'in the right way', as far as the vast majority of non-rich people around the world are concerned the US Border is closed unless you win a literal lottery.

    We clearly need these people and benefit from their presence both economically and culturally. Instead of creating an immigration system that reflects that reality, we have one that makes them live in the shadows and deal with exploitation because they cannot access normal public services, including the police, for fear of being arrested (possibly violently) and thrown in detention for an unspecified amount of time.

    It has to be different, and not in the ways that these white nationalists cosplaying as law enforcement are envisioning.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago

    You can also casually remind people that more Republicans live in California than Texas, which usually makes their head explode. It's an enormous state, with a huge economy, with tons and tons of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Uh doesn’t this just inflict pain on the middle class if it ends up passing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Does the middle class own property in New York at all? I thought most just rent apartments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    NYC is 5 boroughs a lot of it is single family or 2 family housing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 8 months ago

    No, in a market like NYC rents are already the maximum that the market can bear, and a lower percentage of property prices than elsewhere. Landlords in fact will eat at least part of the increased taxes because the only other option is to not rent the property. That's exactly why they're so upset about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 168 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    "Threatens." Oh, they mean "proposes as an alternative."

    Fuckin' NYT.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 105 points 8 months ago* (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    The alternative is deficit spending which is the goal. That way poor people get penalized.

    Everything is overpriced so that the people making more money than us can make even more money. It has nothing to do with keeping the lights on and only useful idiots think otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -41 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    NYC has some of the highest taxes in the country. The alternative is less taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    New York in general has pretty moderate property taxes, ranked 10-20th depending on exactly how it's calculated, and well behind Texas, NJ, most of New England, Illinois, Nebraska and Ohio.

    In NY county and Queens they are well below the average for NY and slightly below the national average.

    https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    New York is No. 2 behind Hawaii for the overall tax burden. Texas is 40th. Source is wallethub.

    https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago*

    This thread however is about property taxes specifically. If you want to argue that NY should reduce income taxes and increase property taxes, I'm here for it, it's a better way to collect money. But having a high level of taxation in general is good if those taxes go to services. What's the average gas bill in Texas compared to NY? Also, with a progressive tax system it shouldn't be surprising that the place with incredibly high salaries is also paying more taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 101 points 8 months ago (37 children)

    Scale the property tax exponentially based on the valuation of the property. Make sure the wealthy land owners pay more. Much, much more.

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 8 months ago (36 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago* (21 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (15 children)

    properties languish to lower their assessed values.

    you do not pay more for more expensive property, you pay a flat rate based on the assessed value

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (14 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    3 comments in c/news@lemmy.sdf.org view that post