top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 136 points 6 months ago (28 children)

In a couple months? Would be curious to see how, anyone have a ELI5 sheet of the changes made?

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 100 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    Gift article from the NY times explaining.

    But influx from the state, taxes on second homes, deferred payments to pension programs, and a host of compromises. He in no way raised $12Bn in new revenue through taxes to cover the deficit.

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

    They also got rid of state financial obligations that Cuomo had stuck on the city, and cleaned up corruption from past administrations. Those were significant savings, too.

    The point is that governments can be substantially improved with even a little actual reform and not duplicitous reform like DOGE. We can have change, it just takes voting in responsible, ethical government managers, not carnival barkers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    DOGE wasn't "reform," it was sabotage

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 190 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They taxed rich people and kept congestion pricing pretty much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    A big slug of money from the state was the real budget closer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Right. In exchange for taxing second homes in NYC

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

    "The poor get all the breaks! It isn't fair!"

    Right, taxing second homes worth $5 million or more. Are we supposed to feel sorry about rich people who can afford a SECOND home that's over $5 million, when they are asked to pay a tiny bit extra?

    Those wealthy parasites would let everybody in NYC literally starve to death before they would pay an extra nickel. Fuck anyone who believes that, we should confiscate EVERYTHING from them, and throw them in prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    Most of the $12 billion was a bailout from the state according to the video.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    The article linked above seems to roughly agree:

    • $6.5B state aid + school funding / life insurance payout shifts to state responsibility
    • $2.8B from the city via delayed pensions + taxes on second homes valued >$5M

    Earlier this year, Ms. Hochul committed $1.5 billion in state aid for a host of municipal services. The state budget, which has not yet been finalized, is also expected to include a host of policy changes and revenue increases that will funnel another $4 billion to the city over the next two years.

    The largest share — about $2.3 billion over two years — is expected to come from the city’s delaying certain pension payments, a change that requires state approval and buy-in from municipal unions.

    The mayor and governor also expect another half-billion dollars to flow from the new tax surcharge on second homes worth more than $5 million that Ms. Hochul recently announced. But the city comptroller recently argued that number might be overly optimistic, and New York City’s byzantine property valuation system means that the new tax would come with substantial implementation challenges.

    The city is expected to save another $1 billion over two years from several changes, including the state’s expected agreement to delay a class-size mandate in public schools (despite Mr. Mamdani’s support for the mandate as a candidate); more school aid from the state; and the assumption by the state of a larger share of death benefits for families of police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    I bet most of the pension changes are probably for NYPD members.

    The NYPD pension provides retirement benefits based on years of service, salary history, and plan type, with average full-career retiree pensions exceeding $100,000 annually

    Holy fuck

    They get a over $100k USD pension, wtf.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    Come on man, Buffalo is standing right there!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    How is it a 'bail out' when NYC is the engine of the entire state and receives far less money per capita than other parts of the state do?

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

    The wonders of taxing the rich.

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

    TBF, from the analysis someone else posted, taxing the rich only brought in, like, 550 mil. Which isn't nothing, but it's not like "tax the rich" saved the city - they did a lot of other stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Although true, I think that undersells the effect of even this minor tax on the rich. Every dollar out of a rich person pocket is a dollar out of asset investments portfolios and another dollar in the local economy. Until housing isn't a viable investment vehicle, as an example, that's another dollar not going to increasing the cost of housing. Housing getting cheaper means cost of living goes down not just for the worker but for the stores that sell you your food and your stuff, which has a knock on effect of making cost of living even cheaper.

    Taxing the rich, even a small additional percentage, isn't just about raising more money it's about redistributing it from the people who use it in the worst ways possible (corrupting systems, amassing power, buying the world) to the people who use it in the best way possible (paying for food, housing, education, healthcare, hobbies, art, and their communities).

    We should tax multi-millionaires out of existence, but any additional tax against the systemic problem of wealth inequality is a win in my book.

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

    Every dollar out of a rich person pocket is a dollar out of asset investments portfolios and another dollar in the local economy

    I agree, but...

    I think that undersells the effect of even this minor tax on the rich

    I think that saying "they zeroed their 12 bil deficit thanks to the wonders of taxing the rich" is overselling what they actually did to the extreme. They got 1/24th of the needed money from pied-à-terre tax. The true "wonder" was the 7 or 8 billion they got from the state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    yeah because he wanted to seem reasonable in a insane country. in a normal world you would to tax them out of existence and pay for the deficit and more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Oh, 100%! I'm just saying that people can't say "the wonders of taxing the rich" like that, because that brought in 1/24th of the needed money. The true wonder was the money the state gave them (7 bil, IIRC).

    But I'm truly hopeful he won't stop here and will work on actually taxing the rich properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    yeah. but I meant to say it does show the wonders of taxing the rich, even if this is not particularly. if this tiny amount of tax alone closed like 5% of this insane deficit, that's still proof that actually taxing them what they deserve will do wonders.

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

    I agree with both of you and I'll add that the negative publicity of rich folk gnashing their teeth about something as out of touch to working Americans as taxing a 5m+ second home is a good first step on popularizing and eventually executing the rest of his tax plan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    That is just one small potential tax on the rich. This was only taxing second homes over 5 million (very specific). He's also proposed a 51% increase in city individual income tax for earners over 1m, which would net 4b annually. Could increase corporate income tax, which he also proposed. That would bring in another 1.75b. Sounds like millionaires got off easy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I know what he said and what he's planning.

    Doesn't change the fact that so far the tax on the rich has had a minimal impact on the city's budget, contrary to what the OC suggested.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 6 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    gasp

    Where's your tolerance?! I thought progressives were nice!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Tolerance doesn't mean someone can't be mean to you. It means they give you the same rights they expect you to give them.

    This includes the right to say "get fucked" to others and to disassociate from people that are likely to say "get fucked" to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Listen sweaty, Martin Luther King didn't create the underground railroad by telling people to get fucked, okay? He was all about nonviolence AKA, ya know being nice to people?? Preeeettttyyy suuuure I know what I'm talking about here.

    spoilerPlease, dear readers, don't make me submit to the /s degradation, I'll do it like this instead lol

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

    You can't win office without Independent votes.

    Anyone that you want to elect must get Independent votes, they are 40% of the voters (Ds & Rs 30% each).

    When I need help, I don't tell the potential aid to fuck off, but what do I know? Let's see how "fuck off" inspires the electorate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Centrist doesn't like hearing the messaging that centrists have been sending the left for 40 years.

    Look, I know that a candidate who isn't itching to murder every last Palestinian might not be your very first choice, but they agree with you on 98% of everything else, right? So vote blue no matter who.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 96 points 6 months ago (19 children)

    Who would have thought taxing the rich improves everyone's lives?

    Nah, they just got lucky. We absolutely cannot keep trying this, because it's doomed to fail. Capitalism is the only system that works.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    If we tax the rich they will all move away to other countries then we will be left here with just the people who do all the work. We will never survive

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 6 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    You mean city employee pensions. That is roughly 750,000 people. Id rather the pension lose city contributions than multiple programs that effect the average NYC tax payer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Your sarcasm is too vapid. You need more wit. The employee is still contributing. The pensions are 84% funded which is well above the avg pension program. And the city will continue contribution after correcting the sabotage Adams caused.

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

    It's kind of amazing how many people don't understand that requiring excessive pension liquidity is a conservative strategy to kill tha viability of pensions. Relentless conservative media has completely broken us.

    Conservatives will tell you that tax breaks for the rich pay for themselves through growth, but government pension funds can't be invested in infrastructure for the same reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Capitalism and taxing the rich are not opposing each other.

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

    The problem with a statement like this is it is technically, academically true. However, in practice, it may as well be carved in stone. A system where fewer and fewer people accumulate more wealth and power is going to eventually put them above taxes, above the laws of nations 99/100. In Capitalism 2.1 that is a whispered goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I cant believe an organization exists to improve lives based on decades of research, theory, and global practice in a system propped up by propaganda. God forbid we have democracy in the workplace. Workers are too stupid to own the means of production. Its better when those with the most capital can much more easily accumate more. That benefits everyone because it puts the brightest (ie wealthiest) people in charge, driven solely by their altruism. Capitalism has proven to be the best system ever developed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    This isn’t from taxing the rich, this is from deferring payments to city pension funds, delaying class size reductions and other schemes, and taking a huge wad of cash from state aid. And $1.2bn gained because NYC had fewer employees than expected this year. So it’s a one-time deal rather than a sustainable policy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    The largest share — about $2.3 billion over two years — is expected to come from the city’s delaying certain pension payments, a change that requires state approval and buy-in from municipal unions.

    ...

    To balance this year’s budget, Mr. Mamdani is proposing to delay payments into New York City’s pension funds.

    The city has five pension funds representing teachers, police officers, firefighters and other unionized municipal workers. The returns, which are invested, total about $300 billion.

    The mayor’s plan, which would save $2.3 billion through the end of the upcoming fiscal year, would involve restructuring the city’s contributions to the funds following an overhaul instituted in 2013 by Bill de Blasio, then the mayor of New York City, and Andrew M. Cuomo, then the governor. At that time, the mayor changed the city’s pension payment obligations following a drop in the assumed rate of return, to 7 percent from 8 percent.

    (and fucking, of course: "Police officers’ pensions would be unaffected by the proposed change, as their union, the Police Benevolent Association, is opposed to the plan.")

    https://archive.ph/XARnw (NY Times)

    So, it sounds like the biggest contribution to the balanced budget is to push problems down the road and delay funding pensions. To a certain extent I get it. He was left with a time bomb that was about to go off, and if he can balance the budget (even if it's by delaying pension payments) he can defuse that time bomb and get some breathing room. I would hope that the unions accept the pension delay because I think having him as mayor is going to pay off for them in the long term.

    It's clear that this budget isn't really balanced, at least not long term. It sounds like he's still going to have to make some hard decisions, either cutting benefits or raising revenues. It sounds like one item that needs addressing is the cost per student in NYC which is twice as high as other places. That's going to involve making some hard decisions and taking on some powerful special interests.

    And of course, if he can actually fix NYC's biggest problem (the NYPD) he'll go a long way to solving the other probems.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    That's the biggest individual contribution, but it was only about 20% of the deficit. The other 80% was actually solved, as far as I can tell.

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

    A huge chunk of it was state spending, or the state agreeing not to force the city to meet state mandates:

    Earlier this year, Ms. Hochul committed $1.5 billion in state aid for a host of municipal services. The state budget, which has not yet been finalized, is also expected to include a host of policy changes and revenue increases that will funnel another $4 billion to the city over the next two years.

    ...

    The city is expected to save another $1 billion over two years from several changes, including the state’s expected agreement to delay a class-size mandate in public schools (despite Mr. Mamdani’s support for the mandate as a candidate); more school aid from the state; and the assumption by the state of a larger share of death benefits for families of police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers.

    That's happening because "Ms. Hochul, ... is facing re-election this year, [and] needs Mr. Mamdani’s help in turning out Democratic voters in New York City." After she's securely in office for another 4 year term, who knows how willing she'll be to do those same deals.

    If Mandami remains popular, maybe he can keep the governor on his side. It would be ideal if they solved some of these problems as a team instead of working against each-other. I'm hopeful. Right now people seem to be in a very anti-status-quo mood. Mandami is showing how Democratic Socialism is a different way of doing things from the status quo. If he appears to be succeeding, more people will want to work with him. If more people can work with him, he can maybe take on some of the really big challenges that require a lot of people working together. At that point, it's not just a budget that appears to be balanced if you shift the pension burdens into the future. It may actually be a budget that will really work in the long term.

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

    That's happening because "Ms. Hochul, ... is facing re-election this year, [and] needs Mr. Mamdani’s help in turning out Democratic voters in New York City." After she's securely in office for another 4 year term, who knows how willing she'll be to do those same deals.

    If he delivers NYC, then he owns her, and she'll have to come through with the favors.

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

    Only if she thinks he’ll still be in power next time she faces election.

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

    She'll be looking for some kind of job in government, and she's not going to want to be the guy that was pushing back against Mamdani's success, especially after his successes start to look like future Democratic policies.

    Remember how none of those Dem pricks backed him for mayor, even against a door like Sliwa? Then when he gets elected, and has his Inauguration, they all show up to that party, and pretended like they were behind him all along?

    He's starting to look like the future of the Democrat Party, and she better get on board, or get left behind. She knows what's up, she'll be riding his coattails.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Healing has to start somewhere, though. Getting good news will attract more investments and will make the city more rich eventually.

    And I hope that other sacrificed subsystems will follow the uptrend as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago*

    No one gets elected for having a well reasoned plan to actually bring down a budget deficit these days in the long term. The voter can't or won't accept that fixing something that took years to create will take years to get out of. And admitting that is electoral suicide.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 17 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Why did you highlight the word "for"?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    Well it's still a balanced budget.

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

    "Balanced" by getting one time money from the state and shorting the city pension fund.

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

    Finally balancing a messed up budget is going to require making some tough decisions, and it might get a little ugly. But you endure that pain, because it puts the city government on solid footing for next year, and for years after, until some crook gets elected, and fucks it all up again.

    Rather than declare this balanced budget a smoke & mirrors failure, let's see where it stands in 2-3 years. I suspect the city will be much improved by then.

    But, No, let's pretend doing something great, and extremely rare, like balancing the budget, is a bad thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    "Balancing the budget" means nothing without other information.

    It just means they didn't spend more than what was planned, which should be the default.

    Trump could balance the budget spending billions on ICE. Just because the budget balances doesn't make it "good". Just means they took in the money they thought and only spent what they thought.

    I'm a mayor and my town needs a new orphanage. My budget doesn't have funds allocated towards a new orphanage in the budget. I don't order a new orphanage to be built, kids live on street, but at least the budget is balanced. I must be a good mayor.

    But, No, let's pretend doing something great, and extremely rare, like balancing the budget, is a bad thing.

    Let's not pretend that doing something that is expected is automatically viewed as great.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    Not knowing why this is critical, and massively positive, is a lack of imagination.

    A balanced budget means minimization of your debt service. Cities can invest, they can also take on debt in various forms. There is "good" debt which services itself, but bad debt can be very expensive.

    Balancing the budget means more cash flow to pay down existing debt quicker and not have to create new debt. It also means making new investments.

    Maybe in 2 or 3 years you can build that orphanage, and you can do it with money your investments have earned, instead of raising taxes or taking on new long-term debt.

    This could make NYC more self-sufficient and prosperous in the long run, and less reliant on outside creditors, which limits the leverage of outside parties against the city.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    A balanced budget means minimization of your debt service.

    If NY has a 1B dollar budget. Receives 1B in revenue and pays 1B in expensives. It has a balanced budget.

    It has nothing to do with where or how the money comes in or goes.

    Both NY and NY city are required to have a balanced budget legally unlike the federal government. So there would be a problem if it wasn't balanced.

    It is just a fancy way of saying that they don't have to raise property tax to get enough revenue for expected expenses. Now if those expected expenses exceeds revenue in 2027 is another matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Nice try at framing a successful mayorship as a failure, based on speculations that aren't reality in this situation. Sure, if any of those things were true, it would be smoke & mirrors, but they aren't true. He made cuts, he got the state to carry their responsibility, he raised taxes on the wealthy, got rid of stupid corrupt policies of past corrupt mayors, and managed to balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting services on the on the CITIZENS.

    That's the way a mayor is supposed to do it, but you declared the message false based on not enough information, when all the information you're looking for is out there. Your cynical speculation is already wrong.

    MAGAs are so quick to claim the Socialist is wrong, and they sound silly and ignorant every time they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Rather than declare this balanced budget a smoke & mirrors failure, let’s see where it stands in 2-3 years.

    We should start by waiting to see if this budget even comes to pass. It relies on a number of disparate groups to approve various line items.

    I suspect the city will be much improved by then.

    I suspect it won't. Receipts from personal income tax are expected to decrease and budget gaps dramatically widen between now and 2030.

    No, let’s pretend doing something great, and extremely rare, like balancing the budget, is a bad thing.

    This budget may be balanced, assuming everyone involved votes for it to happen, but the structural problems remain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    This budget may be balanced, assuming everyone involved votes for it to happen, but the structural problems remain.

    Some of those structural problems were addressed in this budget balancing, and now that they've accomplished this objective (they'll all sign on, nobody will dare not to), they'll start working on the rest.

    I'm predicting that he'll succeed, and you're predicting he'll fail. The difference between my prediction and yours, is that mine is based on his already successful record, and his overwhelming public support, while yours relies only on your own cynical hope that he fails, with no evidence that will happen.

    So far, he's got his shit together better than ANY NYC mayor I can recall in the last 50+ years. I'm betting on THAT guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 88 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    And Dems fought him at every turn.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    and repubs. only the proplr sided with him and that was enough

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago
    [–] 12 points 6 months ago

    This type of governing has been possible the whole time which is the worst part. Keep up the good work Mamdani and his team.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    13 comments in c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world view that post
    4 comments in c/socialdemocracy@sh.itjust.works view that post