Quoting myself from another post with that topic:
Mamdani's plans and actions are almost too good to be true, but true they are and they are more than a silver lining for a lot of people.
People like him are so desperately needed in the world of robber billionaires enslaving the whole world.
Those robber billionaires might not realize that yet, but people like Mamdani are going to save their lives by nibbling at their looted fortune.
And if the Mamdanis of this world fail, we can always resort to eating the billionaires.
post
Dis guy on a roll.
Not really, he decided not to tax the rich and instead, took funds from the state (that could serve the poor) to prevent raising taxes on the rich.
Explain exactly what you mean with sources. No offense.
Second one isn't a source, and first one literally says he implemented a tax on second houses, which is a tax on the rich. I don't know what you mean.
You also can't blame someone for not reading every comment on every post in the community.
You also can’t blame someone for not reading every comment on every post in the community.
It's the otherway around sunshine: I am trying to garner how much pelespirit, you, and 21 of you know about how rich people keep their money.
tax on second houses, which is a tax on the rich.
Blackrock & Vanguard do not own homes. Yet they own every company in the
. If Mamdani wanted to actually go after the actual rich of NYC, he’d be targeting their industries.
Also, liquidate private equity entirely.
"He hasn't cleared the impossibly high bar I set so obviously he is trash"
Mamdani cannot liquidate private equity.
Targeting industry might or might not be possible for a mayor. NY has the most powerful mayor in the country but that doesn't make him all powerful.
Is there a reason why you place strawmen interpretations when trying to actualize meaningful progress?
Mamdani cannot liquidate private equity.
In his city, he can make it both illegal to do so, and use that liquidity for state projects.
Targeting industry might or might not be possible for a mayor..
Better to try where it actually penalizes the rich, than people with actual needs of secondary homes.
Can you describe exactly why anyone would need a second home? I cannot fathom any legitimate reason besides luxury for no reason.
Disabilities, logistics, surveys sheltering, snowbirding, etc..
How would it help a disability any more than a hotel or some such? Unless it's related to weather/climate somehow.
Idk what you mean by logistics but maybe
idk what surveys sheltering is
Snowbirding barely legitimate, if you make enough to afford it you deserve to be taxed for it.
Not all hotels have the dedicated staff to take of people say paralytic, dialysis, sun allergies, etc..
Access to water, food, resources, equipment, etc. Bananas don't grow whene apples grow, etc.
Mountainous vs flats, vs lakes, vs rivers, etc.
Snowbirding barely legitimate, if you make enough to afford it you deserve to be taxed for it.
Then go right ahead and die of hypothermia🙃.
For a progressive, you sure like to steal from people.
Is there a reason why you place strawmen interpretations when trying to actualize meaningful progress?
Mamdani's actions in the first few months of his mayorship have been one of the few bright spots of meaningful progress we have seen in the past decade.
In his city, he can make it both illegal to do so, and use that liquidity for state projects.
Citation needed
Better to try where it actually penalizes the rich, than people with actual needs of secondary homes.
This is rich. Somehow Mamdani is not going hard enough against the money and also he is picking on the poor and downtrodden who own Million dollar flats that they don't even live in.
he is picking on the poor and downtrodden who own Million dollar flats that they don’t even live in.
Citation needed
The Pied-à-Terre Tax and Its Potential Revenues - Office of the New York City Comptroller Mark Levine https://share.google/4ybZGPdS9SjIVlVdd
The pied a terre tax is on properties valued at 5 million or more. That doesn't sound like working class families to me? How about you?
- Why a Google redirect?
- You're aware this is a proposal that never took effect. If you did read it, acquiring $510 million in taxes doesn't even tackle the billionaires…
_Why a Google redirect?__
I don't know what that is
The proposal is what this is. The governor has expressed support. It's in progress.
The Google redirect is how you shared the link, it makes a new shorter URL that takes you to the actual website. I assume you pressed 'share' or something instead of directly copying the URL, which is this:
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-pied-a-terre-tax-and-its-potential-revenues/
In general it is best practice to copy the URL directly, as it is compatible with all browsers (the one you posted does nothing on Firefox) and prevents tracking and such.
Agree with you on the argument n stuff just doing my part to educate about the Internet, hope that made sense :)
Why are we saying that Mamdani getting funds from the state is a bad thing? Hasn't NYC subsidized the rest of the state while getting little in return from them in the past?
These centrists want him to hand that cash over to billionaires instead, obviously, like Biden, Obama, and Clinton did. The notion of one's taxes being used for the citizens own benefit is scary to them.
I kid.
What they want is for Mamdani to be as shitty as they and the people they vote for are so they can feel better in telling us that better things aren't possible.
Hasn't NYC subsidized the rest of the state while getting little in return from them in the past?
I mean, yes, because NYC is where the money is. Manhattan is full of millionaires, and most of Upstate is either farmland or abandoned company towns that have spent the last three decades trying to rebuild after Kodak/Xerox/GE packed up and moved out.
Can't get blood from a stone.
They're not gonna leave no matter how much they threaten. A few maybe, but not a significant amount. No matter what, it's still THE New York City. My old sugar daddy used to bitch and moan about how he'd leave the city if Mamdani was elected and he's still there and his life has barely changed. He's screening my calls now though, pray for me
No no no. You see, urban centers generating all the wealth and then giving that wealth to the apple pie loving rugged individualists in suburban-pretending-to-be-rural areas is the natural order. Any change to this system is unAmerican, evil, greedy city fatcats out fatcatting it up like a bunch of commies. /s
This works on an intra-state level and interstate level. Usually the poorer, rural areas of a state require financial assistance to support their people that comes from the higher taxes and earnings cities make. From there states that don't have strong metropolitan centers with a lot of business and money flow require cash flows from those that do in order to support themselves. No one in those poorer states will admit to it because it also kills the self sufficient by nature image they have of themselves.
Why are we saying that Mamdani getting funds from the state is a bad thing?
The wing of the party that expects us to buy that the biden administration kept its promises by announcing its intent to keep their promises won't accept that balancing a budget is balancing a budget.
Because he ran on taxing the rich than chickened out
How is taxing second homes not a tax on rich people?
You mean reclaiming a higher percentage of New Yorker's tax dollars for New Yorkers?
NYC pays more in taxes to the state than it recieves. Seems fair they get more money back for their community
But billionaires owning second homes do not pay anywhere near an appropriate amount of taxes
He did increase taxes on second homes. What are you even talking about? Could it have been a higher tax? Sure, but let's not pretend it's nothing
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/12/mayor-mamdani-new-york-pied-terre-property-tax-real-estate.html
I'm sorry he's making the lives of his constituents better in a way you don't approve of?
Fuckin' master shot. Far right uses Reagan to dog whistle and trigger the Boomers, well so can Mamdani manipulate those Boomers. Excellent work.
Next year Millennial voters will outnumber Boomers. Yay! But about 47% of Millennials say they lean Democrat and 45% lean Republican. Boomers lean about 44% Dem, 48% Rep. So it's a little different but not enough to expect any revolutionary changes.
I’d rather eat dog shit than have any positive feelings over neolib politics, but those millennials who lean R are class and generational traitors.
To me boomers who lean R are also generational traitors.
It's almost worse because at least with Boomers they can maybe believe the system works because they got theirs (nevermind how they got to enjoy such prosperity...), whereas anyone who's worked on the past twenty years knows things have gotten worse and how.
The party's outreach to younger voters so far has been "you don't vote so we're going to ignore you."
Response: "You're right, but neither party is ethically pure enough for us to soil our hands by voting for anyway."
Fucking Regan, that jackass is most of the reason we're saddle with the Orange Jackass now. Deregulate this 🖕
WHY CANT WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE LIKE THIS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS YARGHHHHHHHHJ
i know why. I just need to scream.
Look at it another way - last year we didn't have Mamdani, now we do. We didn't used to have AOC or Pramila Jayapal, but now we do. Progress happens.
With Mandami, people voted in the primary, selected a progressive, and then he won in the general election.
Vote in the primaries. That's the whole trick.
Remember that the party interferes with the primaries. Any progressive that wins has to successfully fight both parties.
All you have to do to defeat that is to fucking vote. Bernie lost the Presidential primaries in 2016 ans 2020 because more people voted for Clinton and Biden.
Yeah, there was talk about them rigging the 2016 primary for Clinton with the superdelegates if Bernie was ahead, but it never reached that point because Clinton secured the nomination before the convention.
I teach at a university and I had a ton of students praising Bernie who couldn't be assed to change their registration to a local address or drive home for a day to vote for him. And then they refused to vote in the general because they were protesting that the person they couldn't be bothered to vote for didn't win the nomination.
I caucused for Bernie both times. The first time, Clinton's staffers misdirected and intimidated a bunch of Bernie supporters to stand on her side of the room. No one realized what had happened until after the count was taken, but by then it was too late, and the person running the caucus turned a deaf ear to our complaints. We were told that we'd be thrown out/arrested if we continued to make a disturbance.
The second time, we didn't have enough people for Bernie to be considered a "viable" candidate, and that's only because the people from the Biden side of the room convinced half of our group that we were not viable (we were, but that was the first caucus for most of the Bernie supporters and they didn't know how it worked)
If you're not familiar with caucuses, I don't blame you; they are an antiquated, easily manipulated system that needs to be thrown out.
All you have to do to defeat that is to fucking vote.
And in places where the party's fuckery succeeds, you'll pretend that the primaries are fair because you like the results.
Yeah, there was talk about them rigging the 2016 primary for Clinton with the superdelegates if Bernie was ahead, but it never reached that point because Clinton secured the nomination before the convention.
The party successfully argued in court that it could decide the nominee in a smoke filled room without the input of the voters if it wanted. Then it did just that in 2024. And you pretend it was fair because a genocide candidate was nominated.
The establishment Dems didn't support Mandami, but he still won in the primaries. You know why? Because people showed up to vote.
Who said it was fair? But you've got to use every tool at your disposal. Don't make it easy for them.
Centrists argue that we should ignore progressives and point to primary losses as a reason.
Primaries centrists run dishonestly for their own benefit.
So what are you proposing?
For newbies: "the primary" in the US is the selection process for who you get to vote for in the coming election.
Democrats and Republicans each have their own primary to select a candidate for the district where you live.
I would phrase it as:
Each party sends a candidate to compete in the general election. The primary elections are the party's internal elections to decide who their candidate is.
In the United States, elections for the office of the Presidency are held every four years. Fun fact: the first few elections, the winner of the race got to be the president, and the runner up was made the vice president. The great experiment in democracy yielded data: That doesn't fucking work! So the candidates for vice president are selected by the presidential candidates during the campaign cycle. As a major job of the president is to appoint people, this is the free sample you get. They then run as a pair, the vice presidential candidates are often called "running mates." These get a lot of attention, you'll hear these called Major Elections. The next one is still tentatively scheduled for 2028.
Congress...is kinda fucking stupid. But also, the term "congressman" refers strictly to members of the House of Representatives; members of the upper house are addressed as "senator." Congressmen serve 2 year terms with no term limits. We re-elect the entire lower house every 2 years, almost to a man. Half of those elections line up with a presidential election, the ones that don't are often called "Midterm elections." There is a mid-term this year.
The Senate is even weirder, senators serve 6 year terms, and every two years a third of the senate is up for re-election. From an individual state's perspective, that means one of your senators is up during one election, the other one is up two years later, and then neither is up two years after that. Because 100 isn't divisible by 3, there's an exception to that somewhere, I'm not sure where it is off the top of my head.
It gets a little complicated because each party, the Democrats, Republicans, and The United Collective Of Parties That Are Allowed To Exist Because Of The First Amendment Assembly Clause But Not Allowed To Matter, and each state, are allowed to choose how their primaries (and their elections) work.
In many states, such as my home state of North Carolina, a primary election looks like the main election, The party issues a paper ballot, you bubble with a pen and insert into the box. Other states have "caucuses" where you go to a big room and vote by physically sitting in the area designated for the candidate you support. Some parties in some states welcome anyone to participate, some allow only registered members of that party to participate. Such is life in a federation.
Most, I think all, states also line up their own elections with the Federal elections. So every two years you walk into the polls for a 1/2 chance of voting for a President and vice president, 2/3 chance of voting for 1 senator, 1 congressman, quite possibly a governor, lieutenant governor, general assemblyman, state senator, county commissioner, sheriff, district judge, town mayor, 3-7 school board members, dog catcher and village idiot.
What happened in the general election, jackass.
He...he won?
Cuomo and Adams still ran against him. Even if "progressives" win the primary the democratic establishment would rather lose to a Republican.
Who wants a left wing populist politician?
Who will become the left wing populist politician?

top 76 comments