this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
387 points (99.5% liked)

politics

26252 readers
3092 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago (3 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.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

I'm confused, sorry: what are you disagreeing with?

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (3 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.

[–] Natanael 4 points 7 hours 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

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 4 points 7 hours ago

Damn, looks like Trump shouldn't have slasher the IRS budget and fired all their auditors.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 7 hours ago (1 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

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 hour 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

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago

That seems like a trivial position to take.