this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
385 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.”

(page 2) 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 86 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

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

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 26 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 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.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 22 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

There is a big sack of cash that gets handed over by the state: the federal payroll taxes for all the state government employees.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours 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.

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

That seems like a trivial position to take.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz 11 points 13 hours 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.

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 9 points 12 hours ago

It is not bipartisan. The countries that take more than they send (primarily Republican states, I'm led to believe) would absolutely refuse.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

In the past our federal government has always been more competent and less corrupt at the federal level than the state level. That only changed this year.

[–] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 hours ago

Can't hurt to ask nicely.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 89 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 13 hours ago

This seems the require a better descriptor. Extorting an election.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 102 points 17 hours ago (1 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.

[–] ElectricWaterfall@lemmy.zip 17 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

....

Those are called "withholdings" and you pick what they are on your W4...

And honestly everyone should know that, literally every legal job in America you fill out a W4...

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 17 points 14 hours ago (1 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.

[–] pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz 7 points 13 hours ago (4 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.

[–] acchariya@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] Septimaeus 3 points 10 hours 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.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Who cares? Do it anyway. The law doesn't fucking matter any more.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago

It does for us plebs.

An in-group that the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group that the law binds but does not protect.

[–] pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago

On second thought. Pretty sure you need to withhold too, otherwise you just do the same thing per quarter. If someone knows, please let me know so I can turn off withholding lol

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

One rather large employer in each state is the state government...

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 56 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

How the fuck...

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

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 20 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Which is incredibly ironic for a country founded by terrorists (from the British perspective) who engaged in exactly that coercion.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 27 points 15 hours ago (4 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

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rockettaco37@feddit.nu 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 13 points 14 hours 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

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If Biden had an ounce of guts he would have started a shadow court with ethics rules and ignored the subprime court when it was clear they were off the rails.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago

You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 19 points 16 hours ago

The second act begins.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 hours ago (16 children)

Communism is a failure that we cannot allow to prosper!

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Hellotypewriter@retrolemmy.com 6 points 15 hours ago

The time to speak up is now. The place to do it is everywhere.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›