Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
The suggested 9.5 percent increase would affect more than three million single-family homes, co-ops and condos and over 100,000 commercial buildings, Mr. Mamdani said as he delivered his preliminary spending plan.
The mayor acknowledged that his proposal would not merely force the wealthy to pay more taxes, but would also be a “tax on working- and middle-class New Yorkers,” and stressed that this was not his first choice.
Welp.
9.5%? Couldn't go for an even 10%, just to make the math easier? Oligarchs are going to have to break out their old TIs.
Please tax the people taking us for a ride as much as possible
They've had it too good for too long.
It's not just the billionaires.
"Threatens." Oh, they mean "proposes as an alternative."
Fuckin' NYT.
Threatened makes him sound way coolerI
Honestly, it does.
Scale the property tax exponentially based on the valuation of the property. Make sure the wealthy land owners pay more. Much, much more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Based king
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.
"Why can't we just continue as normal and keep pushing the problems down the road for someone else to figure out?" - New York's comfortable masses who are already older than dirt and have no stake in the future, and basically all of America's financial policy for the last hundred years.
It's as if he's right.
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.
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?
Too bad Billionaires' Row is already cutting out a big portion of that tax revenue with a loophole.
Solution is to tax the land instead
"We are either going to get the money from the fat cats or from you. Your choice.". I'm waiting on pins and needles to see where the money comes from.
Here is a thought experiment:
I raise that conspiracy with this one: What is an OK amount of money to be lost on taxation for the rich that will cause political divide among the plebs that rifts forms that they treat each other like different species and bicker and fight among themselves in the name of the banner they stand for, mostly on the pure hatred for other banner and people who stand for that?
My conspiracy theory brain says in a decade or two the government will be filled with rich people and friends et al.
Oh no, don't threaten me with... the status quo! 😱😱😱
Let me try to understand if I got this. When you say this:
I raise that conspiracy with this one: What is an OK amount of money to be lost on taxation for the rich that will cause political divide among the plebs that rifts forms that they treat each other like different species and bicker and fight among themselves in the name of the banner they stand for, mostly on the pure hatred for other banner and people who stand for that?
I take it you mean that as taxation of the rich falls, living standards decrease, intra-pleb bickering increases to find a pleb target to blame for the falling standard?
You do provide an interesting scenario, but my thoughts and reasoning aren't that coherent. I meant, as a non USian, I feel people really buy into the 'American Dream' that I'm gonna be rich one day. So if we start taxing the rich now then I'm gonna get taxed when I get rich. At least some people do, hence taxing the rich on itself is going to cause a divide. Not just that taxing or not taxing the rich usually comes with package deal with other issues which some one might be inclined to.
If rich people control the government, then rich people would never be taxed. Unless there is an amount that can be allowed to tax, and for the reason above people will divide themselves into two clubs and fight between each other worse than British football fans to the point that one club's fan won't recognize fan of other club as equals. Neither intellectually, nor as a member of the same species. This will ensure that nothing will ever happen to the status quo as in a decade or two, each club's identity will be solely about hating the other club and their fans or whoever is even slightly pleasant to member of the rival club, and that is what all the fans from both sides will spend all their time doing. The only time both fans seem merely united will be when someone says the game sucks or it's called soccer, but only for a fleeting moment.
So if we start taxing the rich now then I’m gonna get taxed when I get rich. At least some people do, hence taxing the rich on itself is going to cause a divide. Not just that taxing or not taxing the rich usually comes with package deal with other issues which some one might be inclined to.
Oh got it now.
If rich people control the government, then rich people would never be taxed. Unless there is an amount that can be allowed to tax, and for the reason above people will divide themselves into two clubs and fight between each other worse than British football fans to the point that one club’s fan won’t recognize fan of other club as equals. Neither intellectually, nor as a member of the same species. This will ensure that nothing will ever happen to the status quo as in a decade or two, each club’s identity will be solely about hating the other club and their fans or whoever is even slightly pleasant to member of the rival club, and that is what all the fans from both sides will spend all their time doing. The only time both fans seem merely united will be when someone says the game sucks or it’s called soccer, but only for a fleeting moment.
Yeah. That's where things are now. The government is full of rich people and often these rich people are working for even richer people. The workers are already divided along the one-day-I'll-be-rich line. What you're describing is what's been happening for decades now. Unfortunately this state doesn't reach a stable equilibrium. Capital always looks for higher returns. Decreasing taxes is one way to increase returns. Depressing wages is another. Unfortunately for capital, at one point higher returns come at the expense of decreasing standard of living for workers. Through crumbling infrastructure, removal of safety nets, decreased purchase power (increased cost of living). The division among the workers protects capital's ability to increase returns over time. But that only works to a point. As more and more workers hit new standard of living lows, fewer and fewer buy the narrative that they will one day be rich. These same people begin seeing the correlation between their falling standard of living, and the capitalist class having it better than ever. At some point so many have crossed into the we're-getting-fucked-today side of the one-day-I'll-be-rich line that there's too few left to prevent change from happening. The we're-getting-fucked-today side has multiple options to force change. One's voting, which may or may not work, depending on how taken over the system is. The other is more or less foolproof - collective labour action - stop working - company strikes, or general strikes if all else fails. If no one is working, there are no profits made, bribes stop flowing, security stops protecting, drinks aren't being served at Mar-a-Lago and Davos. Then we make significant demands.
So yeah, you're right, but that's a transient state that eventually leads to a pre-revolutionary environment. The election of people like Mamdani when NYC capital spend enormous amounts of money to defeat him is an example of a time and place where enough people have gone beyond the tipping point.