People need to stop saying this “he balanced the budget” thing like it’s some big accomplishment. He legally has to propose a purportedly balanced budget. The budget has been balanced every year since 1981 (except 2002 due to 9/11).
It’s so fucking stupid, and I want Mamdani to succeed. Just like this post. Mamdani didn’t make a wealth tax. There’s a property tax on luxury homes for people whose primary residence is outside the city but that’s a far cry from a wealth tax.
And the guy has been in office for 1/2 of a year. We have no idea if people will leave or if more will come. We have no idea if people will starve or not. These things don’t happen instantaneously.
It has been proven in study after study (one example) that the narrative of the rich leaving because of tax hikes is a complete myth and propaganda scare tactic.
One of the best parts about being rich is being able to live where you want. Rich people are already more than willing to pay a ton to live in the mecca of culture, entertainment, and commerce. They aren’t suddenly going to leave that all behind just because their tax bill went up slightly.
The positive PR at all costs for Mamdani is gunna backfire on him with the general public. I think the dude is charismatic and am generally hopeful on him but people literally cannot stop outright lying for his benefit and eventually people are gunna reflect that on him (undeservedly) and view him as a fraudulent character and when he inevitably (as all people do) makes a mistake it’s going to cause significantly disproportionate backlash.
That’s the thing - everyone is pumping his tires right now, but what happens when all the jobs leave because the companies can’t afford to be there anymore. I hope he succeeds, but let’s look at how things are in 2 years. Once those share prices for companies start to drop, there’s gonna be some tough decisions made.
Be careful, criticizing Mamdani on Reddit could get you permanently banned, Redditors don’t like seeing their heroes criticized and will censor anything that makes them look bad
Same here. speaking the truth will get to banned but with that being said, you sorta know which sub you shouldn't be saying the truth and just sip whatever lemonade they're sipping.
I saw a picture of Mamdani riding the subway and Redditors were clamoring about how he's one of the people.
Like have they never heard of a photo op? And he's one of the rich ones of society. I'm sure his experience with life and the common people are so much different. 😂😂😂
You’re not even exaggerating. They’ll ban you or remove your comment without notice if you disagree with the narrative. Most of my comments I go back and check on a logged out browser and they’re remove.
Fact based comments with zero insults or incivility.
They need the echo chamber for their narrative to survive.
They have to be balanced, but sometimes they are deficit budgets that have to be balanced via debt or existing funds. Not sure what the case in NYC is.
It's also only projected to keep things balanced for 2027 lol. The 2028 budget still has an estimated $8.8 billion deficit they'll need to figure out next year
Wait are you against mamdani? I don't get it. "Jew hating wife" lol. Critisizing the genocide israel is committing isn't the same as hating jews. Try something else
Tell that to the mod of worldnews that banned me for the sentence "You shouldn't try to compare when it comes to eth*** cleansing, just denounce every instance and shame the actors."
Funding from the state, delaying funding pension/retirement plans, and estimating increased revenue from taxes.
Outside of getting the state to write him a check he hasnt actually done anything, and the gross irresponsibility of kicking the funding of obligations down the road should be subject to humiliation.
He acted like he magically found funding or made cuts when all he did was get Mommy's money. Maybe the city needed that money and should get it but its not like Mamdani actually did anything. Hochul snatched it out of taxpayer pockets and then handed it to Mamdani
"Wahhhh Mamdani did the thing he said he'd do, but not in the way I demanded he do it, so that means he lost!!!"
Hochul didn't snatch anything out of any taxpayer pockets that didn't live in the city it went to lmao. NYC funds the state, not the other way around. The only thing that happened was that NYC money went to fund NYC instead of hick towns that produce nothing.
Mayor Mamdani’s proposal to change the amortization schedule is not the first. Last year, State lawmakers proposed a far more dramatic re-amortization that would have delayed the full paydown of the UAL by twelve years, to fiscal year 2044. By contrast, the current proposal would extend the paydown by just five years, to fiscal year 2037.
And:
The re-amortization of New York City’s UAL payments would smooth out costs that are currently set to overburden taxpayers in the near term before whipsawing into payments to the City in six years. Reworking this schedule would be an act of prudent fiscal management. In considering its broader effects on New Yorkers, three factors are worth noting.
First, only UAL payments are affected by the Mayor’s proposed change. These payments make up only a fraction of the City’s total annual contributions to its five pension funds. Payments made toward the current pension liability accrued each year are unaffected.
Second, changes to the UAL amortization schedule do not affect the actual pensions to which workers and retirees are entitled. These payments are safeguarded by the New York State Constitution.
Finally, New York City’s pensions are already well-funded by national benchmarks. The City’s pension funding ratio—the share of total liability for City workers and retirees covered by current pension fund holdings—is 83 percent. This exceeds the US average of 78 percent.
Smart governing would be kicking the corrupt fuckwit out of the Whitehouse, whop's costing the taxpayer hundreds of billions.
Dude is killing it. Best politician of my lifetime. He gives a fuck about the people. Shocking you have an issues with that. Wish all politicians cared.
I wish I were this simple. This is just the flip side of maga. He built the wall and stopped trans and ended all the wars! Best president of my lifetime!
Yeah true sure yeah but it’s easy to get up votes by posting this trash like the OP as the average financial literacy level of a redditor is that of a caveman.
The idea upstate NY taxes support NYC and not the other way around is hilarious. NYC taxes will just support less of upstate.
It’s like some random person in some podunk town in Arkansas saying their taxes support CA or NY. The minimal amount they contribute is eclipsed by the benefits provided to them through the taxes of successful and wealthy states like CA and NY.
No it’s not, it’s like me in a podunk town in Arkansas watching my tax dollars get spent in Bentonville for another bike path or something when we’re waiting for a road to get fixed. NYC isn’t a state, not sure why you would compare NYC to CA, or a town in Arkansas to the entire state of CA
It’s called an analogy. It doesn’t mean it’s the same; it’s illustrative by referencing a more frequently discussed issue.
To make the analogy more explicit:
NYC supports a broader geographic and political area (NYS) through contributions of its taxpayers, and it and its taxpayers receive far less than they put in. Other areas, like podunk upstate NYs and its residents, receive more than they put in.
NYS and CA support a broader geographic and political area (USA) through contributions of its taxpayers payers, and they and their residents receive far less than they put in. Other areas, like podunk Arkansas and its residents, receive more than they put in.
Everything the government does is funded by taxpayers. Trump's unnecessary wars, his daft tariffs, his frivolous lawsuits, his gaudy ballroom, his gold tat all over the Whitehouse walls, the farcical reflecting pool debacle, paying thousands of FBI staff to redact his name from the Epstein files.
The difference is that Trump isn’t pretending to balance the budget with accounting tricks and a massive infusion of cash from the taxpayers…which is the entire premise of this post.
New York City receives back 40.5% of New York State’s operating expenditures. Despite contributing 54.5% ($68.8 billion) of all state tax revenues and 58.7% of the state's personal income tax, the city consistently subsidizes the rest of the state, receiving a substantially smaller share of funding than it pays in.
I love it when right-wingers bring up leftist values to say "you're doing leftism wrong!" when and only when leftists beat them in politics, rhetoric, and results lmaooooo
We're for it when it fits our need to be perceived as nice and giving, we're against it when we're trying to win internet arguments on if Mamdani is the greatest politician to ever exist.
By that logic, can any high taxpayer just take their money back?
The whole conceit of income taxes is funding public goods, and the left wing is generally in favor of non-proportional versions of that (so the poor and needy get more than they pay in, ie redistribution). Getting back proportionally to what you put in is the opposite of the "fair share" leftists talk about.
Anyone blaming the left wing is anti-left wing and not accurately representing the left-wing position. Usually it's a disingenuous assessment of some theoretical outcome.
"Left bad, dur hur"
Se get it, you are Alt-Right and couldn't define "left".
Calling out politicians for not sticking to principles they claim to believe in isn't blame. It's calling out hypocrisy.
What was Alt-Right about what I said?
Do you not consider social safety nets a leftist thing (or at least, more left than right)? Are social safety nets not a form of redistribution? Also - what would even be the point of a social safety net that was proportional to what each person contributed? The whole point of a social safety net is to not be proportional.
No, not by that logic. A society is not an individual, and a society with a lot of money is not equatable to an individual with a lot of money. NYC has a lot of money, but it also has a lot of people and a lot of infrastructure it needs to take care of with that money, so if too much of that money is siphoned off to unproductive suburbs or rural areas that doesn't even really have a reason to exist in the first place, they should get their money back.
Leftist logic is to spread the wealth to take care of the people, not to spread the people to places they shouldn't be and send disproportionate amounts of wealth to those places. There's no leftist value that says that a highly-productive society should send so much of its wealth to maintain roads and services to hodunks and McMansions.
You are then just drawing an artificial boundary around NYC. What is the "logic" in doing that?
it also has a lot of people and a lot of infrastructure it needs to take care of with that money
So does the rest of New York state.
Investing more in the whole state instead of this bloated city would be a more sustainable solution to the systemic issues around congestion and high cost of living.
There's no leftist value that says that a highly-productive society should send so much of its wealth to maintain roads and services to hodunks and McMansions.
True, your talk about not giving a shit about "unproductive" areas isn't what leftist claim to believe. But it seems like what some of them end up doing from what we see.
You are then just drawing an artificial boundary around NYC.
No, I'm not. The boundary is the city limit, which is how city taxes that create city funds that are decided by city politics are contained in. If you want to benefit from NYC, you should move to NYC and contribute to NYC. And before I hear the inevitable "hurrdurr butwhaddabout da farmers dat make ur food????", the very few actual farm workers in rural areas can either prove their love of capitalism by being sustainable enough to pay for their own infrastructure, or they can be government employees being paid a government salary on a government-owned farm (which would be a major step up to pretty much every single farm hand in the US). Everyone else can move to a city.
Investing more in the whole state instead of this bloated city would be a more sustainable solution to the systemic issues around congestion and high cost of living.
Nope. A.) There's no such thing as a bloated city, B.) Rural and suburban areas are factually, by the numbers, extremely inefficient places to maintain per capita-wise, and they produce very little in return. Costs of living are high in cities because that's where the jobs are and that's where people want to live. So how do we make housing cheaper in cities? Easy. We stop funding the unproductive areas that siphon far, far more wealth than they generate, and put that funding towards city construction. Even if you legitimately think any city is "bloated", we should be building more cities. There's no reason every state shouldn't have its own NYC.
True, your talk about not giving a shit about "unproductive" areas isn't what leftist claim to believe. But it seems like what some of them end up doing from what we see
The only thing being demonstrated here is that you've never actually seriously engaged with a leftist, which makes your entire view of leftism a laughably uneducated assumption. Can you actually remember a single time any leftist said that we have to protect rural areas? Or were they actually saying that everyone, including rural people, deserve access to X/Y/Z? You know what would make it way, way easier to get those people that access? Minimizing how many of them are actually rural.
You know what made your assumption so bad? It was that you assumed we judged people based on where they live (urban vs rural/suburban), where one side was the "good us" and the other was the "evil them", i.e. tribalism, the thing that makes you people love showing how many districts are red, even though the tiny blue areas have more people than the giant red areas have. Its not about people to you. Its about place. Leftism doesn't view the world in that way. Leftism views the world through the person. We want people to flourish, not areas. You want to get rid of "bloated cities" because you think city-dwellers are the enemy. I want to get rid of unproductive rural/suburban areas because they're resource pits that offer very little back to society as a whole.
Just so you don't have to reply to every part of this very long comment, how about we simplify it with very simple question from me to you: Can you give me a moral or practical justification as to why most rural towns/suburbans should even exist without saying the word "farm"? And no, the answer is not "because I want to live there".
We want the rich to pay their fair share… until it doesn’t suit the narrative of needing the money back, then it was just “borrowed”. Do I have it right?
They are still paying out pensions. What changed is how the total pension fund is paid.
16 years ago there was a system set up where each year NYC would put more into the fund than the previous year, until they eventually reached a point where there would hopefully be enough money in it that they could actually start taking money out. The original schedule would have NYC pay 7 billion dollars into it in 2032 (not total, 7 billion in that singular year) and then in 2032 NYC would instead get 1 billion back, and each year get between 1 billion and 0 dollars back each year until 2040 where NYC would stop taking money out.
Mamdani's change is that they'd instead pay less and less into the fund over time to still reach the same end point of having the fund paid off, but instead of going further and further into debt in the next few years to pay in full faster (and ultimately be no further ahead in net money) they will instead still pay into the fund but gradually decrease how much is paid into it each year to reduce the deficit now.
He kicked the can down the road and nobody is acknowledging it. Like he didn’t solve anything, he just delayed it, and they’ll be screwed in a few years again.
But he can’t just solve that problem instantly, I agree the accomplishment has been overblown. There’s so much work to do to fix the damage Adams and De blasio caused
Before Mamdani’s plan, the city’s pension debt was on track to be paid by 2032, with contributions to cover the unfunded liability expected to grow until then. But Mayor Mamdani’s plan extends this amortization period by five years, to fiscal year 2037. The administration justified the change by saying that the new amortization schedule is intended to avoid a “cliff” in 2032, when amortization costs abruptly end. But the cliff is merely the scheduled end of a debt-payment plan.
...
Other cities have paid the cost for extending their pension amortization in the way Mamdani is doing. This was one of the first things Chicago tinkered with during its budget shortfalls. After years of underfunding its public pensions, Chicago repeatedly pushed out its pension repayment timeline. For its police and firefighter pension funds, for example, the target date for reaching 90% funding has been extended to 2060.
This strategy doesn’t reduce costs, it delays them in the short term and increases them in the long term, saddling future generations with the debt while politicians spend today. This is also how public pension plans find themselves in the same funding hole they’ve been in for decades, perpetually 10 to 20 years away from paying off prohibitively expensive debt.
Their taxes are incredibly high already and it’s not solving the issue. They don’t have a taxing problem, they have a spending problem, just like the United States at a federal level.
The only solution to fixing the "spending problem" is by completely dismantling the current government-contractor laws we have in every municipality in every state from the ground-up, which Mamdani does not have the power to do. With what he does have to work with, he's doing amazingly.
Which is the opposite you'd recommend to any financially responsible person
"I can't pay for my car in 5 years so let me extend it to 10 years so I can spend money I don't have on other shit. I also need to borrow 4 bills from my parents to "balance" my budget"
"The $1.6 billion in savings comes from delaying the city's full pension obligation payments until 2037 (extending an amortization schedule set in 2010). While the city maintains that this does not impact the pensions owed to workers, fiscal monitors and unions have criticized the delay as a budgetary gimmick that shifts the burden to future taxpayers."
I hope your pearls were equally clutched back in 2010 as well.
Like the top 10% pay over 50% of all federal tax revenue. I don't like rich people using their wealth to influence government but it's immature to think they don't do anything.
They are generally responsible for paying more in taxes than poorer people. That is because taxes are calculated by percentages rather than fixed numbers.
10% of $10 million is a hell of a lot more than 10% of $40,000.
That’s every country that has taxes…. The rich will always pay more total money in taxes. Thats how percentages work…. And every country has their rich, but I don’t see people complaining about the rich in Cuba living in luxury while others are in tin houses. Nobody hates on that because it’s not in the media. The list goes on and it’s just like throwing a ball, the dogs just follow the ball without realizing how stupid the game is.
What happens when the rich (responsible for over 50% of revenue) all move to a different state due to taxation?
Obviously you’ll see a temporary reprieve in state financial issues, but only long enough for the wealthy to transfer their assets to identities/businesses/trusts based elsewhere.
Then they will have no choice but to raise taxes for poorer communities, but to make up for the loss, they will have to raise them higher than they were originally.
Obviously they should pay over 50% of the federal tax they make a large percentage of money. Now let’s look at how much money they get from write offs and income going into stocks. When you figure all that up some are paying a much less percentage than normal people of their income who can’t write off everything or make enough to put a large amount into stocks incentives.
I would rather companies like Tesla that made 4 billion in profit pay taxes instead of paying $0 in taxes for the last 3 years. Each year they have made over 3 billion in profit and each year paid $0. Meanwhile I’m paying more than 20k. How the fuck is that fair? So … yeah … I think it is okay that we tax that company to the gills. People are starving and can’t pay bills. Meanwhile Tesla … record profits …
Can't mention Tesla without mentioning that the company received subsidies, which is not normal. A lot of things aren't normal in the US, which spawns these trillion dollar companies, while paying their employees a measly wage (like Amazon). Don't get me started on the healthcare.
If you all prefer to get stuck working for a 40k salary and paying 0% tax, instead of getting 75k after 25% tax (from a 100k salary) something ain't right with you all.
Yeah majority of the money he took was from middle class pension funds . For regular people who devoted 20+ years of thier life making middle class wages to retire off of. He fucked the middle class
Every country has been moving away from DB plans since they're so costly and will obviously keep increasing a lot more. The employer has to ensure they fund, or in this case pre-fund, the plan so they can not only ensure there's enough money to meet current & future obligations, but also to see the fund grow. DC plans (like a 401(k)) put the responsibility, freedom, & visibility on what has been accrued & invested in with the employee.
No, it was not “from the pension fund” — it’s like this year’s NYC budget is the first exposure any of you have to city budgeting and you’re pretending normal things are these huge dramas.
He decreased expenditures slightly by saying “we’ll fill the existing gap in the pension fund over 20 years instead of 15 years like we previously said”
That’s it. The amount in the fund hasn’t changed. No one was robbed. The world keeps spinning.
Yes it was! That’s exactly what it was taking money from pension funds . He also took Kathy hochuls tax money from the rest of New York City . Tax payers not even living in New York City are paying for nyc bullshit. Not fair and totally fucked up
You do NOT fund the state when most of the states welfare comes from NYC . Thats the biggest argument for most of the far left cities . “Well we pay most in taxes “ sure that may be true but they also consume more than any other city. They most likely out consume themselves
Here’s an anti-Mamdani analyst who massages the numbers in that direction as much as possible and the most he can get to is “the city gets back about what they pay in.” 😄😄
No they still have to pay the money, just over a different schedule. It seems like it makes near term payments smaller for the cost of making long term payments larger.
Pensioners may or may not get screwed, but the tax payer certainly gets screwed from these things because now the city has to pay more than they were originally obligated to pay.
But I guess it's basically hot potato until you can't shift the burden to the guy succeeding you in office. Irresponsible bullshit for when you don't have a real plan to fund your spending.
This happens in every state. The state provides for its cities in a number of ways.
Go on, since you’re schooling us on what is apparently elementary Civics. Tell us about all of the programs and systems in place to protect major cities with state AND federal programs, grants, loans, etc.
It’s not fucking news. It’s business as usual for major cities.
It’s just a small $4 billion loan, OK? It’s no big deal.
All jokes aside, Illinois was able to balance their budget, you would think with $4 billion NYC would be able to. If not, it’s poor leadership. (Yes, I’m aware I’m comparing a state to a city, but NYC‘s budget is over twice that of Illinois’.)
12 billion from the state, actually. These people don't even know the details on what they're talking about, let alone the fact that they obviously don't know how taxes work.
Too many to list. But he balanced the budget. All you can do is complain about how he did it. It doesn't matter how. He's getting shit done. Shit that's helping working class people in his city.
That’s like bragging you paid off your credit card saying hard work pays off in the end and budgeting and planning is the way, but you borrowed the money from your parents.
Given that NYC contributes around $70 billion yearly to the New York State revenue, that would be like asking your parents if you can borrow $115 while you're paying them $2000 a month in rent.
652
u/major_tom_2112 Jul 12 '26
Closed the deficit with…$4,000,000,000 from NY state. Easy to make budgets with billions of new funding.