Although true, I think that undersells the effect of even this minor tax on the rich. Every dollar out of a rich person pocket is a dollar out of asset investments portfolios and another dollar in the local economy. Until housing isn't a viable investment vehicle, as an example, that's another dollar not going to increasing the cost of housing. Housing getting cheaper means cost of living goes down not just for the worker but for the stores that sell you your food and your stuff, which has a knock on effect of making cost of living even cheaper.

Taxing the rich, even a small additional percentage, isn't just about raising more money it's about redistributing it from the people who use it in the worst ways possible (corrupting systems, amassing power, buying the world) to the people who use it in the best way possible (paying for food, housing, education, healthcare, hobbies, art, and their communities).

We should tax multi-millionaires out of existence, but any additional tax against the systemic problem of wealth inequality is a win in my book.

yeah because he wanted to seem reasonable in a insane country. in a normal world you would to tax them out of existence and pay for the deficit and more.

That is just one small potential tax on the rich. This was only taxing second homes over 5 million (very specific). He's also proposed a 51% increase in city individual income tax for earners over 1m, which would net 4b annually. Could increase corporate income tax, which he also proposed. That would bring in another 1.75b. Sounds like millionaires got off easy.

A big slug of money from the state was the real budget closer.

They also got rid of state financial obligations that Cuomo had stuck on the city, and cleaned up corruption from past administrations. Those were significant savings, too.

The point is that governments can be substantially improved with even a little actual reform and not duplicitous reform like DOGE. We can have change, it just takes voting in responsible, ethical government managers, not carnival barkers.

Deferred payments usually costs more in the end.

deferred payments to pension programs

Oof, not too sure about this one...

The article linked above seems to roughly agree:

• $6.5B state aid + school funding / life insurance payout shifts to state responsibility
• $2.8B from the city via delayed pensions + taxes on second homes valued >$5M

Earlier this year, Ms. Hochul committed $1.5 billion in state aid for a host of municipal services. The state budget, which has not yet been finalized, is also expected to include a host of policy changes and revenue increases that will funnel another $4 billion to the city over the next two years.

The largest share — about $2.3 billion over two years — is expected to come from the city’s delaying certain pension payments, a change that requires state approval and buy-in from municipal unions.

The mayor and governor also expect another half-billion dollars to flow from the new tax surcharge on second homes worth more than $5 million that Ms. Hochul recently announced. But the city comptroller recently argued that number might be overly optimistic, and New York City’s byzantine property valuation system means that the new tax would come with substantial implementation challenges.

The city is expected to save another $1 billion over two years from several changes, including the state’s expected agreement to delay a class-size mandate in public schools (despite Mr. Mamdani’s support for the mandate as a candidate); more school aid from the state; and the assumption by the state of a larger share of death benefits for families of police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers.

How is it a 'bail out' when NYC is the engine of the entire state and receives far less money per capita than other parts of the state do?

No need to seize the means of production if they simply abandon it...

You mean city employee pensions. That is roughly 750,000 people. Id rather the pension lose city contributions than multiple programs that effect the average NYC tax payer.

you're right, now I understand that firing about a hundred thousand people and cutting all city services would have been better.

The problem with a statement like this is it is technically, academically true. However, in practice, it may as well be carved in stone. A system where fewer and fewer people accumulate more wealth and power is going to eventually put them above taxes, above the laws of nations 99/100. In Capitalism 2.1 that is a whispered goal.

prowlr to the proplr!

It's amazing what can happen when the establishment fails to block candidates who actually want to fix things.

Tolerance doesn't mean someone can't be mean to you. It means they give you the same rights they expect you to give them.

This includes the right to say "get fucked" to others and to disassociate from people that are likely to say "get fucked" to you.

no, i'm an angry progressive. think we should bring back the bull moose party and find a socialist that can gish gallop the way Trump does

Some of us are just doing all we can to avoid spilling blood.

This assumes independents are centrists...

Centrist doesn't like hearing the messaging that centrists have been sending the left for 40 years.

Look, I know that a candidate who isn't itching to murder every last Palestinian might not be your very first choice, but they agree with you on 98% of everything else, right? So vote blue no matter who.

A huge chunk of it was state spending, or the state agreeing not to force the city to meet state mandates:

Earlier this year, Ms. Hochul committed $1.5 billion in state aid for a host of municipal services. The state budget, which has not yet been finalized, is also expected to include a host of policy changes and revenue increases that will funnel another $4 billion to the city over the next two years.

...

The city is expected to save another $1 billion over two years from several changes, including the state’s expected agreement to delay a class-size mandate in public schools (despite Mr. Mamdani’s support for the mandate as a candidate); more school aid from the state; and the assumption by the state of a larger share of death benefits for families of police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers.

That's happening because "Ms. Hochul, ... is facing re-election this year, [and] needs Mr. Mamdani’s help in turning out Democratic voters in New York City." After she's securely in office for another 4 year term, who knows how willing she'll be to do those same deals.

If Mandami remains popular, maybe he can keep the governor on his side. It would be ideal if they solved some of these problems as a team instead of working against each-other. I'm hopeful. Right now people seem to be in a very anti-status-quo mood. Mandami is showing how Democratic Socialism is a different way of doing things from the status quo. If he appears to be succeeding, more people will want to work with him. If more people can work with him, he can maybe take on some of the really big challenges that require a lot of people working together. At that point, it's not just a budget that appears to be balanced if you shift the pension burdens into the future. It may actually be a budget that will really work in the long term.

Except with most debt you're making incremental payments toward it. This is skipping one of your scheduled payments and then claiming that your budget is balanced.

Finally balancing a messed up budget is going to require making some tough decisions, and it might get a little ugly. But you endure that pain, because it puts the city government on solid footing for next year, and for years after, until some crook gets elected, and fucks it all up again.

Rather than declare this balanced budget a smoke & mirrors failure, let's see where it stands in 2-3 years. I suspect the city will be much improved by then.

But, No, let's pretend doing something great, and extremely rare, like balancing the budget, is a bad thing.

How do you account for growth in the real economy, then? Spain invaded and obliterated the cultures of a whole continent in part because they didn't have enough silver to match their accounting books.

I get that we have a problem with venture capital and defense contractors having access to the federal money spigot, but putting an arbitrary cap on the monetary supply will just impose a new set of problems.

I think you've read a lot into that person's comment that wasn't actually in the comment. What they said wasn't that the government should spend with abandon; they said it shouldn't be arbitrarily limited. And insisting on zero deficit spending at all times is indeed arbitrary.

If, for instance, they issue bonds in order to pay for better public education, that has a significant positive effect on the growth of the local economy a few years in the future, which they can reasonably expect to result in increased tax revenue at that time, and indeed a larger increase than what they're spending in the present. Borrowing money to spend in this way isn't fiscally irresponsible; quite the opposite. It pays for itself over a slightly longer time horizon and improves the city.

There are often similar effects with programs to support low-income residents, because support to these residents has a higher "velocity" than aid for higher-income residents. Infrastructure spending is also frequently justifiable.

Conversely, giving tax cuts to AI datacenters doesn't become responsible stewardship if you offset the cost by increasing payroll taxes.

Budgeting for a government is really complicated, and oversimplifying that, whether it's by saying "we need zero deficit!" or by saying "we have infinite money!" is gonna lead to bad decisions. But "we have infinite money" being false doesn't make "we need zero deficit" true. Both are oversimplifications, and the right has been using the latter as a propaganda bludgeon for at least 40 years now.

As you said... NYC is $2.3 billion in the red. So, it's not really balanced, as I said.

A quick Internet search for that phrase gives me: https://cbcny.org/... but I haven't verified or vetted that source.

It's in the article from the nyt that someone posted in the commenhs