this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
810 points (98.8% liked)

Progressive Politics

4601 readers
599 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 79 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Who would have thought taxing the rich improves everyone's lives?

Nah, they just got lucky. We absolutely cannot keep trying this, because it's doomed to fail. Capitalism is the only system that works.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

This isn’t from taxing the rich, this is from deferring payments to city pension funds, delaying class size reductions and other schemes, and taking a huge wad of cash from state aid. And $1.2bn gained because NYC had fewer employees than expected this year. So it’s a one-time deal rather than a sustainable policy.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If we tax the rich they will all move away to other countries then we will be left here with just the people who do all the work. We will never survive

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Snowwdropp@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago

I say let's try it elsewhere, just to prove those despicable commies it was absolutely a fluke.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

This is capitalism though, like, fully and throughout.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Capitalism and taxing the rich are not opposing each other.

[–] Folstar@lemmus.org 5 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But he did it by not adding more money to your pension programs. The tax the rich part only made about 5% on the gap

[–] chinaski@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes i agree, fuck those city workers. They don't need a retirement.

[–] chinaski@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your sarcasm is too vapid. You need more wit. The employee is still contributing. The pensions are 84% funded which is well above the avg pension program. And the city will continue contribution after correcting the sabotage Adams caused.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

It's kind of amazing how many people don't understand that requiring excessive pension liquidity is a conservative strategy to kill tha viability of pensions. Relentless conservative media has completely broken us.

Conservatives will tell you that tax breaks for the rich pay for themselves through growth, but government pension funds can't be invested in infrastructure for the same reason.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 2 points 1 day ago

Or you can kick the can down the road and hope you have enough money later, but don't worry that is a problem our kids will pay for.