"I will tax the rich, even if I have to tax the poor to do it."
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
631 points (99.1% liked)
News
35915 readers
3193 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This statement and the article title are disingenuous. Mamdani wants to avoid increasing property taxes and drawing down city reserves to balance the budget here.
New York City is legally required to balance its budget. This is the reality of that.
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.
Based king
It's as if he's right.
Here is a thought experiment:
- What happens if it's cheaper to invest in getting individual like this (who passes this kind of tax) not elected next time (elect someone who removes this tax and helps me any my friends), than to pay the tax? My conspiracy theory brain says in a decade or two the government will be filled with rich people and friends et al.
- Search for 'McCutcheon v. FEC ' Is there a politician, senator, congressman (congress person?), governor in the US who is not a Millionaire?
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.
"Threatens." Oh, they mean "proposes as an alternative."
Fuckin' NYT.
Threatened makes him sound way coolerI
Honestly, it does.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
property tax is not inherently progressive any more than any other tax. Taxes are either flat or progressive. Not having provisions to protect the poor just fucks the poor. Of course what really protects the poor is to just have a large enough standard deduciton to not be pulling income when people are at a level where none of their income is disposable or going further and having a citizens income. Can't be gamed because it applies equally to all. Of course part of graduated system is not to make such a jarring increase that its avoided at all cost. If each stair goes up only one percent then its hard to point to a particular step below as being better than the step above.
It's inherently progressive because it counteracts the inherently regressive distribution of property in a capitalist economy.
Taxes are not either flat or progressive. They are flat, proportional, or progressive. This is a proportional tax which targets unequal distribution to achieve progressive results.
If you mess with the rate, the system will be more easily exploited by the ultra-rich.
Taxes are either regressive, proportional, or progressive; flat and progressive are the same thing. While some (many?) consider proportional to be a separate category, I would argue that it’s inherently regressive, as any fixed percentage is going to come disproportionately from non-disposable income for any lower income individuals. Sales taxes are considered regressive because of this and they are a flat rate for most purchases.
You can make the argument that people have to buy stuff to exist, but they don’t have to purchase a home, but given the alternative is renting which impacts lower income people even worse, this seems like a specious argument.
Even with property tax, insurance, repairs, and mortgage, I’m paying less per month than people renting much smaller apartments in my area. Thats neither fair nor right.
wait wait wait. are you saying a flat tax is like a fee because that is not how its used. a flat tax proposal is for one percentage. Like sales tax is flat. But it still various by amount being taxed. Im not quite getting what you mean by flat proportional and progressive.
load more comments
(25 replies)
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.
load more comments
(12 replies)
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
view more: next ›