And he's absolutely right. It can't be a democracy if money speaks and people can't.
Aurornis · 5h ago
This campaign was very good at reciting taglines and aphorisms that resonate with certain parts of the voter base. This is one of them. The reporter asking the question basically teed up a softball and let him hit it, again without delivering anything policy related.
dangus · 4h ago
And yet, he’s the only candidate who seemed to have any willingness to address concerns of constituents in any significant way. The entire rest of the field was busy kissing Israel’s ring as if anyone in New York struggling to pay rent cares about that.
Just because a politician uses simple and catchy language doesn’t mean there isn’t policy substance behind it. Democrats have been losing for years trying to explain complicated macroeconomics to their voting base, Mamdani is one of the young democratic candidates who is a breath of fresh air.
AnimalMuppet · 3h ago
All right, and where is the substance? Yes, there could be some. But where is it? Anybody seen it?
Democrats have also been losing on social justice issues while ignoring the actual economic concerns of the poor. Well, is "there shouldn't be billionaires" a social justice slogan, or is it going to actually help the poor in some way? I think it's more a social justice slogan.
dangus · 1h ago
Kind of a silly question when the candidate has an entire webpage with details of his plan:
If you think no one in NYC cares about Israel… and I mean clearly you do, just in the opposite way.
Cuomo was a terrible candidate.
dangus · 1h ago
The #1 issue is the economy, by far, between voters of both parties. Foreign policy is #4 on the list out of 10 (Pew Research).
I’ll also remind you that this is a mayoral race. The pew research numbers I’m citing are for president of the United States.
I am quite aware that Cuomo is a terrible candidate, that doesn’t take away from Mamdani being a very good candidate in terms of his effectiveness at conveying his message and building a coalition.
Of course none of us know yet whether he will be a good mayor.
yostrovs · 3h ago
Democrats explaining macroeconomics to their voting base?? Never have I seen such a thing. They generally do what Mamdani did: promise things that people want for free or for cheap.
With some hate for some groups added for balance.
phs318u · 1h ago
> promise things that people want for free or for cheap. With some hate for some groups added for balance
I hate to break it to you but that's the exact same playbook used by the current administration.
dangus · 1h ago
You mean like cheap eggs and hate for undocumented immigrants and trans people?
You say Democrats just want to promise freebies so I’ll give you a fun challenge: find me the last Republican Congress that passed a budget that reduced the growth of the national deficit.
I’ll give you a hint there, it’s not the Tax Cut and Jobs Act nor the Big Beautiful Bill.
Meanwhile, Medicare for All was estimated by the congressional budget office (nonpartisan) to save money.
ggm · 5h ago
This probably will be weaponised against him but as a proposition shorn of political intent, it has some good qualities. At root, he says the number of orders of magnitude in society should be more constrained. Having a span of 10^6 (billions to thousands, so knock of 3 of the 10^9 digits) is too many. I would think thats a defensible propositon.
Arguing that some people demand aspirational goals as high as that in order to do what they do begs many questions: Not that their demand is invalid (as demands go, I've never found bargaining very easy, arguing for billions is beyond my comprehension) but I seriously doubt the ability to add that much value is a skill distinct enough that it can command that rate of return, against all other choices.
Not "they can't generate the ROI" as much as "others can generate that ROI just as well, it's contestable".
Fund managers (for example) vary in costs, and returns, in ways which I think undermine the proposition here.
Many people take remarkably "fundamentalist" views of peoples rights to limitless potential. "it's my right to accumulate billions if I want" is very strong in opposition to this, aside from the people who may plausibly earn billions who have an entirely rational reason to disclaim alignment here. We experienced this 6 orders of magnitude down the tree in an australian election around tax concepts called "franking credits" which were proposed to be ended by the labor party. Large number of pensioners voted against it, despite being repeatedly told they had none, and would lose none: The meme of "Labor is coming for your franking credits" was unstoppable.
Many people who will fail to become millionaires, will oppose constraint on becoming Billionaires.
A parallel but unrelated case: Tax on lottery winnings. Fair or unfair?
Aurornis · 4h ago
The problem with these constructions is that they’re a Motte and Bailey: As soon as anyone starts pointing out the numerous problems with analyses that assume zero-sum games and no second-order consequences (like business owners restructuring to move their companies to nearly any other country which wont seize their ownership) the person retreats to something like “I just think taxes should be slightly higher” or “Why do you hate feeding the poor” or something.
ggm · 4h ago
If the US hadn't argued so vociferously against normalised worldwide minimum tax standards, this argument would be significantly weaker. The root cause of "well I'll just take my wealth elsewhere" is that taking it elsewhere attracts a benefit against leaving it in the economy with the new taxes.
It's certainly true that capital flight is a risk which has to be assessed, but at that point, we really can say (to re-enter the political domain) that the super rich are holding the rest of the economy to ransom.
Apple sitting on $1T of funds deciding how to spend it best in apple shareholder interests needs to be set against apple re-distributing $1T to shareholders, who then incur tax consequences with capital gain, and the rest of the world gets to move on with things that tax can do. Keeping the money inside Apples safe harbour isn't actually useful.
Remember, money is meant to be useful. Hoarding it, is not always helpful.
viraptor · 4h ago
How does it apply here? There is no retreat - Mamdani's plan is public and is "taxes should be slightly higher" among other things. Specifically higher corporate tax and top percentage wealth tax for the area.
No comments yet
FridayoLeary · 5h ago
There needs to be a discussion about this person. He's likely to become the next mayor of NYC, and unless he tones down his policies he's going to be a socialist train wreck (the only way "real" socialism ends). It's not about billionaires vs the rest of society, it's about what policies bring about the most benefit to people. "equality" and "social justice" are beautiful principles, but in pursuing them often the communities who are the supposed beneficiaries of such ideas end up losing out the most.
In this case rich people will simply pack up and leave NYC, depriving the city of their tax revenue.
viraptor · 4h ago
You're welcome to raise/discuss specific policies. He's open about them - why would we need to criticise some generic potential ideas?
ashoeafoot · 4h ago
The us already a trainwreck for 99% of its inhabitants and more of the same medicine seems to not fix any problems ?
dangus · 4h ago
The whole “rich people will pack up and leave” threat is abusive relationship nonsense.
Rich people have been threatening to leave higher tax desirable locations for ages and they never do it. Has Trump sold his tower in NYC because he has lower tax rates in Florida? No, of course not.
Why is billionaires row in Manhattan instead of Jacksonville Florida? After all, taxes are lower in Jacksonville.
Billionaires need New York more than New York needs billionaires.
Dracophoenix · 3h ago
David Tepper's short move to Miami in 2016 upset New Jersey's budget. Jeff Bezos permanently relocated to Miami a couple of years ago and while the move hasn't publicly affected the state of Washington in the same way, it's certainly constrained what Olympia can collect with its recently-instated excise tax on stocks holdings. In addition, the consequences aren't just short-term financial losses, but long-term political shifts. During the pandemic, California saw an exodus large enough to lose a seat in the House of Representatives where Texas saw a gain.
There is an abusive relationship, but it is one perpetrated by high-tax states against their constituents. Voting with one's feet and dollars is the solution to rid oneself of the abuse.
dangus · 1h ago
That’s really nice for Jeff Bezos and David Tepper. This point is moot because we statistically know that you’re worse off living in Miami as a bottom 90% income citizen compared to higher tax states.
Just look at statistics like education, median income, and healthcare.
Miami-dade is severely cost-burdened in cost of living compared to Seattle or New Jersey with worse rent to income.
Miami has a higher regional price parity.
New Jersey is ranked #1 in pre-k education.
Miami has a higher ratio in uninsured adults.
The Florida state health system is nearly bottom ranked at #44.
The bachelors degree attainment rate in Miami is horrific, half the rate of Seattle. I believe it’s the lowest attainment rate of any large city.
So I’m struggling to find a legitimacy to the argument that an average person would rather live with Jeff in Miami versus staying in New Jersey or Seattle.
The fact of the matter is that billionaires are fine living in a dysfunctional state because they have private infrastructure to shield them from reality.
hollerith · 4h ago
Does he also think that NYC shouldn't let billionaires leave?
paxys · 3h ago
Regardless of one's stance on Mamdani's politics this entire "how will NYC survive without the billionaires???" talk all over the news and social media has been exhausting. No, NYC isn't standing today because of the grace of a few dozen ultra rich individuals. They can all leave tomorrow, and the city will be perfectly fine. And we all know they won't, because no matter how much they shout otherwise on social media these people love the culture and convenience of liberal cities. The majority of Republican politicans, donors, CEOs and "influencers" wouldn't survive a day in the "middle America" they claim to embody.
undersuit · 3h ago
Better the billionaires leave and the city adapts(like building housing on their abandoned property) if you ask me
AnimalMuppet · 3h ago
Why would their property be abandoned? It won't be abandoned in any legal sense; it will either be sold, retained, or seized.
missedthecue · 2h ago
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that we shouldn't have poor people?
JojoFatsani · 2h ago
Two very different statements and both could be true
Just because a politician uses simple and catchy language doesn’t mean there isn’t policy substance behind it. Democrats have been losing for years trying to explain complicated macroeconomics to their voting base, Mamdani is one of the young democratic candidates who is a breath of fresh air.
Democrats have also been losing on social justice issues while ignoring the actual economic concerns of the poor. Well, is "there shouldn't be billionaires" a social justice slogan, or is it going to actually help the poor in some way? I think it's more a social justice slogan.
https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform
Cuomo was a terrible candidate.
I’ll also remind you that this is a mayoral race. The pew research numbers I’m citing are for president of the United States.
I am quite aware that Cuomo is a terrible candidate, that doesn’t take away from Mamdani being a very good candidate in terms of his effectiveness at conveying his message and building a coalition.
Of course none of us know yet whether he will be a good mayor.
I hate to break it to you but that's the exact same playbook used by the current administration.
You say Democrats just want to promise freebies so I’ll give you a fun challenge: find me the last Republican Congress that passed a budget that reduced the growth of the national deficit.
I’ll give you a hint there, it’s not the Tax Cut and Jobs Act nor the Big Beautiful Bill.
Meanwhile, Medicare for All was estimated by the congressional budget office (nonpartisan) to save money.
Arguing that some people demand aspirational goals as high as that in order to do what they do begs many questions: Not that their demand is invalid (as demands go, I've never found bargaining very easy, arguing for billions is beyond my comprehension) but I seriously doubt the ability to add that much value is a skill distinct enough that it can command that rate of return, against all other choices.
Not "they can't generate the ROI" as much as "others can generate that ROI just as well, it's contestable".
Fund managers (for example) vary in costs, and returns, in ways which I think undermine the proposition here.
Many people take remarkably "fundamentalist" views of peoples rights to limitless potential. "it's my right to accumulate billions if I want" is very strong in opposition to this, aside from the people who may plausibly earn billions who have an entirely rational reason to disclaim alignment here. We experienced this 6 orders of magnitude down the tree in an australian election around tax concepts called "franking credits" which were proposed to be ended by the labor party. Large number of pensioners voted against it, despite being repeatedly told they had none, and would lose none: The meme of "Labor is coming for your franking credits" was unstoppable.
Many people who will fail to become millionaires, will oppose constraint on becoming Billionaires.
A parallel but unrelated case: Tax on lottery winnings. Fair or unfair?
It's certainly true that capital flight is a risk which has to be assessed, but at that point, we really can say (to re-enter the political domain) that the super rich are holding the rest of the economy to ransom.
Apple sitting on $1T of funds deciding how to spend it best in apple shareholder interests needs to be set against apple re-distributing $1T to shareholders, who then incur tax consequences with capital gain, and the rest of the world gets to move on with things that tax can do. Keeping the money inside Apples safe harbour isn't actually useful.
Remember, money is meant to be useful. Hoarding it, is not always helpful.
No comments yet
In this case rich people will simply pack up and leave NYC, depriving the city of their tax revenue.
Rich people have been threatening to leave higher tax desirable locations for ages and they never do it. Has Trump sold his tower in NYC because he has lower tax rates in Florida? No, of course not.
Why is billionaires row in Manhattan instead of Jacksonville Florida? After all, taxes are lower in Jacksonville.
Billionaires need New York more than New York needs billionaires.
There is an abusive relationship, but it is one perpetrated by high-tax states against their constituents. Voting with one's feet and dollars is the solution to rid oneself of the abuse.
Just look at statistics like education, median income, and healthcare.
Miami-dade is severely cost-burdened in cost of living compared to Seattle or New Jersey with worse rent to income.
Miami has a higher regional price parity.
New Jersey is ranked #1 in pre-k education.
Miami has a higher ratio in uninsured adults.
The Florida state health system is nearly bottom ranked at #44.
The bachelors degree attainment rate in Miami is horrific, half the rate of Seattle. I believe it’s the lowest attainment rate of any large city.
So I’m struggling to find a legitimacy to the argument that an average person would rather live with Jeff in Miami versus staying in New Jersey or Seattle.
The fact of the matter is that billionaires are fine living in a dysfunctional state because they have private infrastructure to shield them from reality.