Mamdani To Increase NYC Property Taxes by 9.5 Percent To Balance Budget if Income Taxes Are Not Raised
So much for "the warmth of collectivism."
New York City is already one of the most expensive places to live in the United States, but residents should brace themselves to pay even more for housing if the city's budget deficit persists.
On Tuesday, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced that the city was facing a budget deficit of $5.4 billion over the next two years. If the state or city does not raise income taxes to balance the budget, as is required by the city's charter, Mamdani says he will raise property taxes on over 3 million residential units and 100,000 commercial buildings by 9.5 percent.
The city's impending fiscal crisis became impossible to ignore when New York City Comptroller Brad Lander released the city's annual financial report in December. In the report, Lander predicted budget gaps of $2.18 billion and $10.41 billion for FY 2026 and FY 2027, respectively. A month later, Mamdani blamed former Mayor Eric Adams' "staggering fiscal mismanagement [for leaving] a $12 billion hole in NYC budget for the next two fiscal years."
Lander, Adams' comptroller, noted "a recurring pattern of decisions that defer difficult budget choices rather than address them" and identified "the expiration of Federal pandemic aid and the surge in asylum seekers seeking shelter from the City," the latter of which cost the city over $8 billion from 2023 to 2025 and is projected to cost another $3.6 billion through 2029, according to the New York State Comptroller's asylum seeker spending report.
New York City's total expenditures increased from $106 billion in FY 2022 to over $117.5 billion in FY 2025 under Adams. While the budget will increase by $4.5 billion in FY 2026 and $9.5 billion in FY 2027 compared to 2025 levels, 96 percent of this $14 billion in new spending is to cover underfunded programs implemented by Adams, not Mamdani.
Mamdani reduced the two-year, $12 billion deficit to $7 billion "by deploying in-year reserves, committing to an agency savings plan and incorporating higher-than-expected revenues," according to a Monday press release. (Mamdani's savings plan requires the Chief Savings Officers, which he instituted at every city agency in late January, to identify savings through "program consolidation and insourcing, and by eliminating/sunsetting programs" by March 20.)
To further reduce the deficit, Mamdani wants more state tax revenue to go to the city.
At a late January press conference, Mamdani lamented how "New Yorkers contribute 54.5 percent of state revenue and receive only 40.5 percent back." The irony here, City Journal's Adam Lehodey notes, is that Mamdani is essentially objecting to progressive taxation—giving out less in benefits to those who contribute more in revenue—between the city and state, while advocating for such taxation within the city.
Luckily for New Yorkers, Mamdani's inconsistency did not compromise his appeal to Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul.
On Monday, one day before the city's budget deadline, the governor agreed to allocate $1.5 billion from state coffers to help address the city's funding. Still, a roughly $5.4 billion deficit remains. To eliminate this remainder, Mamdani called on Albany to raise income tax rates on the 33,000 New Yorkers making over $1 million a year and to raise "corporate taxes on the most profitable corporations."
New York State already taxes corporate income at a base rate of 6.5 percent, which rises to 7.25 percent on income over $5 million. Meanwhile, New York's top marginal individual income tax rate—10.9 percent on earnings over $25 million—is the third highest in the nation.
Compounding this tax burden, New York City has its own corporate income tax of up to 9 percent for businesses that make over $1.1 million in revenue. The city also taxes individual incomes at a rate of around 3.1 percent, which increases to about 3.9 percent on income over $50,000 for single filers.
If revenues can't be raised by increasing these rates, Mamdani will take nearly $1 billion out of the city's Rainy Day Fund, over $200 million from the Retiree Health Benefits Trust, and jack up property taxes as "a last resort." These taxes already stand at around 20 percent for family homes, 12 percent for apartment buildings, and 11 percent for commercial properties.
Before realizing his multibillion-dollar promises of new spending, Mamdani is going to have to address the profligacy of his predecessor, most likely through "a tax on working- and middle-class New Yorkers." So much for "the warmth of collectivism."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
You can't see my not-shocked face until I stop laughing.
Could not happen to a more-deserving city.
I loved how he said Adams ambushed him with a $12B deficit when Adams specifically listed $12B as the upcoming deficit due to cost of housing illegals.
Strip away any politician's rhetoric and what remains?
Tax, Spend, Ban.
If they would just raise the minimum wage, everyone will be able to pay the higher taxes.
Am I doing this right?
That's not how you do socialism. You force everyone at gun point to work for nothing. They belong to the collective good. The warm embrace of collectivism. The warmth of the exothermic decay of heaps of dead bodies. That is how you do true socialism.
No. You raise property taxes to force owners into bankruptcy, then buy the property for pennies on the dollar. I believe the Gulag Archipelago explains the Socialists taxation methods of acquiring merchants street stalls and property (before the arrests were made.)
I sometimes forget just how good Solzhenitsyn's guidebooks on how to do socialism are.
This recalls the scene in the movie "Doctor Zhivago" where Zhivago returns from the war and finds the family home is now crowded with other families because the local Soviet has redistributed the housing supply.
Wages must be outlawed, comrade. They are the tool of the bourgeois capitalist. The state shall provide - from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Some people think seizing land from white farmers and murdering many of them was bad. It's a solid example of how to do true socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe
On the bright side he’s OPEN BORDERS. The OB position tends to be expensive. Trust fund leftists and rainbow cults tend to put ideology over numeracy.
Ezra Klein: We’re the wealthiest country the world has ever known. We can take care of everyone:-))))
ROFLOL
"The irony here ... is that Mamdani is essentially objecting to progressive taxation ..."
ROFLMGDAO!!
The Fat Electrician made a good point about Marxisnm/Communism. They just want to seize the means of production.
Not mentioning that people are a means of production. They will seize you too.
So much for "the warmth of collectivism."
Seriously, Reason? Seriously? That IS the warmth of collectivism. This IS the result of a 40 year pipeline of Marxist instruction in the American University system. You guys are the battered wives of woke post-modern politics. We need another article from Nick Gillespie telling us how the left is just misunderstood and deep down is good and well-meaning.
Also, Reason... fuck you. Seriously.. fuck...you...
*ctrl-f immi 0/0*
*ctrl-f migra 0/0*
jesus h fucking christ.
I feel like we could get along better if you just admitted some basic things which would put us back on a more honest footing. Just admit that you're no longer "Libertarian" but instead are "Libertarian Marxist". Seriously, it's not THAT big a diversion. Libertarian Marxism is stateless (the state will fade away), it doesn't believe in borders and believes in the destruction of the Nation State. That way this open borders hill you're dying on at all costs will make more sense. But instead, you keep insisting on dying on this Open Borders Hill while claiming it's a zero-cost proposition-- and in fact, it makes money in the long run!!! You do seem to believe in things like the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment (occasionally), the 4th Amendment etc., but you never acknowledge these things are constructs of a sovereign country called "The United States of America". Just tell me that while you do believe in those things that you think that sans The United States of America, those values will be held universally across the globe and once all the borders are taken down, these rights will fully bloom for all World Citizens equally, and at the same time.
There's nothing wrong with believing the above. I happen to think it's wrong, but if you at least admit what your goals are, we can have a much more honest discussion.
Libertarian Marxist is an oxymoron, if someone calls themselves that you can be pretty sure they're retarded.
The Libertarian part isn't needed. Marxism is all that is needed for an admission of retardation.
It is a 100% legitimate term, if you understand the argument from the people (Emma Goldman etc.) who claimed to be libertarian Marxist. Marxism in its "pure" form (this is why you always get the "real marxism has never been tried" refrain) is "liberatory". It liberates people from the oppression of Capitalism and frees the workers to own the means of production. It is stateless, and (this is where Nick Gillespie gets hella confused) it is fundamentally a critique of centralized power. So when Gillespie says, "Hey man, the post modernists weren't marxists, they were critiquing centralized power maaan" he's either being accidentally retarded or purposefully retarded. Even if we put aside the fact that most of the Post Modernists themselves claimed to be marxists, they were holding to the pure form of Marxism in that they were... like Karl Marx, critiquing centralized power. Gillespie allows himself to get confused by the fact that the "Vulgar marxists" ie, the 19th century industrial marxists who were Stalinists hated the post modernists because Derrida and Foucault were critiquing Stalilnism, and in particular, how Marxism was hijacked and became subject to meta-narratives and "power language". Basically, all the Post modernists were claiming was "real marxism has never been tried" but doing it in 9000 page impenetrable language.
Libertarianism is about individuals whereas Marxism is about collectives, those are not compatible. This is why I say anyone that labels themselves as such are retarded.
When Marxists say 'the workers will own the means of production' no individual worker actually owns jack or shit, which is kind of a problem in any serious notion of libertarian. It doesn't 'free' the workers or grant them any property, it subordinates all individuals to collective will. There is literally nothing libertarian about that, but it is doctrine Marxism so maybe like lots of other Marxists they just wanted to rebrand themselves to remove the stink of several hundred million corpses.
"liberation" comes in many flavors. I don't want to get into the weeds on the Marxist theory here, but when the 'masses' are liberated from the shackles of the state and man is returned to his true natural state once the End of History is achieved (as the Marx was essentially trying to say through the creation of his religion) then the individual will be led to liberation. It's why the left hammers on endlessly about "democracy". When the state fades away and we're left with democratic collectives, each individual now has a say in how goods are distributed whereas in the capitalist system, the managerial class is what decides that.
Look dude, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that the Marxist always has an answer, it's always utopian and it never works, because it's all just Theory. Which is why the Left is obsessed with Theory.
If you get bored...
One of the main sticking points between small-L-libertarians that you and I think of today, and Libertarian Marxists is that the small-L's believe in private property, where as the Libertarian Marxists don't, because of the belief that all private property is the result of theft or violence.
I’ll pass on reading nonsense that gives bullshit a bad name. Although I read ‘American Marxism’ Levin. A third of the book footnotes, I’m glad he had to tediously read that crap. I skimmed through it.
Reeeeason has shifted hard left after being labeled 'right-wing'. All those cocktail parties they didn't get invites to. Well, not any more!
https://www.biasly.com/media-bias-chart/
Wait. City council Kulaks/property owners belong and vote for a political party that doesn’t believe in property ownership.
While the budget will increase by $4.5 billion in FY 2026 and $9.5 billion in FY 2027 compared to 2025 levels, 96 percent of this $14 billion in new spending is to cover underfunded programs implemented by Adams, not Mamdani.
Look at Reeeeason blaming the black man!
The immigrant
Many/most wealthy residents (and corporations) in NYC are now deciding which lower tax/regulation municipality/state they'll relocate to, and how to protect their taxable assets from NYC revenue collectors who desire (after NYC Council approves Mamdani's tax hike).
I cannot think of a more effective way to ensure GOP control of the US House and Senate in November.
So, on the one hand, fuck socialists.
On the other, he is being brutally honest about the state of the city - which is more that Brandon Johnson will do - and what needs to be done to light that collectivist fire.