Mamdani's Miraculous Balanced Budget

Nithavela · May 15, 2026

Everyone conservative in the thread acting all surprised that balancing a budget includes increasing revenue lol

Let's not pretend that Mamdani could do anything that wouldn't be criticised by conservatives.

Always in His Presence · May 15, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
So the bulk of the deficit closure came from state aid and accounting changes, not from Mamdani's own cost-cutting or revenue generation.

Reminds me of

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

― Margaret Thatcher

As the other counties in the State see their tax money go to the city, receiving zero for their money.

probinson · May 15, 2026

Nithavela said:
Let's not pretend that Mamdani could do anything that wouldn't be criticised by conservatives.

Let's also not pretend that liberals have an objective view of what Mamdani is doing.

Deal?

DaisyDay · May 15, 2026

probinson said:
Yes. And now the "luxury tax" will be added if you decide to eat at any of them.
Sure. If people want to pay a "luxury tax" to enjoy an ice cream cone with their kids in the park, that's certainly their prerogative. And if they want to pay the extra price, more power to them. Sadly, this likely means more people will be unable to enjoy ice cream in the park with their children.

Again, they can buy their ice cream anywhere and eat it in the park. Most parks in NYC have multiple places to buy ice cream. Boohoo if they have to walk a block to save the concession fee.

probinson said:
So let's make people who enjoy ice cream in the park pay for the city's poor financial management and/or inability to live within a budget. Brilliant!

If it helps, sure. But again, no one has to buy from park concession stands to enjoy ice cream in the park. It is a choice.

probinson said:
Yrs it is. However, it remains to be seen if this new source of revenue will actually materialize at the levels necessary for a balanced budget..

This is a single item among many.

probinson said:
Here in PA, we don't tax clothing or food. Well, most food. If you buy groceries, there's no tax. But if you buy a meal at a restaurant, or any kind of prepared food, then it is taxable. Thankfully, I can enjoy my ice cream from the grocery store tax free. For now.

Big deal - it's the same in NY for food. Clothes under $110 are tax free as well.

probinson said:
Interestingly, we see firsthand how far people are willing to go to avoid taxes. For example, there are regular tour bus trips to the outlet mall here with people coming from Canada (which is easily 3-4 hours from the mall) just to shop for clothes. It seems quite a few people are willing to go well out of their way to avoid paying taxes.

Yes, NYC is already crazy expensive. I suppose a few extra bucks in fees will just be absorbed by the populace. For their benefit. Or something.

I guess it depends on what benefits people see. My guess is that they'll just end up paying more for, well, pretty much everything, and not really see any tangible benefit. But only time will tell.

Fresh food is very affordable in many neighborhoods especially in Manhattan. Fresh fish, fruits and vegetables from all over the world can be found for far less than in the 'burbs or rural America because NYC is an international port and hub. There are also a plethora of inexpensive eateries, including street vendors, throughout the city. It's not all terribly expensive.

probinson said:
Or, you could go to New Jersey on the bus (which is WAY cheaper than driving yourself) and eat it in New Jersey where they (may or may not) impose luxury taxes on ice cream.

The bus may be cheaper than driving depending on where you live and where you're going (and where you buy your gas), but then you have to find an ice cream concession stand somewhere near the commuter route bus stop and eat by the side of the road - many bus stops have convenient benches. Sounds lovely, just the thing to attract all the tourists away from NYC!

probinson · May 15, 2026

DaisyDay said:
If it helps, sure. But again, no one has to buy from park concession stands to enjoy ice cream in the park. It is a choice.

This is an untested revenue stream. One of many. If the budget is implemented as proposed, there is no guarantee it will generate the revenue that they need, because as you've correctly pointed out, no one has to buy ice cream (or any other concessions) from the park. But if that happens, that revenue stream doesn't materialize at the levels necessary.

This budget is anything but "miraculous". It remains to be seen if it's viable and lives up to its hype. Only time will tell, but I'm pretty doubtful that this is the "miracle" posited in the OP.

Fantine · May 15, 2026

NY Post is yellow journalism at its worst.
Most ambulance rides are covered under insurance. In addition, gas costs and other expenses have gone up.
New York City has always sent much more money back to Albany than it has received. It is good that Governor Hochul recognizes the importance of New York City in the state's overall economy.
Notable that, unlike our current president, Mamdani has not transferred any NYC funds to vanity projects idolizing himself or unnecessary improvements to Gracie Mansion.

ThatRobGuy said:
And to provide a little more background on that...

The details:
--$8 billion in total state assistance over two years (Hochul/Albany), including $4 billion in new gap-closing support — $352 million in direct aid, $3.2 billion from programs requiring state authorization, $500 million in new revenue.

--More than $1 billion in savings came through delaying the state's mandated cap on class sizes. (delaying the enforcement of a self-imposed rule that was going to create part of the deficit, and then claiming it as a savings, is a bit of the creative accounting)

--$2 billion+ from pension amortization (restructuring payments — i.e., kicking them down the road).

So the bulk of the deficit closure came from state aid and accounting changes, not from Mamdani's own cost-cutting or revenue generation.

So to say he's "erased the debt" would inaccurate.

As far as his personal contributions to that $12 billion figure, it's a much more modest number, and still theoretical in terms of whether or not he'll be able to pull it off.

Infographic from the NYC government:
View attachment 379443

I would say it's a 50/50 in terms of that $947M line item.

And as far as the line item above discussing "managing overtime" (for the public sector union employees), that's likely to die on the vine.

We already knew what a socialist can do - We knew that from the eastern bloc nations back in the 80s

What they can do is:
1) Leverage previous funds that were accrued under capitalism
2) Lean on other larger entities to fill gaps
3) Kick the obligation can down the road as far as possible in order to free up funds for social programs now

...but once you burn through the stockpile of money that built up previously under capitalism, and the bigger entity can no longer afford to bail you out, and the can can't be kicked down the road any further, that's when the rubber meets the road.

Hence the reason why those nations started folding once they ran of "old money" to redistribute, and when "Big Brother Russia" could no longer afford to keep subsidizing them.

To me, having to rely on outside sources for 2/3 of a deficit closure (and having to restructure debts to kick the can down the road) indicates the opposite of anything resembling a self-sufficient system.

Pension amortization is a particularly risky endeavor (especially when used as a way to free up money and lines of credit to buy more stuff now)

...tantamount to getting a credit card consolidation loan with a 20 year term to pay down my credits cards tomorrow, in order to be able to buy more stuff on said credit cards immediately. Because then people end up in the situation where they eventually have the same credit card payment they had before, PLUS that debt consolidation payment on top of it.

The city's unions aren't necessarily keen on this plan

Mamdani’s counting on pension restructuring to balance the budget. Will the unions let that happen?

The city’s five municipal pension funds are partly controlled by union representatives who aren’t jumping for joy at the idea of delaying payments.

www.cityandstateny.com

You fail to mention that NYC sent 57% of revenue to NYS and only got 42% back.

And as long as we're at it, I wonder why New York City is expected to subsidize all the deadbeat red states in the south who continually collect much more money from the federal government than they give in taxes while expecting New Yorkers to subsidize them.

If New Yorkers weren't subsidizing Louisiana and Alabama and Arkansas they wouldn't be trying to erase a twelve billion dollar deficit. Let the deadbeat red states collect enough money in taxes to support the needs of their population and leave New York and California, which have been generous far too long, alone.

Always in His Presence · May 15, 2026

Fantine said:
And as long as we're at it, I wonder why New York City is expected to subsidize all the deadbeat red states in the south who continually collect much more money from the federal government than they give in taxes while expecting New Yorkers to subsidize them.

Ahem - - cities do not pay federal taxes - tax payers go.

NYC hasn't given a dime of taxes to anyone.

Lukaris · May 15, 2026

If taxes are recklessly raised then revenue will disappear.

Exclusive | Mamdani’s billionaire bashing could cost NYC $12B, data shows, triggering a ‘death spiral’ as jobs disappear, residents flee

Zo money, Zo problems.

nypost.com

Fantine · May 15, 2026

Lukaris said:
If taxes are recklessly raised then revenue will disappear.

Exclusive | Mamdani’s billionaire bashing could cost NYC $12B, data shows, triggering a ‘death spiral’ as jobs disappear, residents flee

Zo money, Zo problems.

nypost.com

If taxes are raised on a few hundred people their votes won't go far...they can try propaganda campaigns but hopefully people are too smart to listen. I lived in metro NY for 40 years and it's a wonderful place to live. When career moves took us elsewhere we still cherished our visits and NYC trips, beautiful beaches (June-September), dozens of free cultural events. For the 1% or even the 10%, taxes won't drive them away.

Lukaris · May 15, 2026

Fantine said:
If taxes are raised on a few hundred people their votes won't go far...they can try propaganda campaigns but hopefully people are too smart to listen. I lived in metro NY for 40 years and it's a wonderful place to live. When career moves took us elsewhere we still cherished our visits and NYC trips, beautiful beaches (June-September), dozens of free cultural events. For the 1% or even the 10%, taxes won't drive them away.

This seems kind of optimistic based on what is hard to understand. On top of this, the city comptroller says budget projections for 2028 on show deficits in the low $ billions.

Per the comptroller:

Still, the Executive Budget relies on $2.8 billion in one-time measures and $2.3 billion in short-term pension savings, without solving for the fact that City government continues to spend more than we take in, even in a year of record revenues. The budget also relies on the implementation of strategies to lower the cost of rental assistance and special education, which will require close and transparent monitoring. Taken together, these actions delay addressing the deeper structural imbalances in the City’s budget, as is clear from out-year gaps of $7.1 billion in FY 2028 growing to $9.8 billion in FY 2030.

New York City Comptroller Mark Levine Statement on FY2027 Executive Budget Proposal

New York, NY – New York City Comptroller Mark Levine issued the following statement on the Fiscal Year 2027 Executive Budget proposed today by Mayor Mamdani. “I commend Mayor Mamdani for putting forward an Executive Budget proposal that is significantly improved over the February plan. Most...

comptroller.nyc.gov

ThatRobGuy · May 15, 2026

Fantine said:
You fail to mention that NYC sent 57% of revenue to NYS and only got 42% back.

And as long as we're at it, I wonder why New York City is expected to subsidize all the deadbeat red states in the south who continually collect much more money from the federal government than they give in taxes while expecting New Yorkers to subsidize them.

If New Yorkers weren't subsidizing Louisiana and Alabama and Arkansas they wouldn't be trying to erase a twelve billion dollar deficit. Let the deadbeat red states collect enough money in taxes to support the needs of their population and leave New York and California, which have been generous far too long, alone.

Those are individual tax payers paying that to NY State, not the city government of NYC.

That's just the nature of high population density areas vs. low density areas. Not an indicator of whose fiscal policy is better.

If the income tax rate for a state is 5%, and City A has 2 million people, and City B has 250,000, the state will always get more state income tax revenue from City A regardless of how good or bad the respective Mayors of the two cities are.

I, as someone who pays quite a bit in taxes, pay the same to the state of Ohio regardless of whether I lived in Cleveland proper, or in a suburb 15 miles away.

The "we're bailing out red areas" argument is merely leveraging the built-in advantage that older, more high population-density, cities have by virtue of them having a lot of people crammed into a relatively small land mass.

Case in point -

From 1994-2001
Rudy Giuliani was the republican mayor of NYC
Anthony Masiello was the democratic mayor of Buffalo

The state of NY got more income tax revenue from NYC than Buffalo (just like they do every year).

Is that proof that Rudy's republican policies were better than Masiello's democratic policies based purely on state income tax receipts? -- or was Rudy just benefiting from geography, and no matter how good/bad his or Masiello's policies were, NYC was going to "win" the game of "who sends the most income tax money to the state government?

NxNW · May 15, 2026

Landon Caeli said:
I think it will take 5 years to see the actual results. Maybe he can last 8 years, and we'll see how NY turns out in the long run.

I can't imagine what catastrophe might result from 8 years of a balanced budget.

Why, we might have a chicken in every pot!

NxNW · May 15, 2026

Nithavela said:
Everyone conservative in the thread acting all surprised that balancing a budget includes increasing revenue lol

Let's not pretend that Mamdani could do anything that wouldn't be criticised by conservatives.

He could cure cancer and they'd still be complaining!

Nithavela · May 15, 2026

NxNW said:
I can't imagine what catastrophe might result from 8 years of a balanced budget.

Why, we might have a chicken in every pot!

I'm sure that the decrease in suffering of thousands will somehow result in a dozen or so billionaires being a little less happy. In the conservative utilitarian worldview, where happyness is weighted by net worth, that is a loss.

Fantine · May 16, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
Those are individual tax payers paying that to NY State, not the city government of NYC.

That's just the nature of high population density areas vs. low density areas. Not an indicator of whose fiscal policy is better.

If the income tax rate for a state is 5%, and City A has 2 million people, and City B has 250,000, the state will always get more state income tax revenue from City A regardless of how good or bad the respective Mayors of the two cities are.

I, as someone who pays quite a bit in taxes, pay the same to the state of Ohio regardless of whether I lived in Cleveland proper, or in a suburb 15 miles away.

The "we're bailing out red areas" argument is merely leveraging the built-in advantage that older, more high population-density, cities have by virtue of them having a lot of people crammed into a relatively small land mass.

Case in point -

From 1994-2001
Rudy Giuliani was the republican mayor of NYC
Anthony Masiello was the democratic mayor of Buffalo

The state of NY got more income tax revenue from NYC than Buffalo (just like they do every year).

Is that proof that Rudy's republican policies were better than Masiello's democratic policies based purely on state income tax receipts? -- or was Rudy just benefiting from geography, and no matter how good/bad his or Masiello's policies were, NYC was going to "win" the game of "who sends the most income tax money to the state government?

Cities generally have more social needs as well, and to their credit they try to deal with them with a much greater dedication to the common good than the southern red states who beg Washington for money--and then give taxpayer breaks to the wealthy while slashing Medicaid.
They practice trickle down--failed program--themselves while demanding free flowing cash from wealthier states.

It is not unfair to expect that the city, which has given so much to the state and the country, should be given something back to help them recover from the large deficit run by Mayor Eric Adams.

ThatRobGuy · May 16, 2026

Fantine said:
Cities generally have more social needs as well, and to their credit they try to deal with them with a much greater dedication to the common good than the southern red states who beg Washington for money--and then give taxpayer breaks to the wealthy while slashing Medicaid.
They practice trickle down--failed program--themselves while demanding free flowing cash from wealthier states.

It is not unfair to expect that the city, which has given so much to the state and the country, should be given something back to help them recover from the large deficit run by Mayor Eric Adams.

NYC's spending problems (and lack of revenue problems) didn't pop up out of nowhere due to Adams.

To clarify, NYC is legally required to pass a balanced budget each year. So no mayor runs an "official" annual deficit the way the federal government does. However, many mayors have left their successors with significant budget gaps, used one-time accounting maneuvers.

And previous mayors have been leaving incoming mayors with "challenges" and large gaps going back to Dinkins in the 90's.

But that aside, cities that happen to be higher population density (thereby providing greater tax receipts to the state government) isn't a rationale for justifying getting state bailouts for self-created problems.

For instance, if we use my City A (2 million) vs. City B (250,000) example from earlier.

If I'm the mayor of City A, and I implement a bunch of policies that create additional social issues, the "we've donated more to the common good" and "that's why you should give us a huge chunk of that money back so we can fund the programs that will compensate for our mistakes" doesn't fly.

That's just a round-about way of them doing the precisely the opposite of providing for the common good.

If I give $1000 dollars to an entity
And you give $300 dollars to the same entity.

And I say "you should give $800 of that back to me so I can buy this thing I want...after all, I did give you more", then that's just me not paying my proportional share, with extra steps.

Stopped_lurking · May 16, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
NYC's spending problems (and lack of revenue problems) didn't pop up out of nowhere due to Adams.

To clarify, NYC is legally required to pass a balanced budget each year. So no mayor runs an "official" annual deficit the way the federal government does. However, many mayors have left their successors with significant budget gaps, used one-time accounting maneuvers.

And previous mayors have been leaving incoming mayors with "challenges" and large gaps going back to Dinkins in the 90's.

But that aside, cities that happen to be higher population density (thereby providing greater tax receipts to the state government) isn't a rationale for justifying getting state bailouts for self-created problems.

For instance, if we use my City A (2 million) vs. City B (250,000) example from earlier.

If I'm the mayor of City A, and I implement a bunch of policies that create additional social issues, the "we've donated more to the common good" and "that's why you should give us a huge chunk of that money back so we can fund the programs that will compensate for our mistakes" doesn't fly.

That's just a round-about way of them doing the precisely the opposite of providing for the common good.

If I give $1000 dollars to an entity
And you give $300 dollars to the same entity.

And I say "you should give $800 of that back to me so I can buy this thing I want...after all, I did give you more", then that's just me not paying my proportional share, with extra steps.

Does the NYC citizens receive more of the state revenue per capita than non-NYC citizens in New York state? A quick googling seems to indicate that NYC is a net contributor to state revenue per capita. If that is correct, they have a case when arguing that to they should receive more in return.

ThatRobGuy · May 16, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
Does the NYC citizens receive more of the state revenue per capita than non-NYC citizens in New York state? A quick googling seems to indicate that NYC is a net contributor to state revenue per capita. If that is correct, they have a case when arguing that to they should receive more in return.

That's always going to be true of higher population density areas vs. lower across a wide variety of public services.

High population density affords the ability to centralize certain services (regionally) for maximum effect in ways that can't be done in rural areas.

Just as one example, fire departments.

If there's a 10 square mile area with 500,000 people in it
vs.
500,000 spread out over 20 different small towns over a 150 square mile area

The net need is the same, you need a truck to show up and put a fire out, or get someone out of burning car, etc... and you need a fast response time.

However, the former has the luxury of being able to centralize and get max efficiency out of equipment and personnel.

As where, someone is living in a small rural township of 2,000 people will need to still have that service available, even if means the fire trucks are sitting in the station collecting dust 90% of the time... and having one set of fire department infrastructure to satisfy the needs of 500,000 people trying to cover the entirety of 150 miles obviously isn't feasible.

Same goes for certain medical services, if the state is going to subsidize CT scanners (for example), they're going to get more usage in a high density area, whereas, a smaller rural hospital still needs to have one for the times where it's important, but chances are it's not getting used as much. (as someone legitimately needing one can't involve a 30 mile drive to the nearest big city in an emergency situation)

Stopped_lurking · May 16, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
That's always going to be true of higher population density areas vs. lower across a wide variety of public services.

High population density affords the ability to centralize certain services (regionally) for maximum effect in ways that can't be done in rural areas.

Just as one example, fire departments.

If there's a 10 square mile area with 500,000 people in it
vs.
500,000 spread out over 20 different small towns over a 150 square mile area

The net need is the same, you need a truck to show up and put a fire out, or get someone out of burning car, etc... and you need a fast response time.

Volunteer fire brigades? Living further from services comes with a price. The number of police officers per km2, is less in rural areas all over the world. Travel times for ambulances goes up. Mean distance to stores is higher. Commuting distances are longer. Hopefully, it is balanced by some other values. Nearness to nature, is a big one.

ThatRobGuy said:
However, the former has the luxury of being able to centralize and get max efficiency out of equipment and personnel.

As where, someone is living in a small rural township of 2,000 people will need to still have that service available, even if means the fire trucks are sitting in the station collecting dust 90% of the time... and having one set of fire department infrastructure to satisfy the needs of 500,000 people trying to cover the entirety of 150 miles obviously isn't feasible.

Solidarity is good, but the fact is that NYC is subsidizing non-NYC parts of NY state.

ETA: are fire departments paid for by the state in general? Here it is a municipal issue.

ThatRobGuy · May 16, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
Volunteer fire brigades? Living further from services comes with a price. The number of police officers per km2, is less in rural areas all over the world. Travel times for ambulances goes up. Mean distance to stores is higher. Commuting distances are longer. Hopefully, it is balanced by some other values. Nearness to nature, is a big one.

Solidarity is good, but the fact is that NYC is subsidizing non-NYC parts of NY state.

ETA: are fire departments paid for by the state in general? Here it is a municipal issue.

NYC isn't "subsidizing" anything.

They merely have a higher population density.

If you took 100 people who all made big bucks, whether they all lived NYC proper, or all moved to 100 different NY state townships, their individual state tax burden is the same.

The state financial burden to prop up a state park in the upstate region in a township of 3,000 people would be the same whether Joe Millionaire lived in NYC or if he lived in the outskirts of Syracuse.

High population density (by its very nature) opens up additional financial channels that small towns can't, regardless of how good or bad the mayor is, or which party they're a member of.

Case in point.
Cleveland has professional sports teams (which draw people in, and they spend money at adjacent businesses at restaurants and bars in the area).

You could appoint the worst mayor in history to run Cleveland, and the best mayor in history to run the city where my house is located. My city is never going to get a professional sports team (or airport, or expansive museum complex, etc.)

So this "blue bailout" concept is bunk, because it's never a true apples to apples comparison.

Mamdani's Miraculous Balanced Budget

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Jesus is the only Way

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”​

Legend

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Legend

Dona Quixote

Jesus is the only Way

Orthodox Christian

Dona Quixote

Orthodox Christian

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Dona Quixote

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”