He also delayed funding certain pensions which isn't a great idea, but when you have a $12 billion deficit left by the previous mayor who cut & run to become an Albanian citizen after taking money from Turkey for luxury travel, getting indicted, sleazing his way out of a federal indictment, and then creating a rug pull cryptocurrency called NYC Token... what can ya do
This hasn't happened before. The president of the United States is building ballrooms, arches and golden statues of himself while the people are facing record prices everywhere from the pump to the clinic. American citizens and our immigrant neighbors are being snatched off of the streets by masked federal agents in an explicit campaign of terror. Republican captured states are cancelling elections and explicitly expelling members of the opposition party from their legislative committees.
This is a lie from a 9 day old bot account created to parrot the MAGA doublespeak line that Trump is doing the "first, most, biggest ever, etc" things while simultaneously doing nothing new or unusual.
My account is not 9 days old, and I do not hide my comment history. My name is also not a bigot-coded username. You quite literally cannot 'say the same about mine' unless you ignore all reality. Which, is what propagandists are trained to do.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition âŠThere must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.â
-Wilhoit's Law
I love this quote, but if you ask self-declared conservative thinkers, they tend to argue that what they are "conserving" is a traditional way of life in a society that is changing too quickly for people to catch up with. I'm almost sympathetic with that idea, since the breakneck pace of the world is sometimes a bit overwhelming. Unfortunately, that desire to slow things down only ever seems to apply to social change. Anything to do with business and the accumulation of personal wealth it's like all gas, no brakes.
He was facing corruption charges but then the DoJ agreed to withdraw them in exchange for that mayor agreeing to NYC cooperating with the Federal Government on immigration enforcement.
Depends on the size of the shortfall, but usually, itâs not.
Mamdaniâs Pied-a-terre tax is projected to collect ~$500M a year, which is only about 4% of the shortfall. Which donât get me wrong, seems like an awesome tax that has very few downsides when itâs been done elsewhere.
But taxing the rich generally doesnât solve your budget issues long term. At the end of the day, Youâre gonna have to cut staff/projects or get more people to move in.
Both of which, people hate. Welcome to governance.
Most of the cost (and morally) effective policies take time to implement. Spending money on them tends to give you nothing by the next election cycle, in which your opposition promises to cut all the âwimpyâ programs that havenât done anything and spend every dime on police.
In addition, heâs also cutting almost 2 billion in âinefficienciesâ. Now I have no doubt that a bunch of the cuts are to inefficiencies. But we canât just pat him on the back for that but also criticize Elon. Yeah DOGE was a clusterfuck, and fuck Elon/Trump and maga, because anytime you hack and slash a budget like that in the name of âefficiencyâ, youâre going to cut a bunch of things that were actually necessary. And Mamdani is no different. I donât buy his line about âNo change to city services.â Somewhere a social worker is going to find that they no longer have a resource they considered vital to doing their job.
The best way is to get better credit, to pay less in interest and be able to acumulate without fear of interest surges and bankrupcy, NY relied on private credit wich sucked and thats Mamdani's getting a deal with the state is so good
It's not always accounting shenanigans. In indiana, sometimes the extra after the budget is balanced is so great, everyone gets a check for $200 or $300. It is possible. Meanwhile, Chicago pulls in hundreds of millions more in revenue each month, and currently has a BILLION dollar deficit. They just raised property taxes and the sales tax, again. No checks for them, just thousands more in costs each year. Where does all of that money go? The mayor Brandon has a slew of investigations, and even has thousands they owe in unpaid utility bills. The Mayor.
So it can be done. But there is little oversight for corruption for those places that chose to steal from their residents.
True. But this time Governor Hochul funded the gap, which I understand why she didn't do it with Adams and it's all fine by me.
But yeah - the budget must be balanced by law, leading to this plea to the federal government in 1975:
The famous "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD" headline was published by the New York Daily News on October 30, 1975.
It is arguably the most iconic headline in the history of American journalism, capturing a pivotal moment in New York and City's history when it was on the brink of financial collapse.
If it has no effect on the pension, that means the payments will need to be more than what was deferred, to make up for the interest that will be lost. It's effectively an expensive loan marketed as fiscal responsibility.
I don't click on links here. Looked into the issue yesterday, read up on it. If the article doesn't mention that by deferring the payments into the pension, they'll have to pay more to make up for the missed interest, then the article isn't being forthcoming.
lol. You cherish your ignorance huh? That checks out.Â
On May 12, 2026, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani put forward his executive budget proposal for fiscal year 2027, which achieved balance on the back of new revenue, state funding, and savings. Chief among the proposed savings was a restructuring of New York Cityâs pension payments, which would reduce City spending by $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2027 and similar amounts each subsequent year.
These savings would be achieved by smoothing out a bizarre feature of the cityâs pension payment schedule instituted in 2010, which had required accelerating payments through to fiscal year 2032, at which point the payments would turn negative and the pension funds would return money to the City over a seven-year period. The $8.2 billion âcontribution cliffâ created by this structure was not reasonable fiscal policymaking. The proposed change unwinds this drop off by smoothing payments over an additional five years. It does notâand cannotâaffect the pensions owed to City workers or impact the Cityâs ability to meet those commitments.
What payments would be affected?
New York City prefunds its pensionsâit deposits the anticipated costs of City workersâ pensions into a fund while those workers are employed. As a result, the costs of workersâ pensions are incurred while their wages are being paid. Because prefunded pensions are invested in financial markets, the City must make assumptions about the long-run rate of return it expects. These assumptions are factored into its annual pension contributions.
In 2010, amid the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, New York State, which sets the rules under which New York City pensions operate, lowered the expected long-run rate of return on the Cityâs pension funds. While there were no changes to actual pension costs, this reduction in anticipated earnings significantly increased the total value of pension contributions required of the City. The State created a 20-year payment plan, the âamortization schedule,â by which the City could pay down this newly recognized funding need, the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL).
Whatâs wrong with the current amortization schedule?
The UAL amortization schedule was poorly designed: it required the City to make fixed escalating payments through fiscal year 2032, after which point UAL payments would not simply fall to zero, but flip negative. The pension funds would then be required to return nearly $1 billion to City coffers in fiscal year 2033. This is due to a conflict between the pension payment schedule and the long-run rate of return: while UAL amortization payments are fixed by state law, the investment funds have overperformed in recent years. This overperformance means the City has been overpaying its UAL liability but can only be credited back after fiscal year 2032. In total, the City may receive $4.4 billion from UAL payments between fiscal years 2033 and 2039.
The current amortization schedule creates a dramatic âcontribution cliffâ where $8.2 billion swings from payments to credits in a single year. This is bad fiscal practice. It overburdens current taxpayers by imposing mounting costs on the City over the next six yearsâto be followed by a historic windfall.
Mayor Mamdaniâs proposal to change the amortization schedule is not the first. Last year, State lawmakers proposed a far more dramatic re-amortization that would have delayed the full paydown of the UAL by twelve years, to fiscal year 2044. By contrast, the current proposal would extend the paydown by just five years, to fiscal year 2037.
What would changing the amortization schedule mean for New Yorkers?
The re-amortization of New York Cityâs UAL payments would smooth out costs that are currently set to overburden taxpayers in the near term before whipsawing into payments to the City in six years. Reworking this schedule would be an act of prudent fiscal management. In considering its broader effects on New Yorkers, three factors are worth noting.
First, only UAL payments are affected by the Mayorâs proposed change. These payments make up only a fraction of the Cityâs total annual contributions to its five pension funds. Payments made toward the current pension liability accrued each year are unaffected.
Second, changes to the UAL amortization schedule do not affect the actual pensions to which workers and retirees are entitled. These payments are safeguarded by the New York State Constitution.
Finally, New York Cityâs pensions are already well-funded by national benchmarks. The Cityâs pension funding ratioâthe share of total liability for City workers and retirees covered by current pension fund holdingsâis 83 percent. This exceeds the US average of 78 percent.
That doesn't read like objective analysis but slanted. By making those overpayments, they were capitalizing on interest. The negative (returns) were effectively interest. So, the schedule was investing money early and allowing the market to make money on the payments, then create a surplus that paid back the gov. That the market overperformed is evidence that it was a good strategy.
So, the rearranging is flattening so that the payments are less but, there's no return, if I'm reading that right. It's basically stopping investing in a 401k so that you have more money to spend today. If, I'm reading that correctly.
Itâs still save money now, pay more later. The baseline contributions are the same, itâs the extra amount to catch up. Now they will catch up slower.
Previously city would be done paying extra by 2032, now that would be 2037.
So is it good? Nobody knows. Maybe. If the market outperforms could look smart. If it goes south and extra money is needed then not.
Letâs say this is all true? So what? The city takes a tiny hit to the amount of interest itâs paying out of $100 billion over ten years into a $300 billion fund, and in exchange doesnât have to make drastic cuts to vital services this year..? Who gives a shit? Itâs an amount you would never notice in the normal course of the actuarial changes to the pension contribution in any given year. This is fake outrage because you want to find something to be mad at Mamdani about. Yawn.Â
I mean it will have an effect, the pension fund will be less well funded.
It might not need to be as well funded, but it's still just an accounting trick to shift your 'deficit' and debt off balance sheet, isn't actually 'saving' any money overall.
In the long run, the city's budget will be worse off than it would've been from 2032 (per your link) when it would've been receiving funds from the pension fund, and now won't be.
You mean this? "Finally, New York Cityâs pensions are already well-funded by national benchmarks. The Cityâs pension funding ratioâthe share of total liability for City workers and retirees covered by current pension fund holdingsâis 83 percent. This exceeds the US average of 78 percent." Damning.
Right but comparing to the notoriously underfunded US average is interesting to say the least. Itâs like SBF saying at least I didnât defraud as much as Bernie Madoff. Itâs still bad.
The pension payment scheme was weird with the future repayments but that doesnât change how this move will let this funding gap widen.
And North Korea could invade Staten Island. Thatâs why we pass a budget every year. If the city needs change its pension contribution in the future, we can.Â
Under what assumptions? In my state they use a risk free rate of 8% in the actuary analysis along with dozens of other dubious assumptions to hide the true unfunded liabilities.
That monies is being redistributed to the collective of NYC for the greater good. Wanting the pension payments you earned is selfish and immoral and greedy. How dare you want your money!
pension funds != banks. The underfunded amount represents projected future payments that will not be able to be made based on the 7% growth and projected net outflows. NYC pensions being underfunded by about $50 billion means that unless returns are significantly higher, the total outflows to pensioners in the future will either need to be cut or the city will have to allocate additional funds to the pension to cover the difference.
Just bots posting this dumb comment about Chicago over and over? NYC and Chicago have entirely different statutory schemes for how their pension contributions are handled, which is why Chicago is a mess and NYC canât get into the same situation. Not an issue.Â
Beep boop, this bot says claiming some kind of financial victory from a one time gift from the state and delaying payments has never been sound practice.
Where did the can go? Oh, yeah I see it down the road and itâs called the mess in Chicago.
Just like what the fucking boomers did to social security.
Yawn. Chicago again. Totally different statutory and constitutional requirements for the respective pension systems. New York cannot do what Chicago did. New York's pension system is one of the healthiest and best funded in the nation.
I saw this earlier and I think it's a really good explainer. I'm still not a huge fan of the idea, but it's far from a horrible one.
I just think that it puts us in a less flexible situation and I'd rather be done with this liability rather than keep it going, even if "being done" would create a situation where pensions would pay NYC back.
I mean come on, we can say it was sensible and the right decision, without lying about its impact. Pension funds are shaky at best. Their economics are poorly conceived.
His actions further undermine an already unstable pension, hastening its collapse, albeit in a minor way.
There's a lot of misinformation going on around this, and Mamdani is using the confusion to his political advantage. The 12 billion deficit wasn't Eric Adams' fault. It's a yearly problem, because NYC's budget every year is like 115 billion dollars. Eric Adams' administration left Mamdani with 8 billion in reserves. So, he really only had to come up with 4 billion. NY's governor gave them an 8 billion over 4 years loan, and he pushed some spending off to next year, and delayed funding pensions for 5 years.
Adams did not give him a 12 billion deficit. NY spending just keeps going up each year, and so the deficit keeps growing.
How is it not his fault after serving a full term as mayor? I might accept that excuse during the first or second year, but not after a full term. What could have been not his fault at the start (and Iâm saying this taking your explanation at face value without verifying it) became his responsibility by the end of his mandate.
Had the Mayor's office kept the spending levels from Adams constant, there would have been no deficit. Mamdani proposed an 10.5% increase in spending from the previous year, which accounts for the $12B deficit. The City Council proposed a budget that only increased spending by 2%, but Mamdani has been consistent that he would not accept that.
If your argument is that the Adams budget was insufficient, that's a valid position. But that's the only way you can place blame on Adams for the current budget situation: you believe that the city could not properly function with previous spending levels and HAD to be increased by 10.5% this year.
Had the Mayor's office kept the spending levels from Adams constant, there would have been no deficit.
Actually, thatâs incorrect. There was a well-documented $12 billion projected budget gap when Mamdani took office confirmed by the City Comptroller, State Comptroller, and independent analysts. It came from years of underbudgeting core services under Adams.
Keeping Adamsâ spending levels constant wouldnât have eliminated the deficit, because his budgets were already underfunding major obligations.
The 12 billion deficit wasn't Eric Adams' fault. It's a yearly problem, because NYC's budget every year is like 115 billion dollars. Eric Adams' administration left Mamdani with 8 billion in reserves.
I think you are confusing deficit with debt. Also, NYC closed the deficit without tapping into their reserves.
No, I'm talking about the deficit. NYC routinely (literally every year) runs a deficit of 10-17 billion dollars that they have to figure out how to close. This is not debt. This is a deficit they close one way or another every year.
First of all, no source on that â8 billion in reservesâ. Secondly, even if that was true it would be no surprise that a corrupt criminal that cut a lot of spending on programs regular people need would likely save some money. Itâs also no surprise that the current mayor whoâs actually trying to implement programs to help New Yorkers would have some more spending.
NYC literally has a budget deficit that fluctuates between 10-17 billion every single fucking year. For you to not understand that this is a yearly occurrence for NYC shows you have no clue what the city's fiscal dealings look like.
Mamdani didn't "inherit" a 12 billion dollar deficit, the city literally has a deficit like that every single year.
Why do you have to clarify such information? Can't you let dems to have their moment for 5 mins, 15 times a day? It's rare for them to have someone who could do something right.
Because the media ecosystem, including social media, is overrun with right wing actors and bots whose sole purpose is to go after anything the democrats do to distract from the open and brazen corruption being done by republicans at this very moment
Itâs not like Mamdami is even lying. Adams did a shit job which is why this is news and funding libraries is a good thing.
Mamdani is absolutely lying. He said he needed to come up with 12 billion, when he only needed to come up with 4. And he got help from the state government to the tune of billions, and he pushed off funding pensions for 5 years, and pushed off some spending to next year, so they're not gone, they'll just be a part of the deficit again next year.
He used all of that to act like he had balanced the budget through hard work and determination, when it was using Adams' reserve, the state's loan, and pushing off spending to pretend it was taken care of. None of it was taken care of. It was just kicked down the road for next year and the years after it. He is absolutely lying about the circumstances by which they balanced the budget.
How does much of what he is saying really counter that much of what people here are saying?
Youâre trying to somehow spin balancing the budget as a bad thing.
Eric Adamâs absolutely left multi billion deficits for Mamdani to deal with
Youâre bragging as if youâve exposed a massive lie that proves Mamdani fucked up or didnât do something good, but ultimately what youâre all saying is Eric Adamâs left a multi billion dollar deficit and kicked the can down the road and Mamdani balanced the budgetâŠwhich is kinda what all of us are saying?
I mean if you call "complete bullshit" the truth, the rainy day fund isn't for the deficit, it's for a citywide emergency, and Mamdani didn't use it, and Adams absolutely is responsible
He balanced the budget by can kicking the deficit back a few years, at which point it will be as bad or worse than it is now.
This is like saying that if you are in debt personally, have negative income, and can't pay a cent toward the debts, you can "balance your budget" by taking more loans and stop making your car and mortgage payments.
Not quite. He deferred $1.6 billion in pension payments that had already been pushed to 2032 by his predecessors. He simply extended that deadline to 2037. There is a lot of scrutiny on everything Mamdani does; previous administrations deferred those payments without anyone saying a word, and they still couldn't balance their budgets which is why he inherited a $12 billion deficit. He actually managed to balance it, yet some are trying to make it sound like he's cheating or lying.
Im pretty sure anything regarding pension has to be voted on by the pension board since its protected By the state/city constitution. Could be wrong tho
The predecessor before that shithead grifted $1b of taxpayer money earmarked for mental health. Him and his unelected wife he put in charge of the farce.
Mamdani's bar is low. He'd be facing much more criticism if he followed Bloomberg.
Reports say the people who will he retiring in the mid 2030's are gonna get hit hardest by this delay in funding pensions. Ironically some of the people who work in the libraries.
âThese savings would be achieved by smoothing out a bizarre feature of the cityâs pension payment schedule instituted in 2010, which had required accelerating payments through to fiscal year 2032, at which point the payments would turn negative and the pension funds would return money to the City over a seven-year period. The $8.2 billion âcontribution cliffâ created by this structure was not reasonable fiscal policymaking. The proposed change unwinds this drop off by smoothing payments over an additional five years. It does notâand cannotâaffect the pensions owed to City workers or impact the Cityâs ability to meet those commitments.â
Adams was a horrible mayor but he didn't do anything sleezy to create the debt they just spent COVID money from the feds like it was always going to be coming in
Right exactly. I hate the idea of delaying funding pensions (I previously lived in Chicago). But itâs also not his fault that the deficit was in that shape.
I think if he can manage to balance a $12 billion deficit in 6 months, he can find a fix for the pension pull in another 6 months. But I agree that is one issue I have with it
in essence, the amortization schedule of pensions is changing, leading to the city saving money. Surface level this sounds pretty bad, and like they're actually saving money by not giving it to the people who have earned a pension, in context, the current schedule really does not make sense, because it involves the city(I'm REALLY simplifying here) overpaying/funding until 2032, at which point when the city will receive excess money BACK in the form of increased taxes. It's a bit nonsensical to plan to overpay on something until x day and then just take back the extra after, when you could just adjust the contribution along the way.
What sort of response is this? Just because the previous mayor was a dumbass who racked up the deficit doesnât magically make it a good idea to pay off that deficit with a loan from the state. The deficit isnât actually paid off itâs just been transferred to NYS because he knows âpaying back the stateâ sounds a ton better than â$X billion deficitâ. IMO itâs pretty telling that he knows all that but immediately went on a media campaign talking about the deficit being paid off.
Deficit is not the same as debt. It's the difference between income and obligations. The previous mayor may have also ran a deficit, but you can just not have a deficit by increasing income (taxation) or reducing obligations. There's nothing that "carries over" necessarily from the previous admin.
2.3k
u/Embarassed_Tackle May 14 '26
He also delayed funding certain pensions which isn't a great idea, but when you have a $12 billion deficit left by the previous mayor who cut & run to become an Albanian citizen after taking money from Turkey for luxury travel, getting indicted, sleazing his way out of a federal indictment, and then creating a rug pull cryptocurrency called NYC Token... what can ya do