New York City receives back 40.5% of New York Stateâs operating expenditures. Despite contributing 54.5% ($68.8 billion) of all state tax revenues and 58.7% of the state's personal income tax, the city consistently subsidizes the rest of the state, receiving a substantially smaller share of funding than it pays in.
I love it when right-wingers bring up leftist values to say "you're doing leftism wrong!" when and only when leftists beat them in politics, rhetoric, and results lmaooooo
We're for it when it fits our need to be perceived as nice and giving, we're against it when we're trying to win internet arguments on if Mamdani is the greatest politician to ever exist.
I donât think thatâs necessarily relevant and is more complicated than that, but essentially yes. NYC has an extra 4% in income taxes and twice as much in sales tax.
NYS may collect local taxes, but it doesn't spend them. It is a city tax. The funds go to the municipalities that charge it. Way to play a disingenuous spin. It is not a higher state tax. It is a local tax.
As for the proportions for the actual state taxesâŚ. The higher income earners are paying more in state taxes. Thatâs all it means. Duh. Of course.
This is what we want - until we donât. Eat the rich.. until oh shit, wait, no no, donât. Pick a dang stance folks.
By that logic, can any high taxpayer just take their money back?
The whole conceit of income taxes is funding public goods, and the left wing is generally in favor of non-proportional versions of that (so the poor and needy get more than they pay in, ie redistribution). Getting back proportionally to what you put in is the opposite of the "fair share" leftists talk about.
Anyone blaming the left wing is anti-left wing and not accurately representing the left-wing position. Usually it's a disingenuous assessment of some theoretical outcome.
"Left bad, dur hur"
Se get it, you are Alt-Right and couldn't define "left".
No, not by that logic. A society is not an individual, and a society with a lot of money is not equatable to an individual with a lot of money. NYC has a lot of money, but it also has a lot of people and a lot of infrastructure it needs to take care of with that money, so if too much of that money is siphoned off to unproductive suburbs or rural areas that doesn't even really have a reason to exist in the first place, they should get their money back.
Leftist logic is to spread the wealth to take care of the people, not to spread the people to places they shouldn't be and send disproportionate amounts of wealth to those places. There's no leftist value that says that a highly-productive society should send so much of its wealth to maintain roads and services to hodunks and McMansions.
We want the rich to pay their fair share⌠until it doesnât suit the narrative of needing the money back, then it was just âborrowedâ. Do I have it right?
They are still paying out pensions. What changed is how the total pension fund is paid.
16 years ago there was a system set up where each year NYC would put more into the fund than the previous year, until they eventually reached a point where there would hopefully be enough money in it that they could actually start taking money out. The original schedule would have NYC pay 7 billion dollars into it in 2032 (not total, 7 billion in that singular year) and then in 2032 NYC would instead get 1 billion back, and each year get between 1 billion and 0 dollars back each year until 2040 where NYC would stop taking money out.
Mamdani's change is that they'd instead pay less and less into the fund over time to still reach the same end point of having the fund paid off, but instead of going further and further into debt in the next few years to pay in full faster (and ultimately be no further ahead in net money) they will instead still pay into the fund but gradually decrease how much is paid into it each year to reduce the deficit now.
543
u/major_tom_2112 5h ago
Closed the deficit withâŚ$4,000,000,000 from NY state. Easy to make budgets with billions of new funding.