Mamdani: Let NYC Eat (Socialist) Cake

[Slade3200]

That is a weakness most tax increasers share, they seem to think that people won't react to tax increases, they'll just sit still and pay them. Their calculations seem to go somewhat like this:

1. Let's raise real estate taxes in the city. Everyone living in more than 1,000 sq ft has to pay an extra 10 grand annually from now on.
2. Okay, how much revenue will that raise?
3. Well, there are 25,000 people living in big spaces right now, so that's $250 million more every year from now on.
4. Great, that means we can spend $275 million more starting next year.

Meanwhile, 5,000 people move out of the city and 10,000 downsize to smaller spaces, leaving far less tax revenue than anticipated. This happens over and over again, because human nature makes someone facing higher taxes take action to lower those taxes. Hence, if New York imposes massive new taxes (and how can they avoid doing so with Santa Clause giving away so much for free) the ones being targeted to pay for it all will leave for greener pastures, and those pastures will welcome them with open arms. The bottom line is, SOME may stick around and pay the higher taxes while OTHERS will take action to avoid having their hard-earned wealth confiscated from them.

Suddenly, wealth gets distributed to a much greater extent around the country and New York sinks into bankrupt irrelevancy.

Most prosperous time in the USA… 1950s. What was the top marginal tax rate?. Look it up. Report back

 

[hadit]

What was the most prosperous decade in the nations history. What was the top tax rate. Do your homework and let me know what you find

Don't forget several very important facets of that era.

What happened in the decade before that eliminated the rest of the world's industrial bases, leaving America as the premier manufacturer on the planet?
Don't just focus on the top rate, also list all the exemptions and deductions those hit with that top rate had access to.

Do your homework and let me know what you find.

 

[SweetSue92]

What was the most prosperous decade in the nations history. What was the top tax rate. Do your homework and let me know what you find

I don't need to. One MILLION people already set to leave. Take up your math with them; I don't live in NYC

 

[22lcidw]

Most prosperous time in the USA… 1950s. What was the top marginal tax rate?. Look it up. Report back

You mean when we were in near total control of the planet economically after WW 2. When most of the planet with industries did not retool from the destruction of that war. We had a quarter century after that war of American supremacy, and the cracks showed the last decade of that. Japan started to eat our lunch in the 1970's. Steel, auto, electronics, industrial, and so on. Marginal tax rate? City, state, local and everything connected was a pittance in the 1950's as compared to when their taxes mushroomed on their residences. Social Security was nothing compared to what was coming. Marginal tax rates? Damn!

 

[Slade3200]

Don't forget several very important facets of that era.

What happened in the decade before that eliminated the rest of the world's industrial bases, leaving America as the premier manufacturer on the planet?
Don't just focus on the top rate, also list all the exemptions and deductions those hit with that top rate had access to.

Do your homework and let me know what you find.

Happy to do homework and engage with you if you actually answer my question. What was that top rate?

 

[Edgetho]

I didn't deal with them in any business capacity, but when I took a vacation to New York, boy were my eyes opened. It's the only place in the US I felt like I was in a foreign land. The rudest people I have encountered; they would rather run you over than look at you. The city itself is horrid. The only place in the US I would never, ever visit again.

It isn't so much that New Yawk itself is a shithole, it's that the people are dirt bags.

The Upper Crust is, well, the Upper Crust. But the every day New Yawker?

Some of them are nice, super nice. But they are honestly the minority.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't need to. One MILLION people already set to leave. Take up your math with them; I don't live in NYC

Don’t be lazy, Sue, knowing history to never heard. Look it up. Let me know if you find.

 

[marvin martian]

It isn't so much that New Yawk itself is a shithole, it's that the people are dirt bags.

The Upper Crust is, well, the Upper Crust. But the every day New Yawker?

Some of them are nice, super nice. But they are honestly the minority.

They're going to get what they vote for, and it's going to be a pleasure to watch.

 

[hadit]

Happy to do homework and engage with you if you actually answer my question. What was that top rate?

Off the top of my head, I'd say 90%. Now you.

 

[Edgetho]

Happy to do homework and engage with you if you actually answer my question. What was that top rate?

Reagan's Tax Cuts actually increased Tax Receipts by 50% from the rich.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9576a929-37b4-497c-9b06-4bf3481f9f0a/the-reagan-tax-cuts-lessons-for-tax-reform-april-1996.pdf

Yer an idiot. Go back to studying for your Community College exam

 

[SweetSue92]

Don’t be lazy, Sue, knowing history to never heard. Look it up. Let me know if you find.

Yes, I guess Americans could get behind funding the World Wars. But free car rides? Free child care? I doubt that

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Ya know, many would say that the number show that the 1950s was the most prosperous decade in American history. Wanna take a guess at what the top marginal tax rate was???

I’ll save you the spin…. It was 91%

That equates to an effective tax rate of 42%. Do you understand?

Why do you want other people's money? Do you look at your neighbors' houses which are bigger than your own with envy?

They did not get wealthy by stealing from you. Make your own wealth and stay out of their pockets.

 

[Slade3200]

That equates to an effective tax rate of 42%. Do you understand?

Why do you want other people's money? Do you look at your neighbors' houses which are bigger than your own with envy?

They did not get wealthy by stealing from you. Make your own wealth and stay out of their pockets.

I don’t want other peoples money. I’m doing just fine and paying in more than I’m taking out. I’m just trying to have an honest debate here. How does it equate to 42% please explain.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

I don’t want other peoples money. I’m doing just fine and paying in more than I’m taking out. I’m just trying to have an honest debate here. How does it equate to 42% please explain.

See link...

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s

Despite high marginal income tax rates, the top 1% of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42% of their income in taxes. See more about taxes on the rich.

taxfoundation.org

Short summary:
In the 1950s, the top federal income tax rate in the United States was 91% for most of the decade, but the effective tax rate for the top 1% of earners was around 42%. This means that while the marginal rate was high, the actual percentage of income paid in taxes was significantly lower due to various deductions and loopholes.

Top Tax Rates in the 1950s​

Federal Income Tax Rates​

• The top marginal federal income tax rate during the 1950s was 91%.
• This rate applied to income over $400,000 for married couples and $200,000 for single filers.

Effective Tax Rates​

• Despite the high marginal rate, the effective tax rate for the top 1% of earners was significantly lower:
  
  • 42% when considering all federal, state, and local taxes.
  • 16.9% for federal income taxes specifically.

Context and Implications​

• The high marginal tax rate primarily affected very high incomes, which were much lower in real terms compared to today. For example, $400,000 in 1954 would be equivalent to about $4.66 million today.
• Many wealthy individuals were able to categorize their income as capital gains, which were taxed at lower rates, contributing to the lower effective tax rates.

 

[hadit]

I don’t want other peoples money. I’m doing just fine and paying in more than I’m taking out. I’m just trying to have an honest debate here. How does it equate to 42% please explain.

The effective rate was far lower because there were many loopholes, breaks and shelters that we no longer have because Reagan shut down many of them. Also, the top rate was a marginal rate that applied only to dollars earned above $200,000, and there were not many even rich people who earned a lot more than that.

Great, let's then be honest about the high marginal tax rate and the growth.

1. Of course, it didn't apply to all the money a person made, only to the dollars above $200,000. Hence, if a very wealthy person made $210,000, only $10,000 was subject to the insanely high confiscatory rate.
2. We were the big dog on the block. American auto manufacturers, for example, faced no global competition. Why? Because, just a few short years before we destroyed the manufacturing bases of the world's powers. Anyone remember a thing called WWII? We were the only major country on the planet not touched by it.
3. What kind of deductions and tax shelters did the wealthy enjoy? Ever hear of loan expenses? You could deduct such things as interest payments, making borrowing money a whole lot cheaper. You could also claim real estate depreciation.
4. We had a massive influx of young working age men primed to do hard work in construction on things like office buildings, cars and highways. Why? Because just a few years before, we stopped a really big war and a whole bunch of GI's came home to a large country with lots of resources and an intact manufacturing base and no competition. Also, women had entered the work force during the war, and many chose to stay, leaving a robust work force ready to work.

So, yes, let's have an honest debate and hear you admit you want to tie the growth of the 50's to the high top marginal tax rate only, which is dishonest.

 

[toobfreak]

If they were smarter, they wouldn't be Democrats

Well Sue, we can attribute many qualities to republicans.

• Nationalistic.
• Patriotic.
• Traditionalists.
• Family, God and Guns.
• Tolerant.

But we can also attribute many qualities to democrats.

• Hate the 2 party system.
• Hate capitalism.
• Hate the rich, unless they are them.
• Globalistic.
• Socialistic.
• Climate nuts.
• Intolerant.

 

[Slade3200]

See link...

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s

Despite high marginal income tax rates, the top 1% of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42% of their income in taxes. See more about taxes on the rich.

taxfoundation.org

Short summary:
In the 1950s, the top federal income tax rate in the United States was 91% for most of the decade, but the effective tax rate for the top 1% of earners was around 42%. This means that while the marginal rate was high, the actual percentage of income paid in taxes was significantly lower due to various deductions and loopholes.

Top Tax Rates in the 1950s​

Federal Income Tax Rates​

• The top marginal federal income tax rate during the 1950s was 91%.
• This rate applied to income over $400,000 for married couples and $200,000 for single filers.

Effective Tax Rates​

• Despite the high marginal rate, the effective tax rate for the top 1% of earners was significantly lower:
  
  • 42% when considering all federal, state, and local taxes.
  • 16.9% for federal income taxes specifically.

Context and Implications​

• The high marginal tax rate primarily affected very high incomes, which were much lower in real terms compared to today. For example, $400,000 in 1954 would be equivalent to about $4.66 million today.
• Many wealthy individuals were able to categorize their income as capital gains, which were taxed at lower rates, contributing to the lower effective tax rates.

View attachment 1180783

Thank you for the on topic reply. You make the point about loopholes and deductions making the effective tax rate lower m. Yet it is still higher in the 50s than any other decade and the 50s were our most prosperous era. People didn’t flee. They paid their taxes and the country prospered and so did the wealthy.

Didn’t Trump pay zero in taxes during some years?

 

[Slade3200]

The effective rate was far lower because there were many loopholes, breaks and shelters that we no longer have because Reagan shut down many of them. Also, the top rate was a marginal rate that applied only to dollars earned above $200,000, and there were not many even rich people who earned a lot more than that.

Of course the effective rate was lower. That’s always been the case. The net was still highest in history. Loopholes are still around today. Didn’t a Trump tax return leak and showed he paid zero in taxes one year?

 

[CrazyTrader55]

Am I the only one who doesn't give one fig if NYC loses its mind and elects Mamdani?

LET THEM. He wants to tax millionaires to pay for "free" childcare, buses and housing? GOOD. Let them figure what revenue is left after millionaires leave the city in droves. They want socialism? LET THEM HAVE IT. No one deserves it more than NYC.

I mean here is the mentality of his supporters: $250K student debt at 32 years old, and he's ready to "give it a shot". Great work, Dillon, you deserve all the socialism that's about to get shoved down your throat.

For Dillon Robertson, 32, money is a constant worry. He commutes to college in Connecticut and will graduate with close to $250,000 in student loans. He's supporting Mamdani and says many of his cost-saving proposals could make his life easier, but at the same time, he worries if it's all possible.

"A lot of the stuff he says sounds nice. But I both wonder, can he do it? Can he pull it off?" he said. "Or [is] it just kind of like a Band-Aid on a leaky ship?"

Still, he admits, if the options are to keep plodding along or try something new, he's ready to give it a shot.

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/02/nx-s1-5531004/zohran-mamdani-new-york-young-voters

$250k of debt, guess Dylan failed economics. No worries, the democrats got what it takes, to take what others got, to pay for Dylan.

 

[August West]

Why should any one person be taxed more than another

Because they have more money and we have bills to pay. Frankenstein is a more appropriate handle than Einstein.