this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
420 points (99.3% liked)

politics

26454 readers
2580 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
420
Zohran Mamdani’s Proposal For A Millionaire Tax (www.fascinatingworld.org)
submitted 1 day ago by Mog_Spawn@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DeICEAmerica@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Good. Fuck these people. They are not unicorns. They are not a protected class.

In America there are now over 25 million millionaires and guess what? They, too, are being squeezed the fuck out by the nearly 1000 billionaires that have always been running the show.

Fuck them that they, for the most part, thought they had a seat at the End Game table when they voted with their wallets. Their small businesses/farms are being swallowed up just like most homes that hit the market that are being bought by financing groups. They are going to lease and rent to us every single thing we used to own. If we sit on our hands and let them.

Free Luigi

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 44 points 1 day ago

Millionaires are not going to move away from NYC when the stock exchange is right there, the big buildings are right there, and the port is right there. NYC is important because of where it is and what it has. A 2% tax on high incomes is not going to change that.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 43 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Meh. 2% on millionaires.

Now do 90% on billionaires.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

This isn't a tax on wealth, it's a tax on income.

There probably isn't a single billionaire out there with a billion dollar income in any given year unless they're doing some massive sell off like when Musk sold shares to buy twitter.

What actually happens, is the more wealth you have, the less income you're actually likely to have at least in proportion to the wealth, because you start doing things like taking loans out against your shares in a company, and potentially never pay it back until you die at which point the estate will pay it off, but I think there's even some weird estate transfer things that make that favorable to them as well.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

There is a (relatively) simple solution to this; Make the act of taking out a loan against the value of your assets (which the wealthy tend to do, for liquid cashflow) a Capital Gains taxable event.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

This has actually been my preference vs a straight up wealth tax.

I wouldn't really call it simple though as these types of things can easily be done off books. You'd have to be able to do audits like how did you pay for this with that cash kinda thing still.

You also need to deal with repayment and prevent double taxation, which is doable to sort out but not easy.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago

I meant relatively simple in the sense that it shouldn’t require a full re-write of existing laws - just an addition to, knowing full well that enforcement would be the biggest challenge.

Hefty fines (over and above the value of the assets used as collateral) on the lenders if caught not reporting could help ensure compliance.

Another way to tackle it might also be to treat the end of every financial year as a Capital Gains Event for assets over a certain threshold? That way, it just becomes part of people’s annual tax returns and taking out loans wouldn’t necessarily help avoid it.

eg. If FY26 saw Elon Musk’s wealth increase by $10bn, he would owe ~$2bn in Capital Gains to the IRS.

Also, to head off possible arguments: Given that the US taxes its citizens even if they live/work abroad - there would also be negligible risk of capital flight.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 17 hours ago

Yeah. We need wealth tax.

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 14 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Nothing is ever enough for people is it? Ya'll could have had Cuomo again and gotten 0% taxes on the rich. Hell, Cuomo would've given tax breaks to his wealthy buddies like he did the first time. 2% isn't the end goal, it's the start. Ya'll need to change your perspective, nothing in politics is going to be instant or perfect. I'll take 2%, it's a start.

[–] camdog2000@ttrpg.network 3 points 16 hours ago

I'm happy with this, but we still need to be doing more.

[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Gotta boil the frog properly, exactly

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Indeed we need to do what the right wingers have been doing to us since the 70s. Slowly turn up the taxes and lock up more and more white collar criminals/pedophiles. Hopefully this starts happening after Trump and Republicans face backlash from all the shit they’ve done over this year.

[–] Ftumch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 1 day ago

The Millionaire Tax will impose an additional 2% income tax on the top 1% in NYC, who are earning over $1 million per year.

As a European I am shocked! Shocked that you call this guy a socialist!

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 129 points 1 day ago (4 children)

No mention of how it turned out in Massachusetts.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/04/28/massachusetts-millionaires-tax-institute-policy-studies-newsletter

[–] bampop@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Wait, you mean that when rich people say that taxing the rich is a bad idea, they aren't being completely sincere and don't have our best interests at heart? I'm shocked to the core

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 23 points 1 day ago

The verdict: The new report found the number of ultra-wealthy residents in Massachusetts — those with at least $50 million or more — has actually grown since 2022, from 1,954 to 2,642 in 2024. The millionaires' tax also greatly surpassed its projections in the first year, generating S2.46 billion for the state in 2023 alone. State officials expect it to haul in the same amount of revenue annually. "This is further evidence that multi-millionaires are not fleeing the state in response to the new tax," said Shanique Rodriguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Voter Table.

Err: NaN

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 142 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Yep. Millionaires threaten to move away if they're taxed, but they won't. The convenience of having their high value properties in highly sought after areas, where all the services they use are present, is too enticing, and even a hefty tax won't be a deterrent.

Just imagine how much upheaval it would cause you to move a few states over. For a millionaire... it's the same except they're used to so much beyond basic survival - their parties, their exclusive clubs, exclusive gatherings, private boxes in theatres, the list goes on.

Do you really see such a person moving to Bumfuck Nowhere, Nebraska, just because that town doesn't tax millionaires? Do you really see them giving up 80-90% of the "rich life" just to save their wealth? Hell nah. As long as you're not explicitly threatening to tax them out of existence, they'll stay. Because unlike the average people they can afford that extra expense.

But of course they don't want to, they just yap around threatening the move without committing to it.

[–] mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also isn't it so petty to admit you (would) move because you don't want to shell out your bit for your community? Like isn't that incredibly cheap? Don't you like living in New York? Don't you like your city?

It's like the rich guy passing on the collection plate at church type move.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, the rich didn't get rich by giving away their money.

To them it's a status symbol - like how Apple products used to be status symbols for the plebeian (aka us).

Having multimillion dollar supercars, villas, mansions, seven bedroom apartments, etc., works well, but you're only truly rich if you can show off how you didn't actually lose any value to get those benefits. How you didn't need to spend a single penny of your wealth to live the rich life.

[–] mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah I guess I should stop ascribing any kind of communalist value systems to them. The like of you and I aren't in the group they consider their community.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 38 points 1 day ago (3 children)

A lot of millionaire wealth is tied to where they live. A New York lawyer or doctor can't just move to Miami and expect to have the same level. Business owners could potentially move, but they still would need to keep traveling back and forth. Ultimately, their social life and lifestyle is where they already liveand being the one who moved because "is expensive" it would be seen as cheap.

[–] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

FYI when we’re talking about taxing the rich and wealth we’re not talking about doctors and lawyers even if they still make a fuck ton because they are still getting paid for their labour and they need to work in order to maintain their lifestyle even if they would be considered rich.

What we’re talking about are people who make their living through their capital I.e. due to the exploitation of other people.

[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This article is about an income tax. An additional 4% tax on income over 1 million dollars annually.

This article is not about a wealth tax.

[–] shane@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

2% according to the article, not 4%.

[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Voters narrowly approved a 4% surtax on incomes over $1 million in a statewide ballot referendum in November 2022.

??

[–] shane@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, I was referring to the article in the post. You were referring to the article in the comment. 🙃

[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago

Nice, now everyone is correct. Love to see it!

[–] davad@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A quick search suggests most New York lawyers (avg $176k/yr) and surgeons (avg $300k to $750k) aren't going to be be affected.

[–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yeah. We usually consider lawyers, doctors, tech people, academics at fancy universities etc. to be rich. But in the grand scheme of things, they're upper middle class at best. The real rich are all people with generational wealth coming from businesses.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who considered these people to be rich? Rich people don't have to work. Those are working professionals. Manny of them have high debts for the beginning decade of their careers, too

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 17 hours ago

People born before the 2010s, roughly. Doctors and lawyers were at one point considered two of the highest earning professions and it's only been recently that college debt has really been considered a real issue rather than an excuse Millennials made up because they would rather complain about being poor than lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

For the Baby Boomers, these professions allowed them to buy lots of assets that have since appreciated in value and become generational wealth, and they think the world still works that way.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

This is not about wealth though, but income instead.
I doubt those income millionaires can just leave New York and be better off than paying an additional 2% income tax while staying in NY.
In all likeliness they'd have much more net loss from leaving NY than from additional measly 2% tax.

[–] Sir_Simon_Spamalot@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

I mean yeah, sure, go ahead and move to Bumfuck and try to figure out what to do with all that money.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And even if some of them really move: is it worse them not paying taxes while not being there at all?
I don't see the the core of their threat.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The idea is that "rich people spend their money" - which, let's be honest, is blatantly untrue.

The rich don't spend their own money. They trade favours. Hell, if you have $1mil on your hand, you can easily walk into a "rich people bank", open an account and get free shit every month, beyond the very generous interest rates. Free concert/theatre tickets, and such. It's like a casino hotel that tries to get you to stay with the freebies, but on an "I have a few million dollars in your bank" level.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Frankly said, whether they spend their money or not is their business. If they are involved in shenenigans like you described that needs to be regulated, because it sure looks like tax evasion.
And regarding the proposed tax (quoting the linked article): "The Millionaire Tax will impose an additional 2% income tax on the top 1% in NYC, who are earning over $1 million per year".

So this tax in no way designed to tax their wealth, but merely their income by another measly 2%.
Nobody will become poor because of this. Some income millionaires just become slightly slower even more rich than they already are.

Have them move elsewhere and see whether they can keep their annual income in the millions there.
I, for one, am willing to call their bluff.

And once that is done, implement a wealth tax for the people who own x million USD.
To keep them from freaking out, it can be as low as 5% annually, because that would still allow them to generate a net increase of their wealth.
If they complain, increase the tax and start draining their fortune.

[–] jdredbeard@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Mist of their true income won't be touched. You don't get taxes for holding stock. You don't get taxed for borrowing. So, a lot of billionaires borrow against their stock to have spending money without paying income taxes.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

And that is the real reason they want interest rates to be low. So the leech class can get better rates on their untaxed income from borrowing against stocks.

Borrowing against stocks should be considered realizing gains from them and taxed as such.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Ok, let's call it 'taxable income' then to have a basis of what is going to be taxed (more).

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 0 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Many millionaires moved out of France after new taxes. 1,400 just in 2025.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 3 points 18 hours ago

Oh no. How will France survive now!

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

What were those new taxes? Here we’re only talking an additional 2% on top of whatever nyc s state and local tax is that could be what 15%? Noticeable but not a dramatic change

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 17 hours ago

They were already getting taxed 45%

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 52 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

More rich people lived there and the tax generated more than expected. That's awesome. Good news for NYC.

[–] watson@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

Good news for everyone, particularly any city that wants to try this

[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

This is good ofc, but I doubt any really wealthy person is seeing these taxes because they do everything in their power to use loophole after loophole and avoid using their own money.

So this is as güt as it's gonna get until the IRS (i think) solves these loopholes thats letting these mega wealthy ppl use "debt", etc to avoid paying anything.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This article is from Jun 17

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Have things changed that drastically in just five months to make it invalid? Since he just won this month, it seems to me that it's more relevant, not less.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] watson@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

I’m from March 1979

load more comments
view more: next ›