Zohran Mamdani - Democratic Socialist Mayor of NYC

[Jeff Lebowski]

It’s only fair.

Embedded Tweet

[dabrockster]

Mamdani decides to call out Ken Griffin by doing a social media post touting his Billionaire Tax in front of his apartment complex and naming him in his video.

He is not even hiding who he is..

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8g3QBnQ/

[dabrockster]

Seattle’s Socialist Mayor gives a wave and say, “Bye Felicia” to millionaires exiting her city..

IMG_7958.jpeg

As Starbucks looks to leave for TN and CEO is headed to Miami..

https://www.foxnews.com/media/seattl...eary-residents

[dabrockster]

Brief interview of Ken Griffin on Mamdani doing a promo in front of his apartment. Interesting points he makes..

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8pYHyBD/

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8pYsab3/

[LVAllen]

Financial Times wrote an article about how the wealthy feel about Mamdani's plans to tax them a bit more. The internet has been laughing at the folks quoted.

https://www.ft.com/content/3283eaab-...syn-25a6b1a6=1

Essentially, if you own a second house in NYC, but don't live there for more than 183 days, you don't get hit with income tax, but do get hit with the proposed tax. If they hate the proposed tax, they could simply move to NYC full-time, and avoid it entirely.

The really funny thing is that some of the people quoted in the article seem to be under the impression they are unique or special. That if they abandoned their plans to do... something.. in NYC, that they couldn't be replaced in a New York minute. If they pulled up stakes and sold their property, and refused to do anything in New York, what does the free market do? Say, "oh no! This potentially profitable idea can't be done now that this specific person won't be doing it!" Yeah, no. If a project is profitable, it will be done. And if it fails? It will eventually be sold to someone else who will repurpose the assets for something else to turn a profit. Do they think projects can't get financing if they aren't attached to it? In New York? Really?

[Moliere]

Financial Times wrote an article about how the wealthy feel about Mamdani's plans to tax them a bit more. The internet has been laughing at the folks quoted.

https://www.ft.com/content/3283eaab-...syn-25a6b1a6=1

Essentially, if you own a second house in NYC, but don't live there for more than 183 days, you don't get hit with income tax, but do get hit with the proposed tax. If they hate the proposed tax, they could simply move to NYC full-time, and avoid it entirely.

The really funny thing is that some of the people quoted in the article seem to be under the impression they are unique or special. That if they abandoned their plans to do... something.. in NYC, that they couldn't be replaced in a New York minute. If they pulled up stakes and sold their property, and refused to do anything in New York, what does the free market do? Say, "oh no! This potentially profitable idea can't be done now that this specific person won't be doing it!" Yeah, no. If a project is profitable, it will be done. And if it fails? It will eventually be sold to someone else who will repurpose the assets for something else to turn a profit. Do they think projects can't get financing if they aren't attached to it? In New York? Really?

The lack of financial acuteness on both sides of this thing is scary, but I don’t care becasue it’s NY and has impact on me…except for the somewhat looney conservatives fleeing the state to move to Texas, which actually also has virtually no impact on me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Financial Times wrote an article about how the wealthy feel about Mamdani's plans to tax them a bit more. The internet has been laughing at the folks quoted.

https://www.ft.com/content/3283eaab-...syn-25a6b1a6=1

Essentially, if you own a second house in NYC, but don't live there for more than 183 days, you don't get hit with income tax, but do get hit with the proposed tax. If they hate the proposed tax, they could simply move to NYC full-time, and avoid it entirely.

The really funny thing is that some of the people quoted in the article seem to be under the impression they are unique or special. That if they abandoned their plans to do... something.. in NYC, that they couldn't be replaced in a New York minute. If they pulled up stakes and sold their property, and refused to do anything in New York, what does the free market do? Say, "oh no! This potentially profitable idea can't be done now that this specific person won't be doing it!" Yeah, no. If a project is profitable, it will be done. And if it fails? It will eventually be sold to someone else who will repurpose the assets for something else to turn a profit. Do they think projects can't get financing if they aren't attached to it? In New York? Really?

It’s a really stupid populist gimmick. In isolation the impact will be limited, but in aggregate, things like this can have a significant impact on a city or state’s economic vitality.

Populism is stupid whether it happens on the right or the left.

[LVAllen]

It’s a really stupid populist gimmick. In isolation the impact will be limited, but in aggregate, things like this can have a significant impact on a city or state’s economic vitality.

Populism is stupid whether it happens on the right or the left.

I think that is exactly the argument they have used for promoting the tax. One or two millionaires buying places and leaving them empty most of the year doesn't have much of an effect. Once you get entire developments that are vacant most of the year, that starts to pose issues.