#policy

Mamdani has defended the tax as a fair way to generate $500m in annual revenue in a city with vast socioeconomic inequality. The surcharge - which several other cities and countries have in different forms - has won the support of Governor Kathy Hochul, who previously was hesitant to raise New Yorkers' taxes.

The mayor ran on a campaign platform of affordability, pledging to raise taxes to cover services like universal child care, and free and faster buses. His pledge to increase taxes has sparked backlash from some of the city's wealthiest residents who claim it will discourage people from buying homes and investing in the US's largest city.

Representatives for Mamdani's administration did not attend Tuesday's hearing, which angered some in attendance.

A spokesperson for Mamdani told the BBC the administration asked to push back the hearing while it dealt with the legal challenge, but the council declined and officials cannot testify on the matter while it's being litigated.

Jason Haber, who runs the American Real Estate Association, said the list of names and addresses threatens people's safety.

But Morris Pearl, a former managing director at investment firm BlackRock, said the idea that people were choosing not to invest in the city because of the tax was "absurd".

"The whole point of being rich is you can live wherever you want," said Pearl, a chair of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy Americans who advocate for taxing the rich.

"Someone who owns a residence that is not their primary residence that's worth more than $5m has the ability to pay more than most New Yorkers do."

Across the world, some countries and cities already experiment with similar secondary home taxes.

In France, homes are subject to an additional charge that varies across the country, with a 60% local tax surcharge for homes in Paris. The tax has generated billions of euros in revenue.

The city of Vancouver in Canada has an Empty Homes Tax on residences that are vacant or under-used for more than six months of a calendar year. The tax - 3% of the property's value - began in 2017 to help improve housing affordability.

Research from Canadian think tank C. D. Howe Institute found the tax has raised as much as $194m in revenue in eight years, and has reduced housing vacancies by as much as 21%, but has done little to bring down the average cost of rent.

In San Francisco, California, residents in 2022 voted for an Empty Homes Tax, which required owners to pay between $2,500 to $20,000 for apartments that are vacant for six months or more.

But like in New York, the tax faced fierce opposition from real estate and landlord groups in the technology hub, and after a group sued, a judge found the tax unconstitutional. It remains in limbo as the city appeals.

Pearl said the New York City administration's decision to launch the tax with a list of wealthy residents may not have been the most diplomatic choice.

"I do think that the mayor himself - I have suggested that he sort of unnecessarily antagonises people occasionally," Pearl said.

But, he added, "I'm with him on the policy."

What was Citizens United about?

Citizens United arose in 2007 when a conservative nonprofit organization challenged campaign finance rules that stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Supreme Court eventually decided 5–4 that Citizens United was within its First Amendment rights to spend its money disseminating the film. But rather than opining solely on the case before it as it had been asked to do, the Court took the opportunity to entirely strike down century-old prohibitions on corporate “independent” spending — money that doesn’t go directly to a candidate or party.

The justices who decided Citizens United held that independent spending could not pose a substantial risk of corruption on the erroneous assumption that the money wouldn’t be under the control of any single candidate or party.  They also assumed that existing transparency rules would require all the new spending they were permitting to be fully transparent, allowing voters to appropriately evaluate the messages targeting them.

Both assumptions have proven to be incorrect. While super PACs and other outside spenders are supposed to be separate from candidates and parties, they usually work in tandem with them — to the point where affiliated super PACs that can raise unlimited money are now integral to most major campaigns. Legal loopholes also mean that many of these groups can keep their sources of funding secret.

These trends reached new heights in the 2024 election. Billionaire-backed super PACs helped the winning presidential candidate close a substantial fundraising gap. These groups also went beyond just running supportive ads. A group funded by Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, took on core components of the winning campaign, including voter outreach operations. And dark money from groups that do not disclose their donors topped $1 billion, including at least $182 million that was funneled through groups closely aligned with the two major parties’ congressional leadership campaigns.

Political action committees, known as PACs, are organizations that raise and spend money for campaigns, or whose major purpose is to support or oppose political candidates or ballot initiatives. Traditional PACs are permitted to donate directly to a candidate’s official campaign, but they are also subject to contribution limits, both in terms of what they can receive from individuals and what they can give to candidates. For example, PACs are only permitted to contribute up to $5,000 per year to a candidate per election.

In the 2010 case Speechnow.org v. FEC, however, a federal appeals court ruled — applying logic from Citizens United — that outside groups could accept unlimited contributions from both individual donors and corporations as long as the groups don’t give directly to candidates. Labeled “super PACs,” these outside groups were still permitted to spend money on independently produced ads and on other communications that promote or attack specific candidates.

In other words, super PACs are not bound by spending limits on what they can collect or spend. Additionally, super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but those donors can include dark money groups, which make the original source of the donations unclear. And while super PACs are technically prohibited from working directly with candidates, weak rules that are supposed to enforce this separation have often proven ineffective.

For example, in the 2022 midterms, just 21 of the biggest donor families contributed $783 million and billionaires provided 15 percent of all federal election financing — most of which went to super PACs supporting congressional campaigns. These donors easily outspent the total given by the millions of small donors giving to House and Senate candidates that cycle.

Citizens United allowed big political spenders to exploit the growing lack of transparency in political spending. This has contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups in federal elections. Dark money expenditures increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in the 2024 presidential elections alone.

Over the long-term, Citizens United would have to be overturned by a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there are policies that can combat the dominance of big money in politics and the lack of transparency.

At a minimum, it is critical to ensure that all large campaign donors are disclosed. Strong disclosure laws, like the one enacted in Washington, require groups spending significant sums on election activity to report their largest donors. Separately, lawmakers and regulators should pass stricter rules to prevent super PACs and other outside groups that can raise unlimited money from coordinating directly with candidates and parties. Existing laws also need to be fully enforced, which has been a longstanding challenge at the federal level thanks to dysfunction at the Federal Election Commission.

Further, candidates can be offered alternative means to fund their campaigns without relying on big donors and super PACs. The most effective way to do that is public campaign financing, specifically small donor matching, in which small private contributions are amplified using public funds. Fourteen states and dozens of large cities and counties have enacted some form of public financing, with other localities actively considering it. Such a system recently went into effect in New York State and candidates have widely adopted it, allowing them to raise far more in small donations from their own constituents.

Notably, overwhelming majorities of Americans across party lines have consistently expressed disapproval of Citizens United. At least 22 states and hundreds of cities have already voted to support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. And national polls routinely show that reducing the influence of money in politics is a top policy priority for Americans, a finding consistent across demographics including race, age, and political party affiliation.

The Saver's Credit can be used by low- and moderate-income individuals and families to reduce their tax bills.

The Saver's Credit is applied directly to your tax bill to reduce the amount of federal income tax you owe. For instance, if your tax bill is $1,000 and your credit is $400, you'd only owe $600. If your tax bill is $1,000 and your credit is $1,000, it's a wash. You'd owe nothing.

To qualify, you must be 18 or older, not a full-time student, and not claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return. Then you have to meet the AGI requirements. AGI is your gross income minus adjustments such as deductible retirement contributions, self-employment taxes, educator expenses, and student loan interest.

Of course, the final qualification is that you make a contribution to a retirement account. It's important to note that rollover contributions do not qualify for the credit, and eligible contributions may be reduced by recent retirement account distributions. Contributions to a wide range of retirement accounts qualify for this credit, including:

Traditional IRA
Roth IRA
Traditional 401(k)
Roth 401(k)
403(b)
457 plan
SARSEP
SEP IRA
SIMPLE IRA
Thrift Savings Plan
ABLE account

What is the Saver's Match, and how is it different from the Saver's Credit?

Beginning in tax year 2027, the Saver's Credit for retirement contributions will be replaced by the Saver's Match. While both incentives are designed to encourage lower‑ and moderate‑income workers to save for retirement, they work in different ways.

The Saver's Credit is a nonrefundable tax credit that reduces the amount of federal income tax you owe. By contrast, the Saver's Match provides a government matching contribution—worth up to 50% of the first $2,000 ($4,000 per person for joint filers) you contribute each year—that is deposited directly into an eligible retirement account.

If it wasn't for the tariffs, would Colossus be solar-powered? It would be much easier to make it solar powered, yeah. The tariffs are nuts, several hundred percent. Don't you know some people? The president has... we don't agree on everything and this administration is not the biggest fan of solar. We also need the land, the permits, and everything. So if you try to move very fast, I do think scaling solar on Earth is a good way to go, but you do need some amount of time to find the land, get the permits, get the solar, pair that with the batteries.

I just repeatedly tackle the limiting factor. Whatever the limiting factor is on speed, I'm going to tackle that. If capital is the limiting factor,
20:52 20 minutes, 52 seconds then I'll solve for capital. If it's not the limiting factor, I'll solve for something else.

If it wasn't for the tariffs, would Colossus be solar-powered? It would be much easier to make it solar powered, yeah. The tariffs are nuts, several hundred percent. Don't you know some people? The president has... we don't agree on everything and this administration is not the biggest fan of solar.

Total effective tax rates (includes all taxes: federal+state income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc) for the richest Americans declined by 2018 to a level beneath that of the bottom 50% of earners,[18] contributing to wealth inequality. Analysis by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States federal payroll (or employment) tax payable by both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare[1]—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and children of deceased workers.

Since 1990, the employee's share of the Social Security portion of the FICA tax has been 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit that adjusts with inflation.[a][9] The taxation limit in 2020 was $137,700 of gross compensation, resulting in a maximum Social Security tax for 2020 of $8,537.40.[7] This limit, known as the Social Security Wage Base, goes up each year based on average national wages and, in general, at a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The employee's share of the Medicare portion of the tax is 1.45% of wages, with no limit on the amount of wages subject to the Medicare portion of the tax.

So personal income tax in the US is ~30% for most of us (ranging from ~10%-37%), compared to Social Security's ~6.2% Medicare is 1.45% (or 12.4% + 2.9% if you count the employer portion). AND only the first ~$137K is taxable so our maximum tax amount to Social Security and Medicare is capped, while normal income tax that politicians can direct to anything from foreign wars to immigration enforcement to redistribution to different states or interest on debt driven by tax breaks to the rich that caused deficits.

About 55% less fentanyl was seized by September 2025 than by September 2024.

His proposed budget would redirect $569 million from the state’s quarterly auctions of pollution permits away from the environmental spending those funds have been dedicated to since the auctions began in 2023. That half-billion-plus dollars would be used to shield state refunds of sales taxes for lower-income taxpayers from the budget axe.

To date, the auction funds — paid by major polluters for the right to keep damaging the global climate with emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide — have gone mostly to expand clean energy use and to help 16 communities in Washington identified as being overburdened by air pollution.

The Climate Commitment Act, which created the state’s cap on carbon emissions and system of carbon auctions, specifies that the sales-tax refunds are an approved use of auction proceeds, though no auction proceeds have been used for tax rebates to date.

Rooftop solar has helped some tribal citizens lower their monthly energy bills from $160 to $10, as well as avoid blackouts.

Fossil-fuel combustion is the primary cause of the planet's rapidly heating climate.

The governor's proposed 9.9% tax on income over $1 million (revenues starting 2029) is the most contentious part of the plan.

In March 2024, the Washington State Legislature adopted Initiative 2111 to prohibit state and local personal income taxes. The measure passed with support from all Republicans and a majority of Democrats in both chambers. A 9.9% tax on personal earnings conflicts with this law. The administration hasn't explained how this complies with I-2111's prohibition.

This would be Washington's 12th income tax attempt since 1932—voters rejected it 11 times. By asking approval for a millionaire-only tax, the administration establishes a graduated framework that would only need legislative modification afterward, not further voter approval.

We strongly oppose an income tax but appreciate Gov. Ferguson's promise to let voters decide. He proposes a constitutional amendment limiting it to income over $1 million, yet his proposal ignores existing constitutional limits. If adopted, this income tax will certainly expand in the future.

The budget shifts $569 million in Climate Commitment Act (CCA) revenue to fund the Working Families Tax Credit. The CCA's original allocation was meant for carbon reduction and infrastructure projects but will now go toward direct cash assistance for lower-income households.

Using rules that exempt certain bills from the filibuster, Congress passed (and President Trump signed into law) the 330-page "reconciliation" bill which included tax breaks adding $500 billion to the deficit; new limits on Medicaid, SNAP, federal student loads, and green energy; and $171 billion for immigration enforcement, making ICE the largest law enforcement agency in the United States.

Those were perhaps the most controversial bills ever enacted, with senators voting yes on the reconciliation bill representing just 44% of the country's population. I don't think that's ever happened before and really captures the political climate. (For comparison, the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, passed the Senate with the yea votes representing 62% of the country’s population.)

Trump’s higher tariffs are certainly raising money. They’ve raked in more than $236 billion this year through November — much more than in years past. But they still account for just a fraction of the federal government’s total revenue. And they haven’t raised nearly enough to justify the president’s claim that tariff revenue could replace federal income taxes — or allow for windfall dividend checks for Americans.

The U.S. trade deficit, meanwhile, has fallen significantly since the start of the year. The trade gap peaked to a monthly record of $136.4 billion in March, as consumers and businesses hurried to import foreign products before Trump could impose his tariffs on them. The trade gap narrowed to $52.8 billion in September, the latest month for which data is available.

HENRY GRABAR: Parking is the largest single land use in many American cities. If we were designing society from scratch, would we have placed car storage on the pedestal that it now occupies?

You know, one of the things that immediately jumped off the page for me when I was reading your book is the fact that, by square footage, there is more housing for each car in this country than there is housing for each person. And on its face, I have to say that statement feels incredibly problematic, but is it?

GRABAR: I don't think it's that surprising when you start to think about it. I mean, there are more - we build more three-car garages in this country than we build one-bedroom apartments. Almost every jurisdiction in this country requires parking as a part of every single building type, whether you're building a school, an apartment building or an office or a restaurant, the law requires a certain number of parking spaces. So we have parking minimums in every jurisdiction in this country, whereas for housing, we often have maximums. We say, on this plot, you can only put one unit of housing. You can only put two units of housing. So the fact that we've ended up with a surplus of parking and a shortage of housing is no surprise. In fact, it's by design.

Healthcare spending is driven by utilization (the number of services used) and price (the amount charged per service). An increase in either of those factors can result in higher healthcare costs. Despite spending nearly twice as much on healthcare per capita, utilization rates for many services in the United States is lower than other wealthy OECD countries. Prices, therefore, appear to be the main driver of the cost difference between the United States and other wealthy countries.

The U.S. spends twice as much as comparable countries do on health, driven mostly by higher payments to hospitals and physicians.

"Private insurance companies in this country spend between 12 and 18 percent on administration costs," Sanders said on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sept. 17. "The cost of administering the Medicare program, a very popular program that works well for our seniors, is 2 percent. We can save approximately $500 billion a year just in administration costs."

Is the gap between private and public health insurance providers’ administrative costs really that high? Most experts agreed the numbers looked about right. But because of key differences between Medicare and private insurance, the trade-off isn’t as simple as Sanders suggests.

If "the numbers looked about right", then why is it "half truth"?

Experts told us we could safely assume private insurance costs, on the other hand, are much higher, though actual spending estimates vary.

Aah... So it's a "half truth" because Bernie understated how much cheaper medicare is than private insurance companies.

Historically, administrative expenses were much higher in the commercial market because insurers did a lot of underwriting, or using the health status of individuals or groups to determine their premiums. The Affordable Care Act was designed to curb that spending.

On top of that, experts explained that unlike Medicare, private insurers take on more responsibility than simply paying claims or occasionally going after fraud. Before a claim is even filed, they check its appropriateness, assess whether it is medically necessary, and whether it can be done in a cheaper way (outpatient versus inpatient care, for example).

"Medicare has been trying in fits and starts to look a little more closely at how it pays claims but generally speaking, it is passive in processing claims," Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

And private companies, deny more claims, which makes it more expensive.

Health expenditures per person in the U.S. were $13,432 in 2023, which was over $3,700 more than any other high-income nation.

Yet today it often seems like every project — big or small — gets mired in a slog of reviews, permits and delays. This saps our innovative spirit, reduces citizens’ trust that government can get things done and ultimately slows our progress as a nation.