My attitude towards "housing crisis" issues currently plaguing a lot of American cities is that this needs to be a "yes and" solution rather than "either or." It's not "either public housing or private development," it's "yes public housing AND more private development." The supply is too low, so increase the supply. Squabbling over exactly how you do it is a great pathway to not doing it.dajo9 said:You can see that the right has nothing to offer on housing from the contradictions in tequila's response.sycasey said:Some of Mamdani's rhetoric indicates that he's open to other ways of increasing supply beyond just state-owned stuff. If he wins we'll have to see what that would look like. I'm not sure that "public option" stuff has to fail, but it can't be the only thing you do.tequila4kapp said:
Right. But with experience and time we have the ability to see that rent control and public housing do not work. We are basically repeating the public housing approach of the 60s and 70s with the homeless and it is failing again.
We need more supply. We need more market based approaches. Eliminate interest rate deductions for non-primary residences. Have a creative approach to taxing rental income above a certain threshold, perhaps a factor of the home's value.
Government programs certainly play a role too but they should be focused on empowering and enabling individual (eg more HUD Section 8 funding), not on manipulating the market artificially/arbitrarily, and not repeating approaches we know have failed in the past.
"We need more supply" is contradictory to "taxing rental income above a certain threshold". Outsized rental income generates supply. Without one you limit the other - that is the market solution. But it fails because the market is incentivized to build higher end properties and not low income housing, particularly in high density areas like New York.
He also says that public housing did not work but it actually did work. The reduction of public housing is part of why the homeless problem has gotten so bad and supply is so low. The housing market was far more functional in the 60s and 70s than today. The problem with public housing from the 70s was lack of adequate investment in existing units which were eventually shut down. Another case of the right creates a problem and then tells us we can't solve the problem.
Stricter rent control (a temporary freeze) combined with more public housing is exactly what New York needs right now. Keep building public housing until the rent increases moderate on their own from supply and demand. The current market based system is broken.
New York City race for Mayor
14,213 Views |
231 Replies |
Last: 23 min ago by tequila4kapp
Mamdani came out of nowhere, you'd think this guy has decades of experience with his policies but instead all you have is hollow rhetoric of what he'll do and no backing of proven results.This guy is a massive grifter trying to pawn socialism/communism on a public who are unhappy about their current circumstances. We know how it will end, it's just a matter of how long before it happens.
My first year in NYC was in 1984.
I lived in Battery Park City when nobody lived down there.
I had a one-bedroom in the Gateway Plaza Apartment complex in a 35 story tower with doorman.
Rent was $875 per month and I walked across the street to the WTC to go to work.
We had a "Red Apple" grocery store aka the "Rotten" Apple
For my initial years there I rarely ventured north of SoHo.
When I moved out at the end of 1991 the rent was $1200 and about to rise another 4%.
That same 800 sq. ft. apartment now goes for $5400.
I found a dumpy one bedroom in a rundown brownstone on West 87th street a block from Central Park.
A much longer commute, but I needed a change and the Upper West Side was the answer.
Was paying $800 a month (rent controlled) from a friend and another $300 a month
to park a few blocks away in a parking garage.
Interestingly enough, I was waking up every morning to risk my own capital and then pay the Govt nearly 50% of my profits in taxes.
For those that don't know, NYC has an income tax.
The tax rates are 3.078%, 3.76%, 3.819%, and 3.87% depending on your tax bracket.
Throw in the NY State income tax and your cumulative income tax burden for a NYC resident is between 7.078% and 14.776%
Most believe that marginal increases in income tax rates never wind-up pushing the RICH out of NYC.
But if Mamdani becomes Mayor, it will be interesting to monitor where that "tipping" point could eventually be.
I lived in Battery Park City when nobody lived down there.
I had a one-bedroom in the Gateway Plaza Apartment complex in a 35 story tower with doorman.
Rent was $875 per month and I walked across the street to the WTC to go to work.
We had a "Red Apple" grocery store aka the "Rotten" Apple
For my initial years there I rarely ventured north of SoHo.
When I moved out at the end of 1991 the rent was $1200 and about to rise another 4%.
That same 800 sq. ft. apartment now goes for $5400.
I found a dumpy one bedroom in a rundown brownstone on West 87th street a block from Central Park.
A much longer commute, but I needed a change and the Upper West Side was the answer.
Was paying $800 a month (rent controlled) from a friend and another $300 a month
to park a few blocks away in a parking garage.
Interestingly enough, I was waking up every morning to risk my own capital and then pay the Govt nearly 50% of my profits in taxes.
For those that don't know, NYC has an income tax.
The tax rates are 3.078%, 3.76%, 3.819%, and 3.87% depending on your tax bracket.
Throw in the NY State income tax and your cumulative income tax burden for a NYC resident is between 7.078% and 14.776%
Most believe that marginal increases in income tax rates never wind-up pushing the RICH out of NYC.
But if Mamdani becomes Mayor, it will be interesting to monitor where that "tipping" point could eventually be.
I believe in the same "yes and" approach. Private developers can continue to build luxury skyscrapers like this one that was completed in 2020 and includes this $250,000,000 penthouse.sycasey said:My attitude towards "housing crisis" issues currently plaguing a lot of American cities is that this needs to be a "yes and" solution rather than "either or." It's not "either public housing or private development," it's "yes public housing AND more private development." The supply is too low, so increase the supply. Squabbling over exactly how you do it is a great pathway to not doing it.dajo9 said:You can see that the right has nothing to offer on housing from the contradictions in tequila's response.sycasey said:Some of Mamdani's rhetoric indicates that he's open to other ways of increasing supply beyond just state-owned stuff. If he wins we'll have to see what that would look like. I'm not sure that "public option" stuff has to fail, but it can't be the only thing you do.tequila4kapp said:
Right. But with experience and time we have the ability to see that rent control and public housing do not work. We are basically repeating the public housing approach of the 60s and 70s with the homeless and it is failing again.
We need more supply. We need more market based approaches. Eliminate interest rate deductions for non-primary residences. Have a creative approach to taxing rental income above a certain threshold, perhaps a factor of the home's value.
Government programs certainly play a role too but they should be focused on empowering and enabling individual (eg more HUD Section 8 funding), not on manipulating the market artificially/arbitrarily, and not repeating approaches we know have failed in the past.
"We need more supply" is contradictory to "taxing rental income above a certain threshold". Outsized rental income generates supply. Without one you limit the other - that is the market solution. But it fails because the market is incentivized to build higher end properties and not low income housing, particularly in high density areas like New York.
He also says that public housing did not work but it actually did work. The reduction of public housing is part of why the homeless problem has gotten so bad and supply is so low. The housing market was far more functional in the 60s and 70s than today. The problem with public housing from the 70s was lack of adequate investment in existing units which were eventually shut down. Another case of the right creates a problem and then tells us we can't solve the problem.
Stricter rent control (a temporary freeze) combined with more public housing is exactly what New York needs right now. Keep building public housing until the rent increases moderate on their own from supply and demand. The current market based system is broken.
DiabloWags said:
My first year in NYC was in 1984.
I lived in Battery Park City when nobody lived down there.
I had a one-bedroom in the Gateway Plaza Apartment complex in a 35 story tower with doorman.
Rent was $875 per month and I walked across the street to the WTC to go to work.
We had a "Red Apple" grocery store aka the "Rotten" Apple
For my initial years there I rarely ventured north of SoHo.
When I moved out at the end of 1991 the rent was $1200 and about to rise another 4%.
That same 800 sq. ft. apartment now goes for $5400.
I found a dumpy one bedroom in a rundown brownstone on West 87th street a block from Central Park.
A much longer commute, but I needed a change and the Upper West Side was the answer.
Was paying $800 a month (rent controlled) from a friend and another $300 a month
to park a few blocks away in a parking garage.
Did you eat/shop at Zabar's down the street?
Using 1991 tax brackets (married because it's more generous) and deductions for Federal, New York State, and New York City you've got the following effective tax rates:DiabloWags said:
Interestingly enough, I was waking up every morning to risk my own capital and then pay the Govt nearly 50% of my profits in taxes.
$30,126 income was the median household income in the United States
$136,500 income = 35% tax rate ($322,140 in today's dollars)
$340,000 income = 40% tax rate ($802,400 in today's dollars)
$10,000,000 income = 43.2% tax rate ($23,600,000 in today's dollars)
This is assuming all his income was "ordinary income". I'm no accountant but capital gains (he says he was investing his own money) I think would be lower. Also, I didn't add in payroll tax which was capped at $53,400 so that would bring the $340k scenario up about 1%.
People make fun of this stuff, but honestly if you get richer people wanting to buy into these kinds of units then it frees up other stuff to go cheaper.dajo9 said:I believe in the same "yes and" approach. Private developers can continue to build luxury skyscrapers like this one that was completed in 2020 and includes this $250,000,000 penthouse.sycasey said:My attitude towards "housing crisis" issues currently plaguing a lot of American cities is that this needs to be a "yes and" solution rather than "either or." It's not "either public housing or private development," it's "yes public housing AND more private development." The supply is too low, so increase the supply. Squabbling over exactly how you do it is a great pathway to not doing it.dajo9 said:You can see that the right has nothing to offer on housing from the contradictions in tequila's response.sycasey said:Some of Mamdani's rhetoric indicates that he's open to other ways of increasing supply beyond just state-owned stuff. If he wins we'll have to see what that would look like. I'm not sure that "public option" stuff has to fail, but it can't be the only thing you do.tequila4kapp said:
Right. But with experience and time we have the ability to see that rent control and public housing do not work. We are basically repeating the public housing approach of the 60s and 70s with the homeless and it is failing again.
We need more supply. We need more market based approaches. Eliminate interest rate deductions for non-primary residences. Have a creative approach to taxing rental income above a certain threshold, perhaps a factor of the home's value.
Government programs certainly play a role too but they should be focused on empowering and enabling individual (eg more HUD Section 8 funding), not on manipulating the market artificially/arbitrarily, and not repeating approaches we know have failed in the past.
"We need more supply" is contradictory to "taxing rental income above a certain threshold". Outsized rental income generates supply. Without one you limit the other - that is the market solution. But it fails because the market is incentivized to build higher end properties and not low income housing, particularly in high density areas like New York.
He also says that public housing did not work but it actually did work. The reduction of public housing is part of why the homeless problem has gotten so bad and supply is so low. The housing market was far more functional in the 60s and 70s than today. The problem with public housing from the 70s was lack of adequate investment in existing units which were eventually shut down. Another case of the right creates a problem and then tells us we can't solve the problem.
Stricter rent control (a temporary freeze) combined with more public housing is exactly what New York needs right now. Keep building public housing until the rent increases moderate on their own from supply and demand. The current market based system is broken.
Cal88 said:
Did you eat/shop at Zabar's down the street?
Yes, but I must admit that I ate most of my dinners at a little hamburger place.
Even saw Billie Jean King eating by herself there and reading a book.
She was pale white and rather "frumpy" looking.
You'd never had known that she was an athlete if you didn't know who she was.
Of course, this was 32 years ago and she was around age 50.
dajo9 said:
This is assuming all his income was "ordinary income". I'm no accountant but capital gains (he says he was investing his own money) I think would be lower. Also, I didn't add in payroll tax which was capped at $53,400 so that would bring the $340k scenario up about 1%.
In another "life", I was a floor trader in #4 WTC.
It was all short-term capital gains and thus "ordinary" income.
Your numbers sound about right.
sycasey said:People make fun of this stuff, but honestly if you get richer people wanting to buy into these kinds of units then it frees up other stuff to go cheaper.dajo9 said:I believe in the same "yes and" approach. Private developers can continue to build luxury skyscrapers like this one that was completed in 2020 and includes this $250,000,000 penthouse.sycasey said:My attitude towards "housing crisis" issues currently plaguing a lot of American cities is that this needs to be a "yes and" solution rather than "either or." It's not "either public housing or private development," it's "yes public housing AND more private development." The supply is too low, so increase the supply. Squabbling over exactly how you do it is a great pathway to not doing it.dajo9 said:You can see that the right has nothing to offer on housing from the contradictions in tequila's response.sycasey said:Some of Mamdani's rhetoric indicates that he's open to other ways of increasing supply beyond just state-owned stuff. If he wins we'll have to see what that would look like. I'm not sure that "public option" stuff has to fail, but it can't be the only thing you do.tequila4kapp said:
Right. But with experience and time we have the ability to see that rent control and public housing do not work. We are basically repeating the public housing approach of the 60s and 70s with the homeless and it is failing again.
We need more supply. We need more market based approaches. Eliminate interest rate deductions for non-primary residences. Have a creative approach to taxing rental income above a certain threshold, perhaps a factor of the home's value.
Government programs certainly play a role too but they should be focused on empowering and enabling individual (eg more HUD Section 8 funding), not on manipulating the market artificially/arbitrarily, and not repeating approaches we know have failed in the past.
"We need more supply" is contradictory to "taxing rental income above a certain threshold". Outsized rental income generates supply. Without one you limit the other - that is the market solution. But it fails because the market is incentivized to build higher end properties and not low income housing, particularly in high density areas like New York.
He also says that public housing did not work but it actually did work. The reduction of public housing is part of why the homeless problem has gotten so bad and supply is so low. The housing market was far more functional in the 60s and 70s than today. The problem with public housing from the 70s was lack of adequate investment in existing units which were eventually shut down. Another case of the right creates a problem and then tells us we can't solve the problem.
Stricter rent control (a temporary freeze) combined with more public housing is exactly what New York needs right now. Keep building public housing until the rent increases moderate on their own from supply and demand. The current market based system is broken.
Price negotiable? I've been looking for a really nice penthouse like that, but I absolutely can't go over $199,000,000.
Median Sales Prices in Manhattan.
Hudson Yards led the way as the priciest neighborhood, even though the median sale price dropped $645,000
Actual transactions for the quarter: 8
Top 50 Most Expensive NYC Neighborhoods Q1 2025 | PropertyShark
Hudson Yards led the way as the priciest neighborhood, even though the median sale price dropped $645,000
Actual transactions for the quarter: 8
Top 50 Most Expensive NYC Neighborhoods Q1 2025 | PropertyShark
DiabloWags said:
Median Sales Prices in Manhattan.
Hudson Yards led the way as the priciest neighborhood, even though the median sale price dropped $645,000
Actual transactions for the quarter: 8
Top 50 Most Expensive NYC Neighborhoods Q1 2025 | PropertyShark
Dinner at Peak is on my to do list
Cal88 said:DiabloWags said:
My first year in NYC was in 1984.
I lived in Battery Park City when nobody lived down there.
I had a one-bedroom in the Gateway Plaza Apartment complex in a 35 story tower with doorman.
Rent was $875 per month and I walked across the street to the WTC to go to work.
We had a "Red Apple" grocery store aka the "Rotten" Apple
For my initial years there I rarely ventured north of SoHo.
When I moved out at the end of 1991 the rent was $1200 and about to rise another 4%.
That same 800 sq. ft. apartment now goes for $5400.
I found a dumpy one bedroom in a rundown brownstone on West 87th street a block from Central Park.
A much longer commute, but I needed a change and the Upper West Side was the answer.
Was paying $800 a month (rent controlled) from a friend and another $300 a month
to park a few blocks away in a parking garage.
Did you eat/shop at Zabar's down the street?
Still going, great place!
dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
Median Sales Prices in Manhattan.
Hudson Yards led the way as the priciest neighborhood, even though the median sale price dropped $645,000
Actual transactions for the quarter: 8
Top 50 Most Expensive NYC Neighborhoods Q1 2025 | PropertyShark
Dinner at Peak is on my to do list
Amazing!
Best Restaurants In NYC | Peak with Priceless NYC | Hudson Yards, NYC
Mamdani policies are wildly popular with the American people even if the young Muslim-American is not.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-zohran-mamdanis-policies-are-popular-with-americans-outside-new-york--even-if-mamdani-is-not-162406841.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-zohran-mamdanis-policies-are-popular-with-americans-outside-new-york--even-if-mamdani-is-not-162406841.html
DiabloWags said:Cal88 said:
Did you eat/shop at Zabar's down the street?
Yes, but I must admit that I ate most of my dinners at a little hamburger place.
Even saw Billie Jean King eating by herself there and reading a book.
She was pale white and rather "frumpy" looking.
You'd never had known that she was an athlete if you didn't know who she was.
Of course, this was 32 years ago and she was around age 50.
I like the Corner Bistro for burgers, in the Village, great spot for a late night dinner.
Left-populist messaging can work elsewhere, even if Mamdani specifically would not be the best messenger everywhere.dajo9 said:
Mamdani policies are wildly popular with the American people even if the young Muslim-American is not.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-zohran-mamdanis-policies-are-popular-with-americans-outside-new-york--even-if-mamdani-is-not-162406841.html
This is former DOJ prosecutor and Marine Veteran Ryan Crosswell, who resigned when Trump forced him to drop charges against Eric Adams. He's running against GOP Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, who won by 1 point in 2024.
— Protect Kamala Harris ✊ (@DisavowTrump20) July 8, 2025
RETWEET if you support @Ryan_Crosswell as he runs to flip the House! pic.twitter.com/sPWEMrnzkz
Good for him. That deal with Adams was disgusting.
Of course the Socialist messaging can be popular. Who doesn't like being told they can get everything for free, just have to tax the other guy more? The rubber meets the road on the execution of those policies.sycasey said:Left-populist messaging can work elsewhere, even if Mamdani specifically would not be the best messenger everywhere.dajo9 said:
Mamdani policies are wildly popular with the American people even if the young Muslim-American is not.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-zohran-mamdanis-policies-are-popular-with-americans-outside-new-york--even-if-mamdani-is-not-162406841.html
DiabloWags said:
Cant wait to see this clown get elected and double-down on rent control.
Never mind that economists across nearly all political divides have said that rent control has destroyed every city it has touched.
Gotta seize "the means of production" cause you know REAL COMMUNISM has never been tried.
Nice job Democratic Party!
Signed,
Diablo Wags
NYC resident and taxpayer.
1984 - 1993
Hey VW, what gives w Berkeley housing? For decades the city couldn't get anything built, and the old units hadn't been updated since the 50s?
I read some cat "figured out" the city permit process, and they've added thousands of new units since. How? Do they figure students move every 1-2 years, and they get a better adjustment or back to market rate?
tequila4kapp said:
I agree that housing is a real problem. I do not believe rent control or government built 'affordable housing' is the answer.
I heard on a podcast that 500,000 people have subsidized housing in New York city?
I think you just described capitalism. The large corporations don't pay takes, only the middle class and poor!tequila4kapp said:Of course the Socialist messaging can be popular. Who doesn't like being told they can get everything for free, just have to tax the other guy more? The rubber meets the road on the execution of those policies.sycasey said:Left-populist messaging can work elsewhere, even if Mamdani specifically would not be the best messenger everywhere.dajo9 said:
Mamdani policies are wildly popular with the American people even if the young Muslim-American is not.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-zohran-mamdanis-policies-are-popular-with-americans-outside-new-york--even-if-mamdani-is-not-162406841.html
Late stage capitalism with regulatory capture, rent-seeking oligarchal plutocracy, leading to the current economic and social distortions.
Probably had problems bc he was a whiny beta male.
Zohran Mamdani whined about White women not being interested in him at college 😂 pic.twitter.com/sEkBZLcy2q
— captive dreamer (@avaricum777) July 7, 2025
I know you incels have a different outlook on the world than most people, but where is Mamdani whining about white women not being interested in him in that passage?movielover said:
Probably had problems bc he was a whiny beta male.Zohran Mamdani whined about White women not being interested in him at college 😂 pic.twitter.com/sEkBZLcy2q
— captive dreamer (@avaricum777) July 7, 2025
It is clearly there. You just have to read it.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I know you incels have a different outlook on the world than most people, but where is Mamdani whining about white women not being interested in him in that passage?movielover said:
Probably had problems bc he was a whiny beta male.Zohran Mamdani whined about White women not being interested in him at college 😂 pic.twitter.com/sEkBZLcy2q
— captive dreamer (@avaricum777) July 7, 2025
I heard he ordered a whole wheat bagel with raisins. He's done
I know you have an action hero complex, but you don't have to step up to defend every indefensible statement movielover (or bear2034) makes.oski003 said:It is clearly there. You just have to read it.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I know you incels have a different outlook on the world than most people, but where is Mamdani whining about white women not being interested in him in that passage?movielover said:
Probably had problems bc he was a whiny beta male.Zohran Mamdani whined about White women not being interested in him at college 😂 pic.twitter.com/sEkBZLcy2q
— captive dreamer (@avaricum777) July 7, 2025
Eastern Oregon Bear said:I know you have an action hero complex, but you don't have to step up to defend every indefensible statement movielover (or bear2034) makes.oski003 said:It is clearly there. You just have to read it.Eastern Oregon Bear said:I know you incels have a different outlook on the world than most people, but where is Mamdani whining about white women not being interested in him in that passage?movielover said:
Probably had problems bc he was a whiny beta male.Zohran Mamdani whined about White women not being interested in him at college 😂 pic.twitter.com/sEkBZLcy2q
— captive dreamer (@avaricum777) July 7, 2025
Read it before complaining that something is or isn't there. Thanks.
"radical, inexperienced and ideological."bear2034 said:To my American friends, you know how you (rightly) make fun of us for how bad London has become under Sadiq Khan?
— Konstantin Kisin (@KonstantinKisin) June 25, 2025
Well, Mamdani is way more radical, inexperienced and ideological.
Sounds like the Gropenfuhrer.
Mamdani is a dozen years younger than me, but I will say that I remember taking some social-science college courses as a freshman in my day, and one of the things that could help you get a decent grade on a paper was to talk about your own identity (race, gender, sexual orientation, being poor, whatever) and how you overcame whatever hardships they made for you. You wrote that down, passed the class and moved on.
That passage from Mamdani reads a lot like that to me.
That passage from Mamdani reads a lot like that to me.
He's a Socialist. There's enough meat on those bones alone that test scores, old tweets and boxes checked on college applications shouldn't be worth our time
I have come to expect this type of financial ignorance from you (from AI):calpoly said:I think you just described capitalism. The large corporations don't pay takes, only the middle class and poor!tequila4kapp said:Of course the Socialist messaging can be popular. Who doesn't like being told they can get everything for free, just have to tax the other guy more? The rubber meets the road on the execution of those policies.sycasey said:Left-populist messaging can work elsewhere, even if Mamdani specifically would not be the best messenger everywhere.dajo9 said:
Mamdani policies are wildly popular with the American people even if the young Muslim-American is not.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-zohran-mamdanis-policies-are-popular-with-americans-outside-new-york--even-if-mamdani-is-not-162406841.html
Overview of Income Tax Payers
Income taxes in the U.S. are paid by individuals and entities based on their earnings. The federal income tax system is progressive, meaning that higher earners pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes.
Who Pays the Most?
Income Brackets and Contributions
INCOME GROUP
AVERAGE TAX RATE
SHARE OF TOTAL INCOME TAXES PAIDTop 1%
26.1%
40.4%
Top 5%
23.1%
61.0%
Top 10%
21.1%
72.0%
Top 50%
15.9%
97.0%
Bottom 50%
3.7%
3.0%
- The top 5% of earners paid over $1.3 trillion in income taxes in 2022, accounting for about 61% of the total.The top 10% contributed approximately 72% of the total income tax revenue.
- The federal income tax system is designed to be progressive, meaning that as income increases, the tax rate also increases.
- The lowest-income earners often pay little to no federal income tax due to refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
In summary, the majority of federal income taxes are paid by high-income earners, while lower-income individuals often benefit from tax credits that reduce their tax burden significantly.
As noted by Governor Newsom, the CA income tax structure is even more progressive.
The reason the top 1% pay less than you might expect is because they don't generate much taxable income (their wealth is tied-up in appreciated assets that produce little or no income, such as stock), and also much of their taxable income to the extent it exists, tends towards capital gains that receive preferential tax rates.
So after hearing all the *****es about Trump giving corporations tax breaks, imagine the disconnect when yet another liberal arts idiot says corporations pay no taxes. Why do you guys care about tax breaks if corporations pay no taxes in any event? I suppose a Cal grad could see the logic problem?
Again per AI:
In 2024, the U.S. federal government collected approximately $489.6 billion from corporate income taxes. This amount represents about 9% of total federal revenue.
This doesn't include the property, state, payroll and other taxes corporation pay.
You seem like the perfect Mamdani voter. Stupid is as stupid does.
wifeisafurd said:I have come to expect this type of financial ignorance from you (from AI):calpoly said:I think you just described capitalism. The large corporations don't pay takes, only the middle class and poor!tequila4kapp said:Of course the Socialist messaging can be popular. Who doesn't like being told they can get everything for free, just have to tax the other guy more? The rubber meets the road on the execution of those policies.sycasey said:Left-populist messaging can work elsewhere, even if Mamdani specifically would not be the best messenger everywhere.dajo9 said:
Mamdani policies are wildly popular with the American people even if the young Muslim-American is not.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-zohran-mamdanis-policies-are-popular-with-americans-outside-new-york--even-if-mamdani-is-not-162406841.html
Overview of Income Tax Payers
Income taxes in the U.S. are paid by individuals and entities based on their earnings. The federal income tax system is progressive, meaning that higher earners pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes.
Who Pays the Most?
Income Brackets and Contributions
INCOME GROUP
AVERAGE TAX RATE
SHARE OF TOTAL INCOME TAXES PAIDTop 1%
26.1%
40.4%
Top 5%
23.1%
61.0%
Top 10%
21.1%
72.0%
Top 50%
15.9%
97.0%
Bottom 50%
3.7%
3.0%The top 5% of earners paid over $1.3 trillion in income taxes in 2022, accounting for about 61% of the total.The top 10% contributed approximately 72% of the total income tax revenue.
Tax System CharacteristicsConclusion
- The federal income tax system is designed to be progressive, meaning that as income increases, the tax rate also increases.
- The lowest-income earners often pay little to no federal income tax due to refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
In summary, the majority of federal income taxes are paid by high-income earners, while lower-income individuals often benefit from tax credits that reduce their tax burden significantly.
As noted by Governor Newsom, the CA income tax structure is even more progressive.
The reason the top 1% pay less than you might expect is because they don't generate much taxable income (their wealth is tied-up in appreciated assets that produce little or no income, such as stock), and also much of their taxable income to the extent it exists, tends towards capital gains that receive preferential tax rates.
So after hearing all the *****es about Trump giving corporations tax breaks, imagine the disconnect when yet another liberal arts idiot says corporations pay no taxes. Why do you guys care about tax breaks if corporations pay no taxes in any event? I suppose a Cal grad could see the logic problem?
Again per AI:
In 2024, the U.S. federal government collected approximately $489.6 billion from corporate income taxes. This amount represents about 9% of total federal revenue.
This doesn't include the property, state, payroll and other taxes corporation pay.
You seem like the perfect Mamdani voter. Stupid is as stupid does.
Two main problems with your analysis:
-Multinationals including GAFA and big oil use offshore schemes and loopholes put in place by regulatory capture to avoid taxes on their corporate incomes. That half a trillion total corporate income should be a lot higher.
Yes, confirmed via primary sources: Tesla paid $0 U.S. federal income tax on $2.3B income in 2024 due to deductions and losses. GE got a $423M refund on $7B profits in 2023 (2024 data similar per reports). Meta paid at 11.5% rate in 2023. FedEx, Nike, AirBnb, 3M often net $0…
— Grok (@grok) July 4, 2025
-The middle class has been largely shut out from the overall growth in income, which has gone to the top brackets the last several decades.
Featured Stories
See All
The Rodcast: Cal Crossover With Geoff McArthur
by Rod Benson
Cal To Play UCLA In Empire Classic
by Jim McGill
Cal QB Commit Nainoa Lopes Turning Heads
by Jim McGill
2024 Roster vs 2025 Roster - The Defense
by Bear Insider
A look at Cal's 2025 Opponents - 1st Half of the Schedule
by Bear Insider