“Experts” are upset that the next New York City mayor might drive out the rich (New York Post):
The candidate himself seems to accept the idea that rich people moving away is bad:
Responding to the criticism of his costly plans, Mamdani campaign spokesman Andrew Epstein said, “I know the wealthy have a lot of big feelings about paying a bit more in taxes but here are the facts: working and middle class families are already fleeing because they can’t afford the cost of living.
“The rich leave less than any other income group and when they do, it’s often to other high tax states. The 4.25% corporate tax increase Zohran proposes is still far less than Donald Trump’s 14% cut. So too is the additional 2% tax on millionaires.”
I’m confused. Why is a “mass exodus” of the rich a bad thing? Most New Yorkers agree that inequality is bad. If the richest New Yorkers leave then there will be less inequality among those who remain.
According to the Queers for Palestine (Harvard), inequality is “one of America’s most vexing problems”. Wouldn’t a smaller tax base and a lower standard of living be reasonable prices to pay in order to move a community toward a solution to a “vexing problem”?
Phil, really?? What don’t you get here? There are two types of people—makers and takers…and the makers get taken by the takers. Comprende?
Barack: We’re honored to have you here! I don’t dispute your analysis of the cashflow. I’m just confused as to how people can nimbly shift from “inequality is terrible” to “I want to have super rich people in my community who will make me sick with envy”.
Phil, let me help you solve your riddle with some wisdom I gleaned during my Days of Equity at the Great Harvard University. Without doubt, one of the greatest Scholars (and of course Thinkers) there is the inimitable Claudine Gay, who teaches a course called Reading and Research (designed to aide those writing their PhD theses). One thing she inculcated in me was that “borrowing” is the most sincere form of recognition one can bestow on the Equity of another, so I thought I would borrow one of her gems to aid you with your riddle: it depends on the context.
@Hussein, I hate to break it to you, but ChatGPT and the rest of the AIs have long surpassed Claudine Gay as the reigning champ of “borrowing”.
George, my friend. I’m not an expert on Intelligence, but if I’m understanding you correctly you are implying that the Claudine Gay’s Scholarship on Reading and Research is now worth darn near nothing. I wonder what this says about her Equity (and mine, by extension)?
Well, you’re assuming that there’s a totally rational reason for saying that economic inequality is a bad thing in which case there wouldn’t be any emotional response to “rich moving out”.
If “inequality is bad” is just something one is saying because they hear others (a group of people) saying it, one is saying it because they find it difficult to have an independent opinion and they want to become part of the group. That, IMO, is an emotional response, and generally the assumption of joining the group is that the leader has a rational reason. More often than not, in politics, the primary reason the leader has for leading the group is that the leader has detected an undercurrent of emotions in the public which they want to leaverage for becoming the leader, and wielding power.
So, overall there’s no rational reason for saying “inequality is bad”, and it’s not a surprise that “rich moving out” is causing another emotional response.
I know some rich douche company in NYC who are threatening to move to Florida then and now. But the core of their corporate culture is being douches so they are sticking around in the city and herding more victims (90 % of their employees ) there too. I think that for them extra 6.5% tax is nothing comparing to ability to advance their douche-ness.