Mamdani Seeks Upper-Crust Tax Hike Despite Slimmer Deficit, Albany Remains Unmoved

The city’s push to tax its wealthiest residents, despite an improving fiscal outlook, signals a growing divide over how New York funds its services—and who should pay.

Visitors to Albany’s Capitol last week might have wondered if New York City’s perennial budget drama had at last mellowed. Mayor Zohran Mamdani arrived for the annual “Tin Cup Day” hearings bearing unusual news: the city’s yawning deficit, previously pegged at a gargantuan $12bn, had shrunk to a somewhat less daunting $7bn. Revenue from Wall Street bonuses and a touch of bureaucratic thrift have stemmed the flood—at least for now. Yet, in a move as ideologically consistent as it is politically contested, the mayor announced his continued support for hiking income taxes on the city’s highest earners.

Plainly, Mr Mamdani’s message was double-edged. He blamed his predecessor, Eric Adams, and former governor Andrew Cuomo—a favourite foil in city-state relations—for the deficit, but he also credited notable improvements: $3bn more in revenue than expected, $1bn in administrative savings, and a billion from reserves. The Citizens Budget Commission, a hawkish fiscal watchdog, now finds itself in rare agreement with City Hall’s numbers. But even as the shortfall narrows, the mayor insists that new “dedicated recurring revenue” via tax increases remains the most responsible path forward.

The mayor’s proposal has landed in a capital wary of any rumblings about higher taxes. Governor Kathy Hochul, facing her own re-election race, has been less than buoyant in her response. While she has endorsed Mamdani, her aversion to raising state income taxes is well known. Instead, she touts a $1.7bn boost for child care in New York City and a promise to work with City Hall ahead of its February 17th preliminary budget deadline.

For New York, the city remains a fiscal engine—albeit one that creaks and sputters under perennial strain. The deficit, though reduced, is still considerable by any national city’s standards. Wall Street’s windfall may have given municipal finances a reprieve, but it is hardly the sort of stable underpinning on which to run the country’s most populous city. The mayor’s allies say a tax hike is a prudent hedge, shoring up vital services from policing to parks. Critics, well-versed in the city’s migration patterns, mutter that there is only so much “dedicated recurring revenue” one can squeeze from a highly mobile upper class.

This, in fact, is the core of New York’s dilemma: an outsized share of state revenues comes from the city, but much of the money does not return. Mamdani’s complaint—that New York is “a resource to be drained”—will resonate with many urbanites who have long felt that City Hall foots the bill for Albany’s largesse. His supporters argue that recurring tax increases are overdue, and point to the enduring appetite for services in a metropolis where expectations know few bounds. Yet the city’s critics within the state legislature, many from upstate or suburban districts, fret about the optics—even the soundness—of leaning harder on the golden goose.

The second-order implications are manifold and, typically for New York, shot through with contradictions. On one hand, recurring revenue could keep public transport rolling, libraries open, and affordable housing projects alive. On the other, tax increases portend risk: for every billionaire who stays, enough upper-middle earners who leave could erode the base. New Yorkers need no reminding that, after the pandemic, departures from the city hit modern records. The prospect of repeating such trends gives many policymakers pause, especially as budgets elsewhere grow lean.

Nationally, New York’s predicament is revealing. San Francisco and Chicago face similarly fraught fiscal outlooks, each wrestling with how to fund services as their own tax bases fluctuate. Globally, cities such as London and Paris have experimented with wealth taxes or special levies, often with results as tepid as the politics that birthed them. New York’s experiment, should it pass, will offer a case study for urban policymakers everywhere: How much can one city’s wealthy be taxed before they decamp to Miami or Greenwich?

Fiscal brinkmanship and the politics of plenty

In the meantime, the annual sparring over budgets and bailouts continues apace. The state’s $1.7bn promise for city child care may soften the roughest edges of the dispute, but it cannot paper over the deeper tension. Albany’s lawmakers, ever conscious of statewide optics, are reluctant to be seen as subsidizing, or worse, encouraging putatively “profligate” New York City spending. Yet the city’s unique concentration of high earners and high need means that its fiscal dilemmas are not easily replicated—or solved.

We remain sceptical that tax hikes alone can close structural budget gaps in a city so dependent on cyclical industries and so sensitive to sentiment among its economic elite. The mayor’s insistence on recurring revenue is understandable, even pragmatic by American municipal standards. But the persistently high cost of city living, the enduring appeal of lower-tax rivals, and the ease of telecommuting all impose hard constraints. If the city leans too hard on its wealthiest, the returns may dwindle—painfully and quickly.

Yet, the alternative—slashing services or hoping for another bull run—seems even less palatable. The city’s famously energetic population expects functioning schools, rapid transit, and a semblance of public order. The mayor is correct that New York cannot simply wish away a $7bn gap, nor solve it with another round of hard-to-repeat Wall Street luck. A credible mix of belt-tightening, targeted investment, and nuanced fiscal bargaining with Albany will likely be needed.

For now, New York’s leaders would do well to temper rhetoric with economic realism, and to recognize that fiscal sustainability in a global metropolis is a balancing act, not a zero-sum contest. The coming weeks will show whether such moderation is still possible in a city addicted to both bold ambition and perennial drama.

■