Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who is going to be taxed more under mumdani
Executive Summary
Zohran Mamdani’s tax proposals would primarily raise taxes on New Yorkers with annual incomes above $1 million and on a small subset of corporations, according to multiple analyses and reporting; the centerpiece is a proposed 2 percentage-point surtax on incomes over $1 million and a corporate tax increase intended to raise substantial revenue [1] [2] [3]. Analysts disagree sharply about how much revenue those measures would actually yield and who ultimately bears the burden: some estimates project near the campaign’s $9 billion goal while others say behavioral responses and rate-versus-base errors mean the rich, workers, shareholders, and consumers will share the cost in uncertain proportions [2] [4] [5].
1. Who’s in the crosshairs — Millionaires and a handful of corporations
Under Mamdani’s plan, the immediate targets are individual filers earning more than $1 million and roughly 1 percent of city businesses, with the millionaire surcharge designed as a 2 percent add-on and the corporate tax rate moved upward to capture extra revenue. Reporting notes that the millionaire tax would affect roughly the top 1 percent of filers in the city and that only about 1,000 of the city’s 250,000 businesses would face the proposed corporate rate changes, meaning the policy concentrates its nominal burden on a small, high-income slice of the population and a narrow set of businesses [1] [6]. Massachusetts’ 4 percent surtax example is cited as precedent showing concentrated collections from the very wealthy, with millionaires accounting for a large share of payments when a surtax is enforced [4].
2. Revenue math and sharp disagreements — $9 billion goal versus more modest estimates
Supporters point to state precedents and aggregated projections suggesting multibillion-dollar revenue potential, but careful critiques argue the $9 billion annual figure is optimistic and likely overstates revenue because it confuses marginal and average rates and underestimates behavioral responses. One analysis argues the corporate tax revenue projection is inflated and could fall from an estimated $5 billion to perhaps $2.6–$3.8 billion once realistic incidence and rate-base dynamics are counted, and places the millionaire surtax yield closer to $2.19 billion than the full $4 billion claimed [2]. Massachusetts’ experience—yielding $5.7 billion under a different surtax—shows surtaxes can produce substantial receipts, but transferability to New York City’s scale, taxpayer mobility, and combined federal-state-city interact differently [4].
3. Who actually bears the burden — beyond the headline target
Economic analyses make clear that statutory liability is not the same as economic incidence: shareholders, workers, and consumers are likely to bear at least part of any increased corporate or high-earner levies, through lower wages, reduced dividends, higher prices, or recession-linked economic effects. Critics stress that corporations can shift burdens via prices or relocation and that high earners may respond with avoidance, timing of income, or migration—reducing collections and shifting costs. Proponents argue concentrated tax bases can be enforced and that Massachusetts’ data shows sizable contributions from millionaires despite some departures, suggesting substantial direct collections are achievable [2] [4] [7].
4. Behavioral responses and political constraints — flight, avoidance, and Albany’s gatekeeping
Several observers warn of tax flight and legal or political barriers that could limit implementation and collections: wealthy residents and mobile businesses can respond to higher local rates by relocating, shifting income or reclassifying earnings, and the city cannot unilaterally impose many changes without state authorization, which Governor Kathy Hochul has signaled opposition to. Analysts highlight that even where surtaxes raise money, departures and restructuring reduce net gains and complicate forecasting; opponents use these mechanisms to argue the effective yield will be materially lower than proponents claim [6] [2]. Conversely, supporters point to historical examples where surtaxes held up despite grumbling and produced sustained revenues for targeted programs [4].
5. The tradeoffs for policy goals — funding services versus economic competitiveness
Mamdani frames the tax changes as funding rent freezes, universal childcare, free buses, and other services, estimated to cost $8–$11 billion annually; proponents argue taxing the wealthy and profitable firms funds equity-enhancing programs. Critics respond that heavy reliance on concentrated taxes risks undermining investment, reducing service quality, and shifting burdens onto non-target groups, with long-run competitiveness implications for the city’s economy. The debate reduces to a choice among distributional objectives, revenue realism, and tolerance for potential economic downsides—outcomes that hinge on precise design, enforcement, and how taxpayers actually respond [5] [3].