What analyses or fiscal impact studies exist on Zohran Mamdani’s tax proposals and who commissioned them?

1. A lone formal attack: Empire Center’s fiscal warning that grabbed headlines

The most specific fiscal analysis cited is a report produced by the Empire Center that models elements of Mamdani’s proposals and warns about a potential “millionaire exodus” and large revenue losses if top earners relocate. The Empire Center frames the proposals as a new wealth tax on households with over $1 million in income plus higher corporate levies and calculates illustrative taxpayer savings from moving to lower-tax states; it also quotes its analyst Bill Hammond on how further tax increases could reduce local tax bases ^[1]. That report is both the most direct fiscal critique and self-commissioned by the Empire Center, a free-market policy organization, which matters for interpreting its methodology and assumptions ^[1].

2. Academic-style pushback on revenue math: Bourne and Miller’s recalculation

A separate recent analysis by Ryan Bourne and Nathan Miller scrutinizes Mamdani’s revenue claims and finds the headline numbers optimistic. Their recalculation reduces expected corporate-tax revenue from a proposed 11.5 percent rate and trims projected receipts from a 2 percent surcharge on incomes over $1 million, arguing the realistic haul would be substantially less than the plan’s claims; they warn behavioral responses and narrow tax bases would depress collections ^[2]. This critique reads like a technical fiscal recalibration and underscores how revenue projections hinge on elasticities and taxable-income assumptions, but it reflects the authors’ analytical choices about who is affected and how mobility or avoidance would play out ^[2].

3. Partisan critiques and issue-framing: advocacy groups that oppose the hikes

Advocacy outlets such as Americans for Tax Reform have covered Mamdani’s proposals but stop short of offering independent fiscal scorekeeping; instead, they present political and economic critiques arguing the measures are distortionary and politically risky, drawing parallels to other states’ experiences ^[3]. These pieces emphasize policy risk and electoral feasibility rather than providing new revenue models. Their framing is useful for mapping opposition narratives, but because they do not supply independent modeling files or formal estimates, they cannot be treated as standalone fiscal-impact studies ^[3].

4. City-level reports and broader fiscal analyses that inform but don’t score Mamdani

City-produced and municipal-analytical documents, including the New York City Comptroller’s revenue brief and the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget forecasting documentation, provide context on tax structures and potential revenue levers without explicitly modeling Mamdani’s full proposal set ^{[4] [5]}. These reports offer benchmark methodologies and baseline estimates that any credible fiscal study would use — tax base definitions, forecasting approaches, and sensitivity analyses — but they do not appear to have been commissioned to evaluate Mamdani specifically, nor do they present a full fiscal score of his package in the provided materials ^{[4] [5]}.

5. The policy mix that lacks a neutral, comprehensive score

Taken together, the materials show detailed critiques and relevant municipal data but no single neutral, government-commissioned fiscal impact study that models Mamdani’s full set of proposals from first principles. Analysts have produced partial recalculations and oppositional reports: the Empire Center’s self-commissioned warning is the clearest named study; Bourne and Miller’s analysis provides finer-grained revenue skepticism; advocacy groups and municipal documents supply context and benchmarks but do not function as comprehensive, nonpartisan scorekeeping of the complete package ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. The absence of a scored legislative fiscal note or an independent, peer-reviewed modeling exercise is the key gap.

6. What to watch next and how to interpret these findings

Policymakers and journalists should treat the Empire Center’s and Bourne/Miller’s results as useful but partial inputs: they illuminate possible revenue ranges and behavioral risks but differ in underlying assumptions and commissioning entities, which shapes conclusions ^{[1] [2]}. For a definitive fiscal answer policymakers should seek a formal fiscal note from the City or State budget offices, or commission an independent, transparent model that publishes assumptions, microdata sources, and sensitivity tests; none of the provided sources indicate such a neutral, comprehensive study has been completed for Mamdani’s package yet ^{[5] [4]}.