Which organizations or think tanks have commissioned fiscal impact studies on Zohran Mamdani's tax proposals?

1. Who’s claiming to have studied Mamdani’s tax pitch — and what do they say?

The most direct fiscal analysis attributed to an independent organization in the supplied material comes from the Empire Center for Public Policy, which quantified that proposals to raise the city income tax and corporate tax rates could produce roughly $9 billion per year while warning of potential tax flight and noting that the top 1 percent paid 40 percent of the city income tax in 2022 ^[1]. The Cato Institute provided a fiscal critique arguing that Mamdani’s revenue math was flawed, specifically questioning the assumption that raising the corporate tax rate would realize a $5 billion boost because marginal vs. average tax rate differences reduce expected collections ^[2]. Progressive-leaning research such as the Fiscal Policy Institute and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy are cited by commentators as offering counter-evidence that tax increases do not necessarily trigger out-migration of wealthy taxpayers, framing mobility evidence differently than conservative analysts ^[4]. These materials show a contrast between conservative-leaning fiscal warnings and progressive analyses minimizing tax migration impacts, rather than a set of uniformly commissioned, peer-reviewed fiscal impact papers focused explicitly on Mamdani.

2. Where coalitions and polls fit into the picture — research or advocacy?

Coalitions including Invest in Our New York and People’s Action Institute commissioned a Siena College poll to measure public attitudes about taxing the wealthy; this is research tied to the political feasibility of taxing the rich but is not a line-by-line revenue projection of Mamdani’s exact policy package ^[3]. The distinction matters: polling gauges public support and political calculations, whereas a fiscal impact study would model revenue elasticities, behavioral responses, and distributional effects. The supplied record shows coalition-backed research informing strategy and messaging rather than producing an independent, technical revenue-score of Mamdani’s plan. Advocacy groups and union allies that endorse the plan are mentioned as supporting the concept and possible uses of revenue for childcare and transit investments, but their involvement does not substitute for an impartial, commissioned fiscal model ^[5].

3. Media fact checks and summaries — reporting without commission declarations

Fact-checking outlets and broad media accounts such as Factually, Bloomberg, CNN, and City & State NY have summarized Mamdani’s proposals and the debate around them, yet these reports typically cite analysts and think-tank commentary rather than commissioning original fiscal impact studies ^{[6] [7]}. The available fact-check material notes that outlets compiled estimates and critiques, but explicit commissioning of technical fiscal studies—for example, an independent score from a nonpartisan fiscal office or a contracted microsimulation model—is not documented in the materials provided. This pattern implies that public knowledge relies on think-tank commentary and journalistic synthesis, leaving a gap where a single, authoritative, commissioned fiscal impact assessment might otherwise sit.

4. Differing methodologies and the crux of disagreement

Analysts diverge primarily on behavioral assumptions and revenue elasticity. The Empire Center and Cato stress potential economic distortion and tax flight, arguing revenue projections should be discounted for avoidance and migration effects ^{[1] [2]}. Progressive researchers like the Fiscal Policy Institute and ITEP focus on historical evidence that wealthy taxpayers do not respond to tax changes primarily by relocating, suggesting that projected revenues could be more realized than conservative models assume ^[4]. The disagreement is methodological: conservative models apply larger behavioral offsets, while progressive models apply smaller ones and emphasize reinvestment effects. The supplied sources show this methodological split but do not present a neutral, jointly commissioned model applying agreed assumptions to Mamdani’s specific rates.

5. What’s missing and why it matters for policy debates

The supplied materials reveal no widely publicized, independent fiscal impact study explicitly commissioned to score Mamdani’s complete package in a way that both sides accept. Absent such a study, debates rely on think-tank commentary, coalition polling, and media summaries—each with identifiable perspectives and possible agendas: conservative think tanks highlight economic risks and revenue overestimation ^{[1] [2]}, while progressive groups stress redistribution benefits and question the migration narrative ^{[4] [5]}. For policymakers, the lack of a single transparent fiscal score means negotiations hinge on contested assumptions about mobility, corporate incidence, and macroeconomic feedback, underscoring the utility of a neutral, technical fiscal scoring whether from a nonpartisan state or city fiscal office or jointly commissioned academic model.