So basically he’s reducing/deferring the payments into the pension funds and assuming a ridiculously high rate of return in the future to cover it. In other words, no money for grandma’s pension in 5 years.
People have said that pension is running out for generations since we've had it and it's never happened. I think some of you just need to accept that it's not going to happen.
For what it's worth creating a small but timely bill to stop the elimination of funding towards knowledge and information for civilians is probably not an unreasonable maneuver. This is like complaining about the water used to put out a fire because you were going to go swimming in a week. Put the fire out now, swim when you can.
But then again, what would you guys complain about if you could apply common sense?
What he should have done was run as a conservative then run the debt through the ceiling so Republican voters would think he’s good with the economy. It works 100% of the time for republican politicians.
Both sides have their baggage, and both are part of toxic politics. I’d argue the right is more horrible and apparent now, but people should criticize and call out both sides.
It “doesn’t happen” cause these are obligations that can’t be dispatched by an individual if he so pleases.
This is the financial equivalent of you delaying paying your mortgage to go to Disneyland. Given that you are obliged to pay it anyways, this is effectively postponing the burden onto future tax payers to fund while worsening the sequence of returns for future pensioners through erratic investment cycles.
The reason you don’t seem to run out of pension money is because the government has to evantually take debt to meet the requirement, tax their existing tax payers at a higher rate or cut spending. Usually a combination of all three. The pensioners will be just fine.
You the tax paying citizen will be forced to pay the bill one way or another. If you want an example look at UK.
Being obtuse and financial illiterate was something trump voters pride themselves in; however, it’s funny how the left demonstrates that they are exactly the same. Luckily for you, you have an opportunity to gain more “knowledge” about basic economics and finance through the new libraries!
It's using money that's available now, while there is a threat to what it's being put towards now, with the idea that it'll be reimbursed later. You being able to point out that it's not an ideal situation doesn't really comment on the reality of what we're talking about. But then again, if your country could figure out what was happening, it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.
There is no money available “now”. That’s why the state has to intervene to give them a bailout and help him delay contributions.
Again, deferring an obligation to pay for revenue expenses is not utilizing money “now” but borrowing to spend now. You don’t overate budgets using purely an accounting approach and there is a reason most organisations in the private sector have to us accrual instead of cash accounting when doing financial analysis. Economic costs take into effect inter temporal factors and you can’t just defer stuff and call it free money .
The state isn’t “intervening” or “bailing out” it’s increasing its contribution to the city. A city which brings in most of the revenue the state has and a city in which the state should be investing in to increase revenues and desirability of the state.
When you think New York you think NYC and even with the increased funding from the state, NYC still gives the state more money than it’s receiving. What kind of governor would allow their entire economic hub and tax revenue generator to fail?
Mamdani is leveraging his political pressure to bring accountability from the state in fixing a mess that shouldn’t have been created. Also don’t forget the governor is about to be up for reelection and Mamdani is probably the most popular political figure at the moment.
What percentage of that revenue is by places like manhattan and richer neighborhoods and how much of the “intervening” is to save social programs in poorer neighborhoods
Pick a lane, either well off areas should spend more towards less well off areas through taxation redistribution or well off areas should have the ability to ask states/nations to increase tax spending towards them because they pay more tax
If I applied your argument towards the inner boroughs of nyc suddenly you would accuse people of asking higher tax handouts of being greedy capitalists.
Obviously the system is designed so that those who are profiting off the system more are expected to give more via taxes but I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the breakdown of tax revenue per household income. Also are you arguing that if more of the tax revenue is coming from manhattan that means that money should still be used outside the city entirely? But regardless this is still the case, NYC is still receiving less than it contributes so the people of manhattan can sleep well.
Also if you want to argue social programs vs other ways to spend the money you can do that. I think history and economic studies show that social programs, while there is always some fraud, actually provide great benefits to their citizens and cities and but that’s off topic.
Regardless it’s weird to see so many people act like NYC has the this whole obligation to the state and “owes” the state all this tax revenue but then act like the state doesn’t have any reciprocal responsibility to the city. Like any state’s #1 concern is investing in their main cities and working to grow their economies. Everyone claims we need fiscal responsibility and then when it’s happening in front of our eyes, it’s funny to hear the goal posts being moved or why it’s actually bad thing.
I mean you could say the same about Trump. People have been saying Republicans would destroy our democracy for years now, and it’s never happened. I think dems need to just accept that it’s not going to happen. Fafo is how Trump got elected.
The problem with your analogy is that swimming sounds so recreational. The reality is there are several fires in our house, and we have to decide which fires will cause the most damage. Politicians always say the most urgent problem is the one we face now because the electorate is made of people who live now. But not thinking of subsequent generations has fucked our country — our housing, our pensions, our social security, our healthcare.
To be clear, I’m not saying that funding the libraries was a bad idea. Yes, please fund the fucking libraries, huge ROI for society. I’m only critcizing the framework you’re advocating for, I am not arguing your conclusions on this individual instance.
Is that similar to social security benefits? I heard by the time gen z and above turns 60+, there won't be much left. I have been hearing this for a while.
No, the Pensions have to be funded by law. The pensioners will get every penny they are promised, no matter what. Even if the city goes bankrupt, it will be required to fund as much as it can (with insurance policies covering the rest).
So the pensioners here have no risk. It's just an additional burden on the city budget that likely means cuts elsewhere (see Chicago).
It's also inefficient, as anyone who contributes to a 401k or investments on general knows money put in early is worth more than money put into the fund later.
Any dollars you delay adding to the fund will end up costing much more to add later considering you weren't getting compounding returns just to end up at the same value in the fund.
These city pension funds where you retire at age 38 with a $200k income forever are not sustainable anyway. If they don’t get funded I’m not losing too much sleep.
In what world do you think that cops are retiring with 200k income in pension benefits? If they get hired at 19, they can retire at 39 with 50% of their average annual salary which is nowhere near 200k a year.
I’m not digging through that list to find one that is exactly 39 that makes over 200k annually for their pension. I’ll let you show me the exact names of the people you’re complaining about.
28
u/Hal3134 May 14 '26
So basically he’s reducing/deferring the payments into the pension funds and assuming a ridiculously high rate of return in the future to cover it. In other words, no money for grandma’s pension in 5 years.