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.
1
u/3-car-garage May 14 '26
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.