Not The Onion

21523 readers

1597 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

406

Mamdani's New York is coming to tax your private jet. (fortune.com)

submitted 15 hours ago by Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/47052375

To understand how a New York City private jet tax could actually be implemented, you need to understand who controls the airports.

The Port Authority is a bi-state agency jointly controlled by the governors of New York and New Jersey with an annual operating budget of $10.1 billion and a proposed $45 billion capital plan from 2026 – 2035. It operates JFK, LaGuardia, Newark Liberty, and Teterboro — all rated high tax-risk under current political conditions. Teterboro Airport, which does not allow scheduled airline flights and only services private flights, handles approximately 177,000 arrivals and departures annually.

Westchester County Airport (HPN) is not a Port Authority facility. It is owned and operated by Westchester County — outside Mamdani’s direct political sphere and outside the joint gubernatorial control structure of the Port Authority. This makes it the most insulated major reliever airport in the New York metro under current political conditions.

Republic Airport (FRG) on Long Island is New York State property — its vulnerability depends on whether Governor Hochul aligns with Mamdani’s agenda, which remains an open question.

Key policy context: The Port Authority has the authority to set fees, surcharges, and access terms at its facilities without requiring standard legislative processes in many scenarios. The question isn’t just whether a tax gets proposed — it’s whether the mechanism to implement it already exists. In many cases, it does.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 65 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

I saw a Fox News talking head arguing with Ro Khanna the other day, and she attacked Mamdani by saying the top 1% already pay 45% of the city's tax revenues. Bitch, the top 1% controls 90% of the wealth.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Sounds completely straightforward that if you own 90% of the wealth, you pay 90% of the tax. And they'll fight you till the bitter end to convince everybody otherwise.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 10 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I've got a proposal: flat tax + UBI.

Flat tax, everybody everywhere pays the same tax rate on ALL THE THINGS every time. Simple as imaginable, one tax rate collected on every transaction. One tax rate collected on every holding. All this "tax rebate incentive" legislation? Call it what it is: incentive legislation. Keep the incentives, but structure them equally for all people, not just as tax dodges for people who pay a lot of taxes.

UBI, all citizens, regardless of needs, income or any other criteria - are you alive? are you a citizen? You get the same UBI as every other citizen. But the rich don't need UBI - no they don't, and they pay plenty of taxes, they still get UBI too - if they don't like it, they can donate it to charity - not for a tax break - but because it feels good.

Own 90% of the wealth? Pay 90% of the taxes, that's how it works. You get the same UBI as everybody else.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Flat tax rates are furthering inequality, because poor people have to use up a far larger percentage of their disposable income on necessities, effectively paying way more taxes. All the while, rich people can save much more.

[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

The funny thing with financial aid is that it is possible to spend more money figuring out who isn't eligible than it would cost to just give it to more people

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's why the UK NHS is not means-tested. Gatekeeping is complex and expensive as well as damaging quality of service.

[–] auntieclokwise@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, and the way you do the means testing is by allowing a parallel private system. People with money will use that system, at least some of the time, on their own. The less money you have, the more you'll use the public system. That way, you don't have to spend a dime figuring anything out - people naturally sort themselves out.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

And it's not even a rare occurrence. It's so common that being cheaper is one of the most common arguments in favor of schemes like UBI or universal single-payer healthcare.

Of course the most common (but unspoken) counterargument is that distressingly many people would prefer to make everyone worse off to make sure people who "don't deserve it" don't get paid.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Unironicly, Mr. Doolittle's speech in My Fair Lady convinced me that aid should be given to both the "deserving" and "undeserving" needy.

What am I? I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the underserving poor, that's what I am. Now, think what that means to a man. It means he's up against middle-class morality for all the time. If there's anything going, and I puts in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: you're undeserving, so you can't have it. needs is as great as the most deserving widows that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. need LESS than a deserving man, I need MORE. less hearty than he does, and I drink... oh, a lot more.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 8 hours ago

And the bit about drink... it's true: cash given to an alcoholic is quickly spent on booze, then he's broke again. Welp, if you're broke with nowhere to sleep and no money for food, it's pretty damn clear that you have a problem and now it's time for some of that social program intervention that is currently visited upon ALL the poor. Don't like it? Manage your money better. Can't help yourself? Well, I guess your UBI will be delivered as housing vouchers and/or SNAP cards then.