this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
214 points (99.1% liked)

News

33434 readers
2345 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Conservatives warned of a mass exodus if the democratic socialist won, but experts, and property data, paint a very different picture

The warnings were stark. If Zohran Mamdani were to win the New York City mayoral election, his plans to raise taxes – slightly – on the city’s wealthiest residents would cause millionaires to bolt en masse, decamping to lower-tax states such as Florida and Texas.

The New York Post, a conservative tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, told readers on an almost daily basis through October that New York would effectively become a ghost town under Mamdani’s mayoralty, a propaganda campaign that concluded the day before the election with the bombastic claim that “nearly a million” people were planning to “flee”.

But a month after Mamdani’s historic win, there is no evidence that rich people are leaving the Big Apple. In fact, they seem to be committing to staying in New York.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 56 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

It's funny that people keep forgetting wealth is tied to assets

Most valuable assets can't really move

The rich typically live near their assets so they can keep a finger on the politics around them

Tax those assets and if they want to dodge the tax, they have to give up the asset we want anyway

They.

Can't.

Just.

Run.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

They absolutely could run, whether that means selling their property, hiring people to manage them (they already do that), or whatever other way to facilitate leaving.

They can leave, and they can afford to leave and live almost anywhere else for cheaper.

They just don't want to.

It's an important distinction because it highlights the truth about every future argument the wealthy make: they'll yell and cry and say it'll be disasterous, and then nothing happens.

But your comment isn't correct in any way, I guess people just up voted it because they agree with the spirit of it?

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

The OC feels good, but yours sounds correct.

[–] seat6@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah; that makes sense, to me. Afterall, What’s the point of being rich if you can’t live where you want.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

They just don't want to.

Because they can't

If you've ever heard a "wealthy" person say otherwise, you're talking to a deluded clown.

30 families own over half of the UK

Those assets are not mobile

Edit: not 30 families, but the much more reasonable number of 50. More detail below

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

What are you even on about?

You legitimately think wealthy people can never move cities because they have to personally be there to overseas the buildings they own? And that all wealthy people own a bunch of buildings, but only in the city (not just state) they live in?

Like, there is just so much that seems to need to be explained here...

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

...

No, of course they can move, they typically have a lot of money, they physically go where they like.

Their assets can't though, and if you look at anyone who owns a majority of assets in a given country, they typically do everything they can to put their weight on the government there

And, of course, they typically have to be a citizen of said country, where they pay tax. (Or if you're American, you just pay tax regardless of where you are, because fuck you, apparently freedom isn't free—not a yank btw, just have some mates that suffer this particular pain)

We're not talking about the kind of rich guy most people immediately think of: high income & flashy wankers,

We're talking about the literal handful of bastards that are breaking the world economy right now by simply existing.

Ultimately they own ground and stuff on that ground. Maybe via middlemen (and currently a shitload of vibes), but wealth ultimately comes from assets.

None of that is practically moveable

Even literal gold bars are really hard to move across borders in any kind of quantity

All of that is what ultra wealth really is, and in every real sense, only that is wealth in a capitalist economy. Everything else is an abstraction over a physical asset or just negligible.

The percentage of wealth owned by he ultra wealthy is on the rise. That means the percentage of wealth for literally everyone else is shrinking.

You wanna know how we can watch that happen? Just wait. You'll be able to tell we're fucked if the prices of assets (like, idk, houses) go up quicker than the average person's pay

...... Wait..... Fuck.

Edit: tbf I was too pessimistic in my previous comment, it's not 30 families, it's actually 50, so I'm glad we're actually living in such an egalitarian society

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/may/19/uk-50-richest-families-hold-more-wealth-than-50-of-population-analysis-finds

[–] PNW_Doug@lemmy.world 24 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

It feels to me like staying in New York City as taxes rise on the hyper-rich would be the ultimate flex. You're so wealthy you can't even be bothered to notice the plebs have raised taxes on you.

Some marketing team needs to get working on this angle, lol.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 hours ago

Fun fact in ancient Athens only the rich payed taxes because it was seen as both a flex and civic duty, since if you had enough money to qualify it meant you were doing very good.

Also was a good way to not go the way of the tyrant.

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

This is basically what they did in feudal Japan.

Like, a potential rival that lives near your capital, is given the opportunity to pay for the development of a massive wall to protect it, along with bragging rights that they're powerful enough to help the city, and that they have close ties with leadership as an ally

This drains them of capital they could use to raise an army, and also installs a big fortification that makes it harder to attack.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

What?

Everyone wealthy enough to pay those taxes can afford to pay those taxes.

Saying they can't is a lie to the non-wealthy. And I honestly didn't think anyone was naive enough to fall for that.

But apparently you all really thought the richest people in NYC were gonna have to leave due to taxes?

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 11 points 4 hours ago

Curious how soon we would expect to see signs of an exodus if there were one? I'm all for dunking on conservatives but I imagine it takes a little longer than a month to put moves like that in place. Plus he's not even mayor yet so he couldn't have any direct impact on the city.

[–] Pistcow@lemmy.world 11 points 4 hours ago

Bea lot cooler if they did.

Capital flight scaremongering again

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

It's the same threat as a 5 year old threatening to hold their breath until they die if they don't get their way.

[–] capital_sniff@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

It has been a while and someone else can go look up the interview but Warren Buffet put this type of argument to rest decades ago. Never in any of his calculations was he concerned about the tax implications of his investments. The tax shit comes later.

People are not passing on investments because the taxes will be too much that is straight idiotic. I'm not going to take this 20% return on my investment with little to no risk because the gov't will want to tax my 20% gain? Think about it for one second.

Also the wealthy aren't going to leave New York City it has too much culture, financial wealth, and power for that to make any type of sense.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Has he raised taxes yet though?

Not that I expect it to make a difference, but it's a bit premature to claim victory if not.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 hour ago

He doesn't even officially become mayor until January.

People act like he won be primary and became God king. And then won the general and became double God king.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 2 points 4 hours ago

Of course they aren’t. Because he’s not a threat.