New York City is a world-historic cultural capital, a global economic engine, and home to nearly nine million people. Millions more pass through each day, riding our subways, studying in our libraries, gathering in our parks. Yet despite its size and complexity, New York City cannot control its own tax policy.
When the city needs to raise or adjust revenue, it must go to Albany to ask permission. This prevents the people who live and work here from shaping the fiscal decisions that affect their daily lives. The public goods we rely on, from classrooms to sanitation, become favors granted from afar rather than choices made by local leadership.
Imagine a city where elected officials could raise revenue for schools, transit, housing, child care, and essential services based on what New Yorkers actually need, not what a governor and Legislature decide. That city doesn’t have to be imaginary. It can be real.
The stakes are clear. New York City is home to more than 120 billionaires, many of whom have seen their wealth soar in recent years, boosted in part by Donald Trump’s 2025 federal tax cuts. Meanwhile, working- and middle-class families are stretched thin. Rents climb, child care costs rival college tuition, and groceries grow more expensive by the week. For too many New Yorkers, a single emergency can mean eviction or crushing debt.
If we want a healthy, safe city with strong schools, reliable transit, affordable housing, and universal child care, we need to tax the rich. It’s common sense. But with Albany standing in the way, it’s a non-starter.
Under current law, the only tax New York City can independently set is the property tax, and even that is constrained by state statutes. Any effort to create new brackets, levy a local income tax surcharge, or adjust who pays what requires state approval. Every discussion of local fiscal responsibility begins with a question that shouldn’t exist: “Will Albany let us?”
That dynamic undermines democracy. Instead of debating what kind of city we want and how to fund it, leaders must first negotiate whether they’re allowed to consider new revenue tools. It keeps New Yorkers at arm’s length from decisions that shape their neighborhoods and commutes.
This isn’t about ideology; it’s about proximity and accountability. When city leaders propose expanded child care, affordable housing, or stronger transit, we are closer to New Yorkers’ lived realities than lawmakers representing suburbs or distant towns. City voters should decide city priorities, and city leaders should be accountable for the results.
Critics warn that higher taxes on the wealthy will drive them away. But evidence shows modest increases on high earners do not trigger mass flight, especially in a city whose culture and opportunity are unparalleled. Relying heavily on a tiny slice of ultra-wealthy residents already creates instability. A fairer tax structure designed locally would strengthen long-term stability.
Albany can take a first step by passing the Fair Share Act, authorizing New York City to impose a 2% surcharge on incomes more than $1 million. That revenue would roughly match what a property tax hike would raise to close the mayor’s projected budget gap, without further burdening homeowners and tenants.
But the broader issue is self-determination. A city of nine million people that generates a massive share of the state’s economic output deserves the authority to shape its fiscal destiny — to use our budget to clearly say who we are.
Is New York City a playground for the ultra-rich, or a place where communities of all kinds can thrive? It’s time to trust the people who live here to decide.
Caban represents parts of Queens in the City Council. Forrest represents parts of Brooklyn in the state Assembly.
