New York City’s affordability crisis is real. Families feel it every month in rent, child care, groceries, and commuting costs. The frustration is understandable, and it demands serious action.
But serious action requires clear-eyed economics, not reflexive politics.
That’s why the Partnership for New York City has spoken out about Mayor Mamdani’s tax proposals. Our concern isn’t opposition to taxes for its own sake. It’s that the current approach risks undermining the very economic engine that supports working New Yorkers.
Our member companies employ roughly 800,000 people across the city. Many are middle-class families already stretched thin. When policymakers talk about taxing corporations or “the rich,” the real-world effects don’t stay neatly at the top. They flow through hiring decisions, wage growth, office footprints, and long-term investment.
If we weaken the companies that anchor New York’s economy, the ripple effects will land squarely on working families.
To his credit, the mayor initially framed taxation as a tool to achieve affordability and not an end in itself. That was a pragmatic starting point. But in just two months we have seen proposals to increase income taxes, corporate taxes, and now the prospect of property tax hikes, often without a consistent explanation of why this particular mix is the right solution.
There is a broader issue here. “Tax the rich” may be effective rally language, but governing requires more precision than slogans. If the goal is affordability, every proposal should be judged by a simple standard: will it strengthen or weaken New York’s economic base?
New York businesses already face among the highest combined city and state tax burdens in the nation. Under the mayor’s proposal, that burden could rise to roughly 22.5% — potentially the highest among major peer cities at a moment when companies have more flexibility than ever about where to grow.
The competitive pressure on New York is not theoretical. It is happening in right now.
Texas has now surpassed New York in financial services employment (excluding insurance and real estate). Over the past decade, 314 companies have relocated their headquarters to Texas. In just the past year, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs have all announced significant expansions in the Dallas–Fort Worth region.
Texas is executing a deliberate strategy using modern incentives, a more predictable legal environment, and a significantly lower corporate tax burden. New York does not need to become Texas. Our talent base, global connectivity, and financial ecosystem remain unmatched.
But ignoring the competitive landscape would be a serious mistake. The threat of businesses moving or expanding outside of New York would mean fewer jobs, less tax revenue, and billions of dollars in lost investment. Not only does that put New York’s economic future at risk — it pushes a larger share of the tax burden onto families and workers.
If the goal is to close budget gaps and make the city more affordable, the most durable strategy is to grow the tax base by keeping and attracting the companies and jobs that power the city.
That means focusing relentlessly on what actually drives affordability and long-term growth: building more housing, improving transit reliability, strengthening public safety, investing in workforce development, and maintaining discipline in government spending.
The mayor is right to focus on affordability. New Yorkers deserve progress. But raising costs in ways that risk pushing jobs and investment elsewhere is unlikely to deliver the relief families need.
If we want New York to remain the financial capital of the world, the path forward is simple: grow the economy, broaden the tax base, and protect the jobs that sustain New Yorkers.
Fulop is the president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City.