New York City stands as a vital cultural hub and economic powerhouse, bustling with nearly nine million residents. Each day, millions more traverse its subways, study in its libraries, and enjoy its parks. Despite its vast size and intricate systems, the city lacks control over its own tax policies.
To change its revenue streams, New York City must seek approval from Albany. This dependency limits residents and workers from influencing financial decisions that directly impact them. Consequently, essential public services, from education to waste management, come across as favors from distant authorities rather than decisions made by local officials.
Envision a city where local leaders could generate funds for education, transportation, housing, childcare, and other critical services based on the actual needs of New Yorkers, rather than the preferences of state lawmakers. This vision doesn’t have to remain a dream; it can become reality.
The situation is stark. Home to over 120 billionaires, New York City has seen their fortunes grow, partly due to benefits from Donald Trump’s 2025 federal tax reductions. Meanwhile, working and middle-class families face mounting pressures. Rent continues to rise, childcare costs parallel those of college tuition, and grocery prices steadily increase. For many, a single unforeseen expense can lead to eviction or overwhelming debt.
To foster a thriving, secure city with robust educational institutions, dependable transit, affordable living, and universal childcare, taxing the wealthy is imperative. It’s a logical step, yet Albany’s control makes it unattainable.
Currently, the property tax is the only tax New York City can set without external approval, and even this is bound by state regulations. Introducing new tax brackets, imposing a local income tax surcharge, or altering tax responsibilities requires Albany’s consent. Every conversation about local financial management starts with an unnecessary hurdle: “Will Albany allow it?”
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.
