You don’t think it’s absurdly simplistic to say “taxes = revolution”?

It’s not like Mamdani snuck into power. Voters chose him specifically on the agenda he proposed. Why would they revolt?

If you have no say in how much you are taxed, that is taxation without representation.

Seems you completely missed the point.

But this isn't happening in this case - the people had an actual say with their vote. They chose this.

Yes Gregg, I was speaking as a European using the American revolution as an example, not strictly speaking about NYC right now, I hope that's clear

Whatever you're generally trying to say is not clear; looking at the other comments, I appear to not be the only one struggling with it.

Why are you using the American revolution as an example? Like in what way is that remotely relevant? The revolution was the result of an actual denial of representation for all colonists, it wasn't about the general dynamics of a democracy in which the majority that wins an electon gets to set the rules that the minority must abide by - there was no election at all, only the rule of the British monarch.

If you were talking about DC or Puerto Rico where they actually have taxation without representation then there'd be some merit to your point, but you're not so there isn't.

My original point was about people having any say in terms of how much tax they pay. And the American revolution was an example in the extreme of what can happen, given it did happen.

But it wasn't about how much tax they paid - it was about the idea of being taxed at all.

I live in Switzerland. Here the general population have about as much a say about tax as one can imagine, from federal to municipal (gemeinde) level. And guess what? You'll find people here who are very upset about the taxes they pay.

If people don't like a tax policy, they can vote against it. What they absolutely CANNOT do is try to instigate a revolution because the majority voted contra to their desires. That is not how democracy works.

> But it wasn't about how much tax they paid - it was about the idea of being taxed at all.

I don't see a difference, fundamentally it comes down to consent of the governed. If 51% of a country votes for something, and it doesn't happen, then what's the point in voting?

At this point I don't know if you're trolling or being wilfully dull.

Yes, what you're describing is democracy. Yes, the premise of the system is that the majority vote decides on the rules/policy. Yes it would be bad if that were subverted.

But, for like the billionth time now:

- this is not what just happened with the NYC vote, and - it has absolutely nothing to do with the American Revolution.

If you're still somehow confused, I suggest reading up on these topics - Wikipedia [0][1] provides a wonderful start.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_New_York_City_mayoral_ele... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

> But, for like the billionth time now:

nice, exaggeration, and more misrepresentation, see ya

You should really take the time to learn to construct cogent and substantive arguments to get your view across - you'll find it's a lot less counterproductive, especially on a forum like HN.

You're the one who failed to comprehend my guy.

I was never talking about NYC, you assumed.

> If you have no say in how much you are taxed

Which New Yorkers do, because they just voted.

I guess I did miss the point because from where I’m standing this is all a big non sequitur.

“Mamdani seeks to raise taxes and spend the revenue on subsidizing services used by all. This is similar to an approach seen often in Europe”

“Did you know that if you tax people too much they revolt”

…okay?

I realize this is difficult for you, but if you read my first response to you, it was talking about Europeans (which I am), and what they identify with, we as Europeans, have little say in how we are taxed.

> we as Europeans, have little say in how we are taxed.

Do you not have elections?

To stop dancing around the obvious: I understand that you don’t want to pay taxes and are annoyed that you live in a society that has decided, via very regular democratic process, that people should pay taxes.

That doesn’t mean democracy is a failure, it just means your opinion is in the minority.

now you're just lying, blatantly.

My point was about the degree of taxation.

Do you not live in a parliamentary democracy with regular elections?

I live in France, which I'm not sure if you paying attention to it (no judgement, why would you), but as a country, they're somewhat financially screwed, so whether or not there are elections, or even if the people have representation, something needs to be done, and it will likely involve higher taxation and cost of living generally.

Ok fair, France has been a disaster lately. However, it's actually more that as a country, you'll need to figure out coalitions as it looks pretty evenly split three ways.

If it's any consolation, I probably pay similar tax rates to France, and get way worse services.

I believe the saying is "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation without personal approval".

representation is the will of the people, the approval of persons, so I fail to see the difference

I think you’ve been reading too much Thoreau.

I have never read anything by him

Americans have control over what they're taxed as long as they make 8 figures or more per year. The rich and corporations here are paying a share, but not as big of a share of their pie as those who make less. What people were looking to elect is someone who will treat those who can afford it the same way those who can't. Just like elections that went the other way the deciding factor is perception. If politicians would set a transparent flat tax, the elections could be about facts and not feels. Right now it feels like politicians are leveraging the pain of the many to get votes without making any change, because they're not generally affected financially y their policies.

I think you're right yes.