Hike NYC taxes or leave them? City shouldn’t need Albany’s permission to tax the rich

New York City is a historic cultural capital of the world, a global economic powerhouse and home to nearly nine million people. Millions more pass through every 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 increase or adjust its revenue, it must go to Albany for permission. This prevents the people who live and work here from influencing tax decisions that affect their daily lives. The public goods we depend on, from classrooms to sanitation, become favors granted remotely rather than choices made by local leaders.

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 the governor and legislature decide. This city does not have to be imaginary. It may be real.

The issues are clear. New York City is home to more than 120 billionaires, many of whom have seen their wealth explode in recent years, spurred in part by Donald Trump’s federal tax cuts in 2025. Meanwhile, working and middle-class families are overstretched. Rents are climbing, child care costs rival college tuition, and groceries are getting more expensive by the week. For too many New Yorkers, a single emergency can mean eviction or falling into debt.

If we want a healthy, safe city with strong schools, reliable public transportation, 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 not a departure.

Under current law, the only tax New York City can set independently is the property tax, and even that is limited by state law. Any effort to create new brackets, levy a local income tax surcharge or adjust who pays what requires state approval. Every discussion about local fiscal responsibility begins with a question that shouldn’t exist: “Will Albany let us do this?”

This dynamic undermines democracy. Instead of debating what kind of city we want and how to finance it, leaders must first negotiate whether they are allowed to consider new revenue-generating tools. This keeps New Yorkers out of the decisions that shape their neighborhoods and their commutes.

It’s not about ideology; it’s a question of proximity and responsibility. When city leaders propose expanded child care, affordable housing, or more efficient public transportation, we are closer to the lived realities of New Yorkers than legislators representing suburbs or distant cities. Municipal voters should decide the city’s priorities, and municipal leaders should be accountable for the results.

Critics warn that raising taxes on the rich will drive them away. But the facts show that modest increases for high earners don’t trigger a massive flight, especially in a city with unprecedented culture and opportunity. Relying heavily on a small slice of ultra-wealthy residents already creates instability. A fairer tax structure, designed at the local level, would strengthen long-term stability.

Albany can take a first step by passing the Fair Share Act, allowing New York City to impose a 2 percent surtax on income over $1 million. That revenue would be about what a property tax hike would do to close the mayor’s projected budget deficit, without further burdening homeowners and renters.

But the larger question is that of self-determination. A city of nine million that generates a massive share of the state’s economic output deserves the power to shape its financial destiny – to use our budget to make clear 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 on the city council. Forrest represents parts of Brooklyn in the State Assembly.