New York City may be headed toward a broad-based increase in local property taxes, one of the few tax increases that doesn’t require approval from Albany. Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently proposed a roughly 9.5% property tax hike as a contingency plan to close a multibillion-dollar budget gap if state lawmakers decline to raise income tax on high earners. While the political debate has focused on competing visions of taxation and spending, the practical reality is simple: when property taxes rise, the people who live in, own, or invest in New York real estate bear the cost. For taxpayers, this proposal is less an abstract fiscal policy and more a direct hit to household and business finances.
The Mayor campaigned on, among other things, a 2% increase to New York City personal income tax for the City’s highest earners. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has been resistant to such an increase, forcing Mayor Mamdani to turn to other potential revenue streams to make good on his campaign promises, many of which require significant additional income.
New York City’s taxing authority is unusually constrained. Major revenue streams such as personal income taxes, corporate taxes, and sales taxes require state authorization or cooperation. Property taxes, by contrast, are largely within the City’s control.
That distinction matters. According to the Mayor’s preliminary budget, property taxes are one of the City’s only tools currently available to close the projected budget gap without new legislation at the state level. In other words, Albany’s resistance to new revenue measures has led local City officials to reach for a lever they can actually pull.
Unlike income taxes, which fluctuate with earnings, property taxes arrive with clockwork regularity. They are owed regardless of whether a property owner’s income has increased, stagnated, or declined. A nearly 10% increase would therefore represent a meaningful and immediate budget adjustment for many households, particularly retirees, fixed-income residents, and long-time owners whose carrying costs have already risen due to insurance, maintenance, and utilities. Moreover, property taxes in New York City are not easily mitigated through planning. The liability attaches to the property itself. Selling the property eliminates the tax, but also requires leaving the property, and often the city, entirely.
Although property taxes are imposed on owners, the economic incidence is much broader. In a city dominated by rental housing, higher property taxes are commonly passed through to tenants via rent increases, reduced maintenance spending, or both. Raising property taxes across the board could exacerbate affordability pressures and disproportionately affect middle- and working-class New York City residents.
Whenever New York tax increases are discussed, the question of mobility arises. High-income individuals and businesses have demonstrated that relocation is feasible. But the City’s turn to raising property taxes can complicate this calculus. Unlike certain personal income taxes, property taxes cannot be avoided simply by changing domicile to a low- or no-tax state. For property owners, the tax is tied to an immovable asset, the real property itself. For renters, the cost is embedded in rent prices.
Even so, persistent increases in housing costs can influence long-term decisions about where to live or invest. In a recent episode of the State Tax Talks with Joe Tantillo podcast, we noted that even marginal tax changes can contribute to broader relocation trends when layered on top of already high tax burdens and living expenses associated with residing in New York City. And many New York City property owners will look to make changes should these tax increases go into effect.
The proposal is framed as a contingency tied to a budget shortfall. Whether it materializes will depend on state action, City Council approval, and economic conditions. But for taxpayers trying to plan, those uncertainties offer limited comfort. Property taxes operate on a different timeline than policy debates. Assessments are set, budgets are adopted, and bills are issued. Once the machinery moves, it tends to move forward, not backward.
None of this should come as much of a surprise. When fiscal pressure builds in New York, the path of least resistance has historically run through real estate. Unlike income, profits, or people, buildings do not leave, restructure, or recharacterize themselves. They sit exactly where they are taxed, year after year, making them an appealing solution to shortfalls that demand immediate revenue.
For taxpayers, that reality carries a practical lesson. Property taxes are not a distant policy question but a fixed cost of remaining in the city, one that tends to ratchet upward over time and rarely retreats. Whether this particular proposal advances or not, those who own, occupy, or invest in New York real estate would be wise to assume that the city will continue to rely on property as its most dependable revenue backstop.
For the savvy planner who was already contemplating reducing his or her New York tax load, however, rising property taxes can serve as a catalyst rather than merely an inconvenience. At the highest combined rates, New York City residents are already paying federal, state, and city taxes at a 50+% clip. This is before you consider the other New York City-level taxes some small business owners must pay (e.g., the Unincorporated Business Tax, the Commercial Rent Tax, etc.). Layering in a significant increase to New York City property taxes will make it all the more expensive for the people who already pay the most, and is sure to encourage some category of those people to change residence sooner rather than later.
The nominal goal of new or additional taxes, such as those contemplated by this proposal, is an increase in budgeted revenue or the closing of a budget deficit. However, policymakers in New York City would be wise to balance that goal against the risk that those who pay the very most tax to New York State and City vote with their feet and move to places like Florida – where there is no personal income tax and action around a constitutional amendment to eliminate certain property taxes paid by Florida residents. The lion’s share of the revenue side of the budget in New York is made up of personal income taxes, which can be mitigated or eliminated through residency planning.
Disclaimer:
This blog is a form of attorney advertising. Hodgson Russ LLP provides this information as a service to its clients and other readers for educational purposes only. Nothing in this blog should be construed as, or relied upon, as legal advice or as creating a lawyer-client relationship.
