I don’t understand the comparison you’re trying to make. Like, not per capita and/or without purchasing power adjusted, sure. What does that prove?
Say, Czech Republic, has a similar budget and a similar population.
Yes, PPP will be different, but, as I said, running a country is different from running a city.
P. S.: Here's more detail:
Sweden is very close to the US by PPP (https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p...), it's population is similar to that of NYC (around 10 million) and it's budget is 1 trln SEK, which is roughly $100 bn, so the same amount per capita as NYC.
The point I'm trying to make?
It's not about money.
New York City has enough money to provide its citizens with all the amenities Swedes have, including free healthcare, free child care and pensions. They don't have to tax the rich. They don't need more austerity. They just have to use the money wisely.
Then if we take New York State budget into account, we'll realize this is sufficient to provide all New Yorkers with one more free healthcare, one more free child care and one more pension.
Your PPP argument doesn't hold either. Sweden's PPP is only slightly above the US average, but it would certainly well above NYC's. NYC is one of the most expensive markets in the United States.
You seem to be asserting that if NYC would just fix some inefficiencies, they'd be able to implement a Scandinavian style social welfare state with the savings. I'm sure there is waste in the system, as there is in all large bureaucracies, but to assert that there's so much that we could fund free healthcare out of it is just nonsense.
[1] https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm