The general pitch is “raise taxes to make life more affordable for all”. That’s an idea Europeans can identify with.
The article in general takes the approach of listing a small handful of (usually very small) polities that have one of Mamdani's proposed policies, and then claim that the full suite is therefore "normal" across Europe.
Kentucky voters were wondering why polls weren’t open Tuesday to vote in these elections, for example, so someone being wildly misinformed about policy proposals or their mechanics would come as no surprise.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/kentucky-politician-had-...
https://x.com/KYSecState/status/1985734353515671601
> We’re getting calls about polls being closed. They are closed because we do not have elections today. Kentucky votes next year. You cannot vote today in Kentucky for the mayor of New York City or the Governor of Virginia. Sorry. — Michael Adams, KY Secretary of State
https://www.mta.info/guides/riding-the-bus/fare-free-bus-pil...
> From September 24, 2023 to August 31, 2024, five MTA bus routes — Bx18A/B, B60, M116, Q4, and S46/96 — were fare-free. Passengers on these routes were able to ride without paying the fare.
> The purpose of the pilot was to study how fare-free service affects ridership, access, equity, and fare evasion. It was made possible thanks to funding from the New York State FY2024 budge
To a point, when we stop seeing a social benefit from our taxes, it starts to look more like theft.
It’s not like Mamdani snuck into power. Voters chose him specifically on the agenda he proposed. Why would they revolt?
Seems you completely missed the point.
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.
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.
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?
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
nice, exaggeration, and more misrepresentation, see ya
I was never talking about NYC, you assumed.
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?
Do you not have elections?
come on
That doesn’t mean democracy is a failure, it just means your opinion is in the minority.
My point was about the degree of taxation.
If it's any consolation, I probably pay similar tax rates to France, and get way worse services.
Europeans are not a single opinion entity that is left wing, don't work past 5pm and read Sartre at night, after the union meeting.
Moreover, modern rights are often economically more to the left than modern lefts are (see Meloni, PiS in Poland, etc).
1. Europe is not socialist (Eastern Europe and the USSR were). And, no, social-democracy is NOT socialism.
2. The welfare state is essentially bankrupt in many European countries.
3. Socialism cannot, ultimately be democratic.
My only sane interpretation for an election of a socialist candidate in 2025 is that this is a protest vote not an adhesion to socialism...
Norwegians self identify as socialist for example.
Consider that your assumption that Norway is not socialist is incorrect. Just because Norway may not meet whatever definition the Heritage Foundation is telling you when you look it up, doesn't mean that Norway does not nevertheless use the word "Socialist" to describe their own government.
If not, it does highlight something worrying: Too many people either don't understand what "socialism" means or, perhaps even worse, think you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.
Gosh, you should tell the Norwegians! I'm sure they will want to know that their government doesn't meet your preferred objectively-universally-correct definition of "socialist" and so they should stop calling themselves that.
Personally I have no issue with it in the same way I have no problem with Americans calling their government a "democracy".
Er.. that's not even remotely true
If they call themselves "socialist" then I will too.
Granted though, that under a functioning democracy, there will be overlap: if the country is x then most likely at least a plurality of voters support x. It doesn't mean that "all citizens support x" or "any specific citizen supports x and self identifies themself an x-ist".
To be clear, the former is what I was repeatedly told. Nobody personally self-identified themselves as a socialist to me, they described their country as socialist.
2. The US government is essentially bankrupt, and has been spending far beyond its means for decades.
But countries are not households. Sovereign countries cannot run of money. But they can run out of confidence.
For a nation state, bankruptcy happens when its currency is no longer respected and essential imports become so expensive they cause hyperinflation.
By any objective measure, the US today is closer to that today than Europe. (It's mostly the fault of tariffs, but the cause doesn't matter.)
It's true the influence of neoliberal lobbying and opportunism by US corporates has reduced the effectiveness of welfare in the EU. But health and benefits are still higher, and the only country where insured health costs bankrupt 500,000 people a year is the US.
NYC has time and again resisted calls to dismantle the current child care program, which costs the exchequer around $3b [0]. Mamdani's plan is to take the current child care program and make it "universal" at $6b.
> we need to buy tickets to ride the bus
Again, not without a precedent as MTA has ran some routes for free for many months. Besides, MTA sees 40%+ fare evasion, but MTA needs to pay the bills somehow, and Mamdani's proposal, which may go no where, is that rises in corporate tax will fill this ~$800m hole.
> rent freezes don't work
Depends on what the sought / desired outcome from rent regulation is. In Mamdani's case, it apparently is a stop-gap to control cost of living for the working class, until enough newer housing units can be built despite NIMBYs [1].
[0] https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/spotlight-nycs-publicly-...
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/11/mamdani-...
All of those things _tend_ to be free only if you can't afford them, are a single mother/father. Average childcare in my area is 900 euros per month, which is a lot in Italy where average salary is twice than that.
Public one exists, getting in is hard.
As for him claiming to being a socialist I don't find anything wrong/strange with it. US really needs this kind of politicians too.
The point is that most of his policies are part of the normal churn of debate in a great many countries and are not seen as extreme, even if not implemented.
eg: "Free" public transport is a thing in Queensland, Australia.
( Okay, it's actually 50 cent flat rate fares: https://translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/50-cent-fares .. so lets call that 'nominal' )