>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“New York does not operate in a vacuum. It competes with other cities. And so this idea of somehow raising taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers, who, by the way, would point out pay roughly 15 percent of their income right now between city and state. Raising taxes on them will simply drive them away,” Faber warned.
He pressed further, questioning whether a mayor’s focus should be on keeping taxpayers and businesses in the city rather than chasing them off.
“Shouldn’t the focus of a mayor be on delivering services to the constituents of the city and doing that by raising the most revenue as possible without chasing businesses and the high-income taxpayers out of the city?” he asked. “Because they can go to Austin. They can go to Dallas. They can go to Atlanta. They can go to Nashville.”
Rather than acknowledge the economic risks, Warren fired back with sarcasm.
“Oh dear, are you worried that billionaires are going to go hungry?” she scoffed.
It was a telling moment — a glimpse into the class-warfare mindset that drives Warren’s politics. Faber shot back with the blunt truth.
“No, I’m worried that they’re going to leave and spend their money elsewhere!” he replied.
But Warren dismissed the concern, claiming wealthy residents always threaten to leave but rarely follow through. Faber wasn’t buying it.
“They’ve left. And Goldman Sachs, when they create new jobs, they do it in Dallas. And Blackstone won’t build a new headquarters. I can go on and on,” he said, dismantling Warren’s argument with real-world examples.
The CNBC host kept pressing: “These are national issues. But if you deal with them in that way, by what is always your backup, just tax them more. They will leave.”
He also explained the bigger picture: “I think many people would disagree to the extent that by raising taxes and making it more onerous for businesses that create the jobs, that create the revenues on which taxes are – tax revenues come from, that you’d ultimately be dealing with a smaller pie.”
Warren’s closing statement made it clear where she stands: “If you think that the best way to run city government or national government is to start with the billionaires and say, what will work best for you? Vote Republican. But if you don’t, then let’s make the city more affordable. Let’s make the country more affordable.”
When asked if she really believed a 33-year-old socialist with no executive experience could run America’s largest city, Warren brushed it off, calling his primary win “democracy at work.”
The interview left no doubt — Warren isn’t the pragmatic moderate she pretends to be. She’s fully aligned with the far-left agenda that prioritizes punishing success over growing prosperity.
Her defense of Mamdani’s tax scheme ignored the hard reality: high taxes have already fueled a mass exodus from places like New York and California to lower-tax states such as Texas, Florida, and Tennessee.
If Warren and her allies get their way, New York’s decline will only accelerate. Businesses will keep packing their bags, taxpayers will follow, and the city’s financial base will shrink — all in the name of “soaking the rich.”
Voters in New York would do well to pay attention. This is more than just a mayoral race. It’s a test run for the radical policies Democrats like Warren want to impose nationwide.
