SerpApi.Org
Humorist Will Rogers once famously said “We have the best politicians money can buy,” but maybe that doesn’t apply to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. At least not yet.
Mamdani recently turned down a big pay raise, turning his back on a $47,050 salary bump. That decision came after a July 16 vote by the New York City Council to boost the annual mayoral salary from its current $258,750 to $305,800. At a press conference after the vote, Mamdani said: "I will not accept a pay raise."
Must Read
Jeff Bezos backs a platform that lets anyone invest in rental homes for as little as $100 — 6 ways to build wealth like a landlord without actually being one
Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here’s what it is and 3 simple steps to fix it ASAP
Vanguard’s outlook on U.S. stocks is raising alarm bells for retirees. Here’s why and how to protect yourself
When asked why, Mamdani retorted, "I haven't knocked on anyone's door in New York City, and they've said their concern is that the mayor makes too little. That's not my concern either."
Moneywise has reached out to Mayor Mamdani’s press office for further comment.
Politicians and paychecks can be a sensitive topic
The Mamdani rejection should trigger a public relations boost for the 34-year-old mayor, but experts say elected officials’ salaries can be a touchy subject, so much so that some politicians opt to take less, as Mamdani did, or waive the salary almost entirely. That’s what President Donald Trump did when he waived the yearly $400,000 salary, except for an annual $1 stipend. Former presidents Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy also waived their salaries.
Political gurus say turning down a salary boost shows Mamdani understands optics and knows how to connect the issue to his political base.
“Declining a raise can strengthen public trust when the decision visibly aligns a leader’s personal incentives with the sacrifices or priorities they ask of others,” Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, a behavioral scientist and CEO of future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts, told Moneywise. “The dollar amount matters less than whether the action fits a consistent pattern of behavior and policy.”
That’s especially true during a period of high housing costs and economic stress, as the decision carries symbolic value, as people judge leaders at least partly through fairness and consistency. “Symbols can influence confidence when they make an abstract commitment concrete,” Tsipursky noted. “Yet the effect fades quickly when the gesture stands alone or contradicts other spending and compensation decisions.”
Aligning with voters economically can help a politician move policies forward
Mamdani may have also opened a wider path with voters and legislators on key policy initiatives by setting a cost-cutting tone with the salary hike rejection.
After all, if Mamdani wants the taxpayers to consider spending cuts and make affordable housing a top priority, then his own salary calls for decisions that must support that stance. “While $47,000 may seem like chump change in the eyes of a city budget, a disconnect between words and wallet can undo months of policy trust,” Emma Alves, attorney and founder at Alves Law, told Moneywise.
In politics, people also pay close attention to whether leaders hold themselves to their own purported values. The same goes for the private sector, when a CEO knows it’s hypocritical to brag about having values when their misconduct doesn’t align with those values.
By turning the council’s salary boost down, Mamdani seems like he’s on board with that sentiment.
“Declining a raise during tough times is a way for Mayor Mamdani to signal that he recognizes what many New Yorkers are going through,” Mary Cannon, a New York City-based plaintiff-side employment attorney, told Moneywise. “No, the money won’t solve all of the city’s problems, but making a personal gesture helps.”
And while having a mayor who walks the walk, economically, will likely resonate with famously irascible New Yorkers, Tsipursky says voters should consider two scenarios.
“Governments need compensation high enough to attract capable people who lack independent wealth,” Tsipursky noted. “They also need a credible, transparent process that avoids self-dealing.”
While independent compensation reviews, public criteria, delayed implementation, and clear comparisons with similar roles can help protect both goals, it’s largely up to voters to decide where the line is drawn.
“It’s a balancing act, but we can attract qualified leaders without falling into corruption and greed,” Cannon added.
You May Also Like
Here are the 7 top habits of ‘quietly wealthy’ Americans. How many do you follow?
'Gold still crashing!': Robert Kiyosaki admits he was wrong — but doubles down on his $35K prediction
The tax breaks in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' expire after 2028 — and experts say most people won't act in time. What to do before the window closes
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement. What do I do? Don't panic. Here are 7 ways to catch up fast
Enjoyed this Moneywise story? Click Follow above for more. To get our best content and exclusive interviews first, join 250,000+ readers who subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
