Bill Ackman’s $1.75 Million Bet Against Mamdani: Why Billionaires Fear the 2% Tax
Man Who Bets Billions on Companies Suddenly Concerned About Fiscal Responsibility
Bill Ackman, the hedge fund billionaire who famously made a fortune betting against companies during disasters, has invested $1.75 million to prevent Zohran Mamdani from implementing a 2% wealth tax. The amount represents roughly 0.02% of Ackman’s estimated $9 billion net worth, or what he probably considers “couch cushion money.” The donation proves that nothing motivates billionaires quite like the prospect of contributing to the society that enabled their wealth.
Ackman’s opposition to the modest tax proposal reveals a fundamental truth about American oligarchy: billionaires will spend millions to avoid paying millions in taxes. It’s the economic equivalent of driving across town to save 10 cents on gas, except the town is democracy and the gas is civilization.
The Math Billionaires Don’t Want You Understanding
A 2% annual tax on wealth above $1 billion would cost Ackman approximately $160 million per year. Instead of paying that, he’s spending $1.75 million to defeat Mamdani, making this the best investment return since Bitcoin in 2010. It’s also a perfect encapsulation of why the system is broken: spending money to avoid spending money is more profitable than just paying your fair share.
“Bill Ackman’s spending $1.75 million to save $160 million,” Dave Chappelle said at his show. “That’s just smart business. Evil business. But smart evil business. He’s literally buying democracy on sale. ‘Democracy? Yeah, I’ll take that for 1% of what I’d pay in taxes.’ Sold! To the billionaire who doesn’t want to pay for roads!”
Pershing Square’s Political Shopping Spree
Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital Management, has been particularly vocal about why a 2% tax would devastate New York. His argument boils down to “because I don’t want to pay it,” which is at least more honest than most billionaire policy positions.
“He’s saying the tax will hurt the economy,” Bill Burr said on his podcast. “Brother, you crash the economy for fun. You literally bet against companies and then tell everyone they’re failing. That’s your whole business model. But a 2% tax? That’s where you draw the line? That’s what destroys the economy? Get the fuck out of here.”
When Accountability Becomes Oppression
Ackman has framed the wealth tax as “punishing success,” which requires redefining punishment to mean “paying for stuff.” By this logic, all taxation is punishment, speed limits punish good drivers, and murder laws punish people with conflict resolution issues. It’s a fascinating worldview available only to those who can afford to ignore reality.
“Punishing success,” Trevor Noah said. “That’s what they call taxes now. Like society asking you to contribute is somehow oppression. You made $9 billion using our infrastructure, our courts, our educated workforce, and our markets. But asking for 2% back? That’s punishment. Make it make sense.”
The Billionaire Definition of Oppression
Ackman has suggested that the wealth tax represents “discrimination against the wealthy,” which is a take so hot it could power the city he’s refusing to fund. Comparing taxation to discrimination requires both extraordinary privilege and a fundamental misunderstanding of what discrimination means.
“Discrimination against the wealthy,” Chris Rock said. “Are you fucking kidding me? They’re not a protected class. They’re not suffering. They’re buying politicians. That’s not discrimination, that’s democracy fighting back. Barely.”
The civil rights lawyers who have spent decades fighting actual discrimination were unavailable for comment, presumably because they were too busy laughing to speak.
The Investment Strategy of Avoiding Investment in Society
Ackman’s $1.75 million represents one of many investments billionaires are making to avoid investing in public infrastructure. The wealthy have collectively spent $19 million to prevent a tax that would generate hundreds of millions for schools, housing, and transportation. It’s trickle-down economics in reverse: instead of benefits trickling down, the money trickles up into attack ads.
“They’ll spend money on anything except helping people,” Amy Schumer said during her show. “Private jets? Sure. Mega yachts? Absolutely. Space tourism? Why not? Schools? Roads? The subway that everyone uses? Nah, that’s communism. Better to spend millions on ads calling the guy who wants to fix the subway a radical.”
Hedge Fund Wisdom or Hedge Fund Wizardry
Ackman made his fortune through activist investing, which is a polite term for buying stakes in companies and then publicly pressuring them to change. He’s perfected the art of using money to influence outcomes. Now he’s applying that same strategy to democracy, except instead of corporate boards, he’s pressuring voters.
“This dude’s whole thing is using money to get what he wants,” Kevin Hart said. “That’s his job. Buy stock, pressure companies, profit. Now he’s doing it to elections. Buy ads, pressure voters, profit by not paying taxes. It’s the same playbook. Except one is legal business and the other is legal corruption.”
The Fear of Setting Precedents for Participation
What terrifies Ackman isn’t the 2% tax itself. It’s the precedent. If New York successfully implements a wealth tax, other cities might try it. Then states. Then, God forbid, the federal government. Before you know it, billionaires might have to contribute to society everywhere, not just in the places where they haven’t bought enough politicians yet.
“They’re scared of the domino effect,” Ricky Gervais said from London. “If New York does it, others will follow. Then they’ll have to pay taxes like normal people. Except not like normal people because 2% is nothing. Normal people pay way more. They’re scared of paying less than normal people pay. That’s how good they have it.”
Comparing International Wealth Taxes Reveals American Exceptionalism
Several European countries have successfully implemented wealth taxes without experiencing the economic apocalypse Ackman predicts. Norway, Switzerland, and Spain all tax wealth at higher rates than Mamdani proposes, and somehow their economies haven’t collapsed into chaos. Their billionaires are still rich, just slightly less obscenely so.
“Other countries tax wealth,” Sarah Silverman said. “They’re fine. Better than fine. They have healthcare, education, infrastructure. Meanwhile, we’re over here acting like asking billionaires for 2% will end civilization. American exceptionalism is thinking we’re too special for rich people to pay taxes.”
The Twitter Defense of Hoarding Wealth
Ackman has taken to Twitter to defend his position, arguing that his wealth creates jobs and drives innovation. This is technically true in the same way that hoarding food technically keeps it off the market. Yes, Ackman’s investments create economic activity. They also create vast inequality, market instability, and the occasional economic crisis.
“He’s on Twitter defending not paying taxes,” Jerry Seinfeld said at the Comedy Cellar. “That’s where we are. Billionaires have to explain why they shouldn’t contribute to society. And they’re doing it on phones connected to infrastructure they didn’t pay for, posting to servers powered by grids they didn’t fund. The irony is so thick you could tax it.”
Job Creator or Job Claimer
The “job creator” argument has been deployed by wealthy individuals since the invention of wealth. The idea is that billionaires create jobs through their investments and businesses, therefore taxing them hurts workers. This requires ignoring that workers create value, consumer demand creates jobs, and billionaires mostly create more wealth for billionaires.
“Job creators,” Tom Segura said. “That’s what they call themselves. Like they’re doing us a favor. Brother, we create the value. We do the work. You just skim the profit. You’re not creating jobs, you’re benefiting from our labor. There’s a difference.”
The Activist Investor Becomes the Activist Anti-Taxpayer
The same aggressive tactics Ackman uses in business, he’s now applying to politics. He’s not just donating money, he’s organizing other billionaires, flooding media with his message, and pressuring anyone who’ll listen. It’s activist investing meets activist democracy-avoiding.
“Ackman’s organizing a billionaire union,” Jo Koy said during his show. “That’s what this is. Rich people collective bargaining against paying taxes. Workers try to unionize and companies fight them tooth and nail. But billionaires can unionize against the public good? That’s fine. That’s just networking.”
When Democracy Meets Net Worth
The $1.75 million Ackman spent represents approximately 11,000 average New Yorker votes if you calculate the cost per targeted voter. That’s the exchange rate of democracy in 2025: one billionaire’s opinion equals roughly 11,000 regular people’s opinions, give or take a few percentage points and whatever’s left of American ideals.
“One guy’s spending $1.75 million to influence the election,” Hasan Minhaj said. “That’s not one person, one vote. That’s one person, 11,000 votes. We don’t have democracy, we have market-based governance. And the market says billionaires get more say. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”
As the election approaches, Ackman’s investment in defeating Mamdani reveals the stakes. It’s not really about 2%. It’s about power, precedent, and the fundamental question of whether democracy serves everyone or just those who can afford to buy it wholesale. The answer, according to Ackman’s checkbook, should be obvious.
Auf Wiedersehen, amigos.
