Indeed, all of Zohran Mamdani's political and economic theories sound really impressive. It's as if all the problems of New York City will magically be solved once he becomes mayor.

Like many others, I too was quite convinced by Mr. Mamdani's words. But soon, I came to know about two particular statements he made, and my conviction quickly turned into bewilderment. Then, this bewilderment transformed into three questions for which I still haven't found satisfactory answers.

I thought it would be helpful to share these questions with you all. Perhaps you could guide me.

Zohran Mamdani made two seemingly contradictory statements. First, he argues that the world must eliminate billionaires. Yet at the same time, he declares that he'll finance his promises to bring prosperity to New York by raising taxes on the city's richest residents.

Of course, grand projects like free daily bus rides and building homes for homeless New Yorkers demand serious money. And under Zohran Mamdani's plan, this money will continuously flow from the pockets of the city's wealthiest residents, ultimately transforming New York into a thriving model of prosperity in the 21st century.

Here's my first, almost naïve question: Forgive my simplicity, but isn't it ironic? What kind of policy is this where the very class Mr. Mamdani wishes to eliminate is also the one he must rely on to fund the city's prosperity?

Honestly, labelling this as a 'policy' would be outright wrong. A far more fitting world would be 'hypocrisy'.

Anyway, let's move on.

Recently, commenting on Zohran Mamdani's proposal to raise taxes on wealthy New Yorkers, current Mayor Eric Adams pointed out that a mayor actually can't do this at all. Taxing the rich simply isn't within the mayor's authority. Albany controls all such decisions.

I don't have a PhD in US tax law, but even my half-baked Googling says that Adams' got a point.

The mayor's taxation powers are extremely limited. Ultimately, Mr. Mamdani would have to turn to Albany, and as we all know, the chances of such taxes being approved there are less than 0.0001%, even though Mamdani himself is a member of the New York State Assembly.

Now here comes my second seemingly naive question: Why doesn't Mr. Mamdani honestly show the public this glaring loophole hidden behind his grand plan?

Every time I've brought up Adams' critique to any of Mr. Mamdani's supporters, I've never gotten a response, just silence. If you have an answer, I'm all ears.

Anyway, let's move on.

It's, indeed, undeniable that wealth inequality is a massive problem, one that makes prosperity nearly impossible to achieve without addressing it head-on.

In fact, viewed through the lens of the 80/20 rule, the issue is even more staggering than we realize that 80% of the world's wealth is concentrated in just 20% of the population, while the remaining 20% of wealth is spread thin across 80% of people.

The most commonly proposed solution to this inequality problem is deceptively simple: "Get rid of billionaires. Just confiscate their wealth and redistribute it equally among the people."

But the fatal flaw in this plan to strip billionaires of their wealth is that it completely ignores the contributions the ultra-rich make to society, as if they're the root of all economic evil and expecting any good from them is pure delusion.

And in this debate, a fundamental truth gets overlooked: billionaires don't grow their wealth by taking from others; they create it by generating massive economic value. This value translates into job creation, industrial growth, and even poverty reduction.

I'm not here to praise billionaires, capitalism, or market economies. I'm here only to point out that every system and every individual has both virtues and flaws. Ignoring the good while hyper-focusing on the bad, painting all billionaires with the same broad brush, and calling for the outright abolition of any class is a serious red flag.

Bill Gates recently pledged to donate his $200 billion fortune by 2045. Viewed in this light, all of America should be grateful to him. Thanks to his tech giant Microsoft, the US economy will reap trillions in revenue and millions of jobs for decades — even centuries — to come. And now, he intends to redistribute even the wealth he kept for personal use.

Ironically, this billionaire, while operating within capitalism, has outpaced the generosity of many with a communist mindset.

And Bill Gates isn't alone in such acts. Let me also highlight Saudi businessman Sulaiman Al-Rajhi, once the 120th richest person in the world, who dedicated half his wealth to philanthropy.

Can Mr. Mamdani or any of his supporters, who insist billionaires shouldn't exist, explain how their ideology squares with the legacies of Bill Gates and Sulaiman Al-Rajhi?

Now for my third seemingly naive question: Does a leader who promises transformational change really look credible peddling such one-sided statements? Especially when he knows full well that without these very billionaires, his plans for New York's prosperity would never leave the drawing board.

I can think of only two reasons why a capable man like Mr. Mamdani would make such anti-billionaire statements:

1. He spoke recklessly in the heat of emotion, without thinking through the consequences.
2. He's following the playbook of populist leaders, telling the poor exactly what they want to hear, so they blindly rally behind him without critical thought.

This isn't an attack on Mamdani's ideals. In fact, I believe his ultimate vision for equality and prosperity is admirable in principle.

But I'm simply writing what I've understood from his statements. I'd urge you to consider my perspective, and if possible, bring back answers from Mr. Mamdani himself. If he can address these questions satisfactorily, I'd argue no candidate today could rival his vision. But if his answers fall short, supporting him might not be a good idea.

Frankly, reflecting on these three questions reminded me of Imran Khan in Pakistan. His economic plans sounded brilliant, so compelling that listeners couldn't help but become fans. But the moment anyone analyzed his proposals coldly, without partisan goggles, the gaping loopholes that made them unworkable became obvious. Yet Khan's fiery oratory and charismatic charm were irresistible. People believed despite the holes in the logic.