Below is my column in the Hill on New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s “Fair Share Myth” and other fables being spread on the left to sell the public on the “warmth of collectivism.” It is storytime for socialists. These fictitious claims make Aesop look like Adam Smith.
Here is the column:
New York City socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani is back in his element. After admitting that he cannot fulfill his campaign pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mamdani returned to his class warfare narrative. This week, he taunted the city’s highest-earning taxpayers with a letter informing them of another special tax awaiting them in the Big Apple.
As wealthy citizens flee the city, Mamdani strongly suggests that those who remain are going to get burned by his promised “warmth of collectivism.” In doing so, he repeated a socialist myth about how the wealthiest taxpayers are not paying “their fair share.”
Mamdani went on X to tell those with second homes in New York City worth more than $5 million that “you’ve got mail” and a “new pied-a-terre tax.” He gleefully declared, “The best city in the world deserves the best parks, libraries, and schools in the world. That’s only possible when we all pay our fair share.”
The fair share myth is a virtual mantra among socialist and Democratic leaders, from Mamdani to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). In my book, “Rage and the Republic,” I address the false claim that the wealthy are not “paying their fair share.” In fact, the top 10 percent already pay more taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined.
In 2023, the top 1 percent paid an estimated 38.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes. One can certainly raise the need for additional taxes to support public works, but it is simple demagoguery to claim that the wealthy do not pay their fair share when the top 10 percent pay an estimated 75 percent of federal income taxes. The U.S. income tax system is already the most progressive in the developed world, even before additional New York state and city taxes are added in.
Another common fable has been repeated by socialists such as Darializa Avila Chevalier, the prison abolitionist who won a recent primary for Congress in New York. This radical, who once boasted how she once wiped her dirty hands on the American flag, was pressed on whether there has ever been a “successful model of socialism anywhere in the world outside the U.S., in terms of both human rights and widespread economic justice.”
She responded by citing Sweden and Norway, as other figures such as Sanders have done before her. Indeed, the claim of successful Scandinavian socialist systems is a sort of Marxist bedtime fairytale, told to children about a workers’ paradise in quaint Nordic fishing villages.
But Sweden’s experience only shows the limits of socialism even in a relatively small nation. Decades ago, after disastrous results to its economy, Sweden turned away from the very kind of socialist theories increasingly fashionable in the U.S. today.
Norway has large public welfare systems, it is true. But there is a very specific reason for that: It has enormous direct oil revenues supporting a very small population. The Norwegian state produces about 120 barrels of oil for every man, woman and child living in the country. If the U.S. could produce that much oil per person through a state-controlled entity, it would be more oil than the entire world produces today and worth enough money to replace all federal individual and corporate income tax revenue.
In truth, countries like Denmark and Sweden strongly embrace capitalist principles today. They are listed among the most capitalist nations on Earth — in some rankings ahead of the U.S.
Indeed, many of their leaders have expressed disbelief or amusement at longstanding claims by American leftists about their being socialist nations. In 2015, Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen observed, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
Likewise, the former Swedish Social Democratic Minister of Finance Kjell‐Olof Feldt said, “That whole thing with democratic socialism was absolutely impossible. It just didn’t work.”
But to candidates eager to prove their revolutionary bona fides, none of that matters. Even mainstream hopefuls such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) are now making the bizarre claim that capitalism is no longer working. It also does not matter that, in supporting Mamdani’s new tax, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) heralded how it could raise $500 million, despite reports showing a loss of billions in annual revenue as wealthy taxpayers flee the state.
Amid a rash of capital flight, many ask why Mamdani would want to continue taunting the wealthy and portraying them as freeloaders. The fact is, wherever it gets a foothold, socialism becomes self-perpetuating. Wherever ruinous policies destroy an economy, demand increases for government services and welfare. Citizens become more dependent on government as wealth is diminished.
The most vivid example of the new socialist fabulism came this week from the new British prime minister, Andy Burnham. He declared that he wants to restore the policies of 40 years ago, before the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher.
In his own version of promising the “warmth of collectivism,” Burnham declared, “The country surrendered control of the essentials — housing, water, energy, transport — and left people exposed to higher costs.”
Burnham’s account leaves out that the supposed golden age under Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan, which he was referencing, led in 1977 to the so-called “winter of discontent.” Those policies destroyed the British economy, and the nation was faced with the humiliation of being rescued by the International Monetary Fund as if it were some banana republic.
With a record like that, it is little surprise Mamdani and his allies prefer to focus on socialist mythologies rather than realities.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
Personally I wish the leaders of my (blue) county and my (blue) state would just explain why they keep raising tax *rates* when we’ve been told for decades that increasing populations and the flood of third-world migrants pay for themselves.
Who is “we’ve” Mike?
Hamas and the Klu Klux Klan both think they’re “fair”.
To be fair Steve, your analogy is unfair. Got anything else this morning?
The reality is that all voters want the system to work for them and their family – regardless of false labels and political parties divisive politics.
If you support Capitalism and Free Market competition, that’s great as long as that system benefits average working class Americans. When that system becomes monopolistic (less healthy competition) and harms you and your family – voters will reject that system.
Use all the labels you want and demagogue the other party, but if it doesn’t benefit voters it will fail.
Why do you assume a monopoly is harmful? Utilities are monopolies, you think they’re harmful?
“When that system becomes monopolistic (less healthy competition) and harms you and your family . . .”
Name a single example.
Curiously, capitalism and socialism appeal to entirely different cognitive systems. Capitalism relies on tangible metric, such as data, production, and employment, to demonstrate its worth. Socialism, by contrast, operates as a belief system. It asks its followers to maintain faith in the warmth of collectivism, even when they remain left out in the cold. In this sense, socialism competes directly with traditional religious institutions: while religion promises a rewarding afterlife in exchange for virtue, socialism promises immediate material prosperity through the ballot box.
“Curiously, capitalism and socialism appeal to entirely different cognitive systems. ” No it does not. Those metrics you speak of… do you think the democrats didn’t use it when they opened the boarders in 2020, or was that simply virtue signaling? And that belief system you mention, so republicans don’t have one? Something like The Constitution or maybe capitalism, or even a religion?
“Fair Share Myth”
Still waiting for a Leftist/socialist definition of the word “fair.”
But they won’t define it. By leaving “fair” arbitrary and capricious, they are free to declare: “The word means whatever we feel it means. Now surrender more of your wealth.”
Still waiting for a rightist/fascist definition of the word “fair.”
Since we never use it, at least in this context, why should we define it?
Never? Because it doesn’t exist? At least in that context, of course?
“Still waiting for . . .”
Or you can use deflection to evade the responsibility of defining your terms.
“With a record like that, it is little surprise Mamdani and his allies prefer to focus on socialist mythologies rather than realities.” Turley.
Its the same with MAGAotts. Incapable of independent and critical thought and scream insults at liberals for wanting an all inclusive society while MAGAotts congregate around an ideology that has not worked for many Americans, including themselves, while commenters here suck on the tit of federal largess (social security, medicaid, food stamps etc.) yet scream about the evils of socialism. Not one of you is independently wealthy i.e, not dependent on government to survive. Like the socialist, you too are blood suckers whether you realize it or not. The hypocrisy is stunning.
It’s way too early to be hitting the bottle.
Then you should try something less stupid.
ROFL. You think the commenters on Turleys blog are all on food stamps and medicaid? You’ve been watching way too much TV.
Well, tell us about your situation Mike Conrad? Never took or received gov. largess? Never ever, you say? Well Mike, you’re either a liar or stupid. You must be the sole example here of the independently wealthy eh?
What is really stunning is that ignorance and hate such as this exist in today’s society.
Truly stunning is your hate and ignorance as it exists in your comment.