The Fair Share Myth and Other Socialist Fables

Soviet-style poster of a woman holding an ermine with red star, gears, and wheat in backgroundBelow 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.

The demonization of the wealthy is one of the oldest tactics of politicians seeking to empower themselves by harnessing mob rage. Combined with pledges of free stuff under socialism, it creates a dangerous delusion among disgruntled citizens.

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 wiped her hands on the American flag in lieu of a napkin, 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.”

215 thoughts on “The Fair Share Myth and Other Socialist Fables”

  1. Speaking of “Socialist Fables:” Socialism “versus” democratic socialism

    When one person loots your bank account, it’s theft.

    When a criminal gang votes to loot your bank account, it’s still theft.

  2. All wealth is based on illegal immigration. Shut down the borders, strip everyone of their wealth and lest start again fresh while deporting with special bounties paid to ICE. That’s the way forward. The only ones prospering here are public service ICE. Your comments please.

  3. Utility theory informs us of an ideal tax structure. Originated by Jeremy Bentham it was brought to fruition of the 19th century polymath John Stuart Mill. Simply put, if you have lots of $$ the next dollar isn’t bringing as much utility compared to only having a few $$. So total taxes should be highly progressive. During the Eisenhower administration the top tax bracket was 91%.

    1. The Constitution informs us of the right to liberty and private property and the equal protection of the laws.

      That is freedom, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, and equal or the same treatment as others or protection from selective, confiscatory, or punitive taxation.
      ___________

      14th Amendment

      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    2. Non in dialecticà complacuit Deo salvum facere populum suum
      – St. Ambrose

      translation: what was your reaction when you learned of Linus Pauling’s embarrassing error in describing the DNA structure as being held together by H bonds and not phosphate groups?

      That evening, you know, sort of, six o’clock, we went over when The Eagle opened and, you know, had a drink more or less, you know, to toast Linus’ failure, it was, because you know we didn’t ever contemplate it, we thought well propose a model and it might not be right but never did we think, well one day, we could reject so instantly. And so we were both pleased and a bit scared because we thought it was, you know, just awful, and maybe someone at Caltech would, you know, upon reading the manuscript would tell Linus this is chemical nonsense. Little did we know that, you know, no one at Caltech really had the courage to tell Linus it was wrong, no matter what, how good a school it was, Linus was like the Pope, and it wasn’t a way to, Linus wasn’t used to people saying he was wrong.

      – James Watson

      https://dnalc.cshl.edu/view/15453-Linus-Pauling-was-wrong-about-the-DNA-structure-James-Watson.html

      NB: dont freak out David. Im just having some fun re: how science and scientists can be so wrong including John Stuart Mill

    3. What on earth are you talking about?

      Mill explicitly rejected a progressive income tax, and defended a flat tax.

Leave a Reply