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 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.”
“Continued dependency upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”
– FDR State of the Union Address January 4, 1935.
Franklin D. Roosevelt rests in American history as its most formidable socialist-leaning president to have laid the groundwork and chart the path for the extreme progressivism that has significantly captured the Democratic Party today. However, even as he relentlessly endeavored to increase the size and power of the federal government to provide for its citizens’ welfare, it is noteworthy to remember and understand he did so with a caveat that warns against the whole of the socialistic ideology.
Here’s an issue Turley should devote an entire article:
Apparently in July 2026, American auto makers will be legally required to install cameras and microphones inside every new automobile.
For the purpose of reading your face and eye movements inside the car you paid for.
Congress apparently created this Nanny State technology to make sure you pay attention while driving.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Third Party records doctrine – the abuses of power are nearly unlimited.
Voters should remember the Prohibition Movement – where politicians in Congress played “Nanny State” to save lives. That don’t make it constitutional.
Dwight D Eisenhower once said “if you want total safety and security, go to prison”. It’s not what free people do.
If there was ever a time to call your member of Congress this is it. You pay for a new car and Congress won’t give you the choice of highly invasive spy technology.
This just in: Mayor Mamdani is making public the complete list of all properties that are valued high enough to be hit with the new tax his managed to get passes. The public list gives all names and addresses which seems problematic in these times.
So we will see Cynthia Nixon and Robert Dinero’s addresses and the value of their property.
This taunting class warfare is disgusting.
Only the owner of private property has the power to “claim and exercise” dominion.
That includes purchasing and selling, hiring, firing, paying, and directing employees; setting prices, wages, rent, etc. — to “claim and exercise” dominion.
Private property is distinct from and not public property.
______________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
Socialism transfers money, privilege and power from the economically adept to the politically adept. It seldom happens that a financially adept person is also politically adept: Trump is an outlier. Inherited money is another matter: It gives the inheritor of great wealth the illusion of superior wisdom in all other matters: Rep. Goldman is the current poster-boy for political fatuity. Many of our elected leaders are weak in this area of competence, even though they spend their spare time begging money from others so that they can make economic decisions that affect everyone.
Socialism is communism-in-waiting. Socialism and communism are illogical and irrational criminal enterprises. Socialists and communists must be tried, convicted, and severely punished for their crimes against humanity and their crimes against God-given and natural freedom. Socialism and communism are irrefutably unconstitutional.
Textual Analysis of the Clause
The Command: The text uses the word shall, which is an absolute command. Congress has no discretion to bypass this rule when laying indirect taxes.
The Scope: The text uses the word throughout, which means in every part, through the whole body, or from end to end of the entire territory.
The Subject: The rule applies to all duties, imposts, and excises, without making any exceptions for different classes of people, occupations, or income levels.
What Is Constitutional Under This Strict Textual Reading
If the text is applied exactly as written, with no outside modifiers or judicial definitions, the following rules dictate what is constitutional:
Absolute Uniformity: Any duty, impost, or excise must be identical in its rate, application, and execution everywhere inside the United States.
No Individual Distinctions: Because the text says “throughout the United States” and provides no qualifications or permissions to separate citizens into groups, a tax that varies from person to person within that territory violates the plain meaning of “uniform.”
Universal Application: To remain completely uniform throughout the whole country, the tax must apply identically to all persons and all objects subject to that tax, regardless of location or individual status. Any variation creates non-uniformity, which the plain text explicitly forbids.
The Taxing and Spending Clause doesn’t apply to state and local taxation. By its terms it only applies to Congress, and it has never been incorporated to the states.
Point taken. If the Constitution is considered American, may we consider states that skew this thesis on taxation Un-American?
Not necessarily un-American, since under founding principles they retained legislative authority as sovereigns to the extent they did not give it up to join the union. Unwise tax legislation is not automatically unamerican. Some states already have a tax-uniformity clause in their own state constitution. Others don’t, and the Equal Protection Clause has not been applied very strictly in the tax arena (hence the need for a tax uniformity amendment to the US constitution which would cover all states and the US government).
States shall not deny the equal protection of the laws.
___________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Communists are thieves who have coveted and borne false witness in order to obtain their “FAIR SHARE” of other people’s money.
Taxes must be equal.
They should have been censured then ostracized for their wanton cravings.
The socialists have a point, in that under socialism, anyone who manages to get wealthy will definitely not pay their fair share; they instead managed to get themselves included in the ruling elite. Under free-market capitalism, though, the wealthy have to get their wealth by providing $100 in societal value for every $5 in wealth. The flip side of this coin is that for every $5 in wealth confiscated from entrepreneurs, $100 of societal value vanishes. This isn’t to say that government shouldn’t tax wealthy entrepreneurs , but it does say that government should be held strictly accountable for what it does with each $5, compared to the $100 in societal value that was lost.
Billionaires ALREADY pay more than their fair share. These greedy leftards just want MORE and are insatiable. “Tax and spend” is all they can think about. Other people’s money.
The United States has the most progressive tax system in the developed WORLD yet they want more. disgusting and un-American.
The best way to ensure everyone pays their fair share is to tax everyone at the exact same rate and not allow deductions (see my proposed Tax Uniformity Amendment below).
Before when I said this, a commenter said I was wrong because some people should pay more taxes than others. I noted then, and I note now, that that will happen if everyone is taxed at the same rate.
oldman
It is a nice theory to tax everyone at the same rate, but you neglect to identify what exactly is taxed.
If you are going to tax earned taxable income as defined by the IRS, then the mega-billionaires pay nothing, as they do now.
Why?
They do not have earned taxable income as defined by the IRS. If they draw a salary at all, it is nominal. For example Bezos draws a salary of $81,400 from Amazon. Musk draws no salary at all from any of his companies.
They finance their lifestyle by taking out low interest loans using their stock holdings as collateral. As the value of their stock increases they simply take out new loans to pay off the old ones. They never sell their stock, and they never have taxable income, and they never pay income taxes. They perpetually take out new loans at low interest and never touch their stock holdings, which simply grow ever larger. Then when they die, their descendants inherit everything at a stepped up cost basis. The descendants can then sell a very small portion of the stock holdings without incurring any capital gains, and pay off the loans. Then the cycle just starts over again. Vast wealth is never taxed, while the owners of that wealth live decadent lifestyles.
That is why some states are interested in a wealth tax. It is an effort to force the billionaires to at least pay something rather than nothing.
Passive income could be taxed as well. That would include interest and dividends. And taxing everyone at the same rate still makes sense for a wealth tax, in my view. It’s both fair and paternalistic – in that it would save blue states from themselves. Without this type of restraint, blue state leaders demagogue the issue (as we see in places like Seattle and California), getting votes while causing capital to flee, making everyone poorer.
But the mega-billionaires do not have passive income either.
As far as the IRS is concerned, they have no income whatsoever, active, passive or otherwise. All they have is liabilities in the form of personal loans. They do not own property either. Their mansions, and fancy cars and fancy yachts are all owned by their companies. They do not own their homes. Their companies own their homes, and they pay rent to the company, otherwise the value of the rent WOULD be considered taxable income. So they have their companies buy their homes, and they effectively pay rent to themselves, and the company gets to treat the home as a business asset that can be depreciated, thus reducing company taxes.
The mega-billionaires completely escape ANY form of taxation related to their wealth.
That is the motivation of the wealth taxes. To try to force them to at least pay something, rather than absolutely nothing.
So then the problem is figuring out what to tax. You have settled on a wealth tax. If everyone is taxed at even 1% of their wealth, then the mega-billionaires will be paying a great deal in taxes, no? Maybe that 1% could even be increased and income taxes could be decreased due to the extra revenue from the wealth tax.
oldman
Here is the fundamental problem with your point of view.
You take the position that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. That is a perfectly fair proposition, and I couldn’t agree more. But then you fall for the myth that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of federal income taxes, as Turley states above, and which he has constantly stated on this blog. Unfortunately, that is the actual myth of the fair share myth. As I have explained, the mega-billionaires pay no personal income taxes. Therefore as far as the IRS is concerned they are not taxpayers, because they do not pay income taxes. Therefore the IRS does not include them in the calculation of what the top 1% of taxpayers actually pay. As far as the IRS is concerned the top 1% of taxpayers is anyone earning over about $670,000.
So, it is perfectly true that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of taxes, but the actual myth is to extrapolate that to a conclusion that billionaires must therefore be paying more than their fair share. That is the myth. Billionaires are not paying more than their fair share. They are not included in the top 1% of taxpayers, because they do not pay taxes. They are paying nothing.
You are presuming that billionaires are already paying more than their fair share, when quite clearly they are not. As a result, everyone else is paying MORE than their fair share. At present, billionaires pay absolutely nothing, while you and I bear the UNFAIR burden of taxation.
So now in your latest comment, you wonder about a flat 1% wealth tax on everyone. I am not sure how that would work, I need to think about it. But at least you appear to be coming to the realization that a wealth tax may be a better solution than the current situation. This is at least some kind of progress, because you now realize that there may be a perfectly good reason for a wealth tax.
My first thought is that scrapping the income tax in favor of a flat wealth tax would be too extreme, and difficult to put into place. The problem is much more easily solved by simply putting a wealth tax on those billionaires who manage to escape the personal income tax, and force them to pay SOMETHING that at least approximates their fair share.
You neglect the fact that their companies pay taxes, their assets require and pay taxes, fees and licensing. That’s their wealth being taxed, where do you think it comes from? Additionally, the businesses they build complexes or lease buildings, acquire insurance, require banking, all creation of commerce dollars. Taxing a tax dollar is an immediate loss while the people that work for them all pay taxes…think of it as the reverse of municipalities acquiring new residential neighborhood doors to add to their tax rolls.
Who built that?
8 ball
I am completely mystified by the MAGA people who are so adamant in protecting big business and mega-billionaires who pay no taxes. You have been duped into voting against your own self-interest.
Your comment is completely irrational.
First of all big businesses pay little to no federal taxes. Elon Musk is the wealthiest person on the planet. Not only does he pay no personal federal income tax, Spacex has never paid a dime in federal taxes in the 24 years of its existence. We found this out as a result of the required SEC filings when Spacex went public last month.
Last year Amazon paid an effective US federal tax rate of 1.4% on $78 billion profit. Interestingly, Amazon paid a global tax rate of 20% on those profits. The global tax rate accounts for the taxes Amazon paid in other countries where they operate. Other countries do not fool around with corporate taxes. You pay what you owe, no dodgy loopholes.
So when you say that the mega-billionaires are being taxed because their companies are being taxed that is patently false.
You also say that the companies pay other taxes, such as state and local, and pay fees and licenses, and that somehow that is equivalent to the billionaires paying taxes on their wealth. That is absurd. None of that goes to the federal government.
You go way out on a limb to defend billionaires who pay no personal taxes, while you are paying more than your fair share, because they pay nothing.
The answer to that problem is a VAT or sales tax on every purchase.
A sales tax, or VAT is a much too simplistic approach that would not actually work.
As I have said, the mega-billionaires own very little personal property in their own name. All their major possessions, homes, private jets, cars, yachts are owned by their companies. The companies buy the property and pay sales tax on those purchases, but then it is a fully deductible business expense. A sales tax has absolutely no effect on mega-billionaires because they never personally buy anything of significance. The company buys everything. And the sales tax expense becomes a deductible business expense that reduces the overall tax burden on the company.
A sales tax would not touch the mega-billionaires, and would simply serve to reduce the tax burden of the company.
Meanwhile, everyone else, like you and me, would be stuck paying a high federal sales tax, and subsidizing the billionaires once again.
The billionaires have armies of accountants and tax attorneys who do nothing but devise ways to defeat taxation. The only way to pierce that protection is to institute a straight wealth tax on those who currently get away with paying absolutely nothing.
” in their own name.”
The tax is blind to names or wealth. All is taxed, inside and outside of the corporate structure. I’m not sure which tax pertains to my suggestion. It acts as a substitute for income taxes or an addition to them. I am not unhappy that those taxes you desire are transferred to the creation of jobs and national wealth.
Speaking of socialist fables:
“They do not own their homes. Their companies own their homes . . .”
Bezos owns all of his homes. Not Amazon. Bezos, personally. As does Gates. As does Brin.
Any other lies you wish to peddle in your romp to loot the rich?
Sam
You are correct that Amazon does not own the Bezos real estate holdings. But I never said it did. I said “their companies” own the real estate. Bezos has no real estate in his own name. He uses a complex web of LLC’s to buy and hold his property. These are still companies that he owns and can be used to avoid personal taxes. Real estate held in an LLC becomes a business asset that can be depreciated and used to avoid taxes. Some of the LLC’s that he uses have been identified as Lochland Holdings LLC, Indian Creek #1 LLC and Nash Holdings LLC. There are probably others, but these are ones that have been identified. He tries to keep these entities secret for obvious reasons.
Sergei Brin does not own any real estate in his own name, and neither does Google own his real estate. Like Bezos he uses a complex web of LLC’s, which are companies that he owns, and provide the tax protection that I discussed. Brin is even more secretive than Bezos. Only two LLC’s have been identified as belonging to Brin. They are Alpine Bay LLC and T-Rex Holdings. Starting last year Brin moved almost all of his real estate holdings into anonymous entities in Nevada. Nevada allows individuals to set up an LLC that is completely obscures the beneficial owner. The only name that is associated with the LLC is a registered agent. Brin now holds all his real estate in LLC’s registered with a single registered agent in Reno, NV.
Gates does not hold any real estate in his own name. All his holdings are held in the Cascade Investments LLC that provides the tax protection I described. Gates is much more open about his real estate holdings, and he does pay taxes, but at a much lower rate than he would if he held the properties personally. He pays about 18% in taxes, which is less than half what he would pay if he owned property personally.
However, Gates is very much an outlier in terms of billionaires and the tax the pay or do not pay.
Why are you so obsessed with protecting billionaires who pay virtually no personal income taxes?
These billionaires have collectively contributed billions to the Republican Party who have convinced you that cutting taxes for billionaires is in your interest, and the best interests of the country.
You have been conned into voting against your own self-interest.
The billionaires like Musk are willing to pour huge amounts into the Republican coffers, so obviously they must see a substantial payoff in terms of reducing their taxes.
There are multiple books titled “The Flat Tax”, been out for years. Neil Booryz was a huge proponent for the Flat Tax, a great idea.
Tax Uniformity Amendment
Section 1. All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects.
Section 2. The effective rate of taxation on a subject shall not be made to depend on the quantity of the thing being taxed.
Section 3. The effective tax rate shall not exceed ten percent on any subject.
Section 4. This Amendment shall apply to all taxing authorities whether federal, state, or local.
14th Amendment
No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
True, but it has been interpreted to allow for classifications in the taxing arena. Whether you agree or disagree doesn’t matter, that is the state of the law. My proposed Tax Uniformity Amendment is a cure as it would be express in not allowing that.
This isn’t just a left-right conflict, but a generational conflict. It will only get worse with the left having lowered educational standards, and the onslaught of AI demotivating students to learn critical thinking, and eliminating entry-level office work jobs. When the pace of economic change is moving faster than individuals and society can adapt, be prepared for failure and frustration among those no longer valued by “the invisible hand”.
If you are an older American, be prepared to be blamed. Whether you think it fair or unfair.
. . . and the onslaught of AI demotivating students to learn critical thinking . . .
In fact, AI should motivate people to learn critical thinking. AI quickly analyzes lots of information and can generate text. But it cannot think critically. A person who can think critically *and* use AI occupies a good position in the labor market.
You are sorely uninformed. AI “demotivating students” is the least of mankind’s worries. This is existential. Do you believe AI needs human beings?
Isn’t the AI argument the same one made when computers were first becoming faster and better?
People were worried computers would replace people and make companies “leaner”. It didn’t turnout to be as dire as predicted. AI won’t ultimately replace everyone. I think it will even the playing field for those who could not grasp the critical thinking part.
Those computer speeds (and the complexity of software) grew steadily over 6 decades. It wasn’t all-at-once change. The pace of change brought on by AI is 10X faster. The argument “humans always adapt” only works up to a certain pace of disruption. Above that pace, the casualties pile up — as drug and alcohol addiction, ruined marriages, foreclosed homes, business failures, homelessness.
Change at manageable pace can bring improvements galore. If you’re not willing to discuss pace of change, then how can you evaluate whether any change is good vs. bad for society? It equates to whether people can adapt (or not) at that pace.
Computers wiped out the secretarial pool, the typing pool, and the original computers – people who used adding machines to do the calculations for engineering and accounting. All those jobs are gone, by the hundreds of thousands to millions, and the burden of their work is placed on a smaller workforce higher up the information chain, aided by electronic computers. It used to be a job to place prices on items in stores. Now those are replaced by bar codes and scanners.
LOL
One good EMP and AI would be greatly reduced to an inconsequential matter, as would our population.
The left lowering educational standards? Hardly. You left out the right’s incessant need to cut funding to public schools and letting students be taught by barely qualified teachers just to save money for tax breaks for the rich.
Silly, tired, thread-worn leftist talking points that have been trotted out for 100 years and nobody takes seriously. The world has moved on without you.
Your communist idiocy was tried in Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam. Any progress they have made occurred when they loosened controls on freedom, aka capitalism. The effect of communist public school unions won’t be known for some time. This happened in free America:
Franklin’s Kite Experiment • First Practical Telegraph • First Telephone Call • First Electric Power Grid • First Skyscraper • First Oil Boom • First Powered Flight • First Assembly Line • First Commercial Radio Network • First Transatlantic Solo Flight • First Nuclear Chain Reaction • First Atomic Bomb • First Sound Barrier Crossing • First Commercial Computer • First Transistor • First Integrated Circuit • First Nuclear Submarine • First Artificial Satellite Navigation • First American In Orbit • First Moon Landing • First Computer Network • First Microprocessor • First Mobile Phone Call • First Personal Computer • First Graphical User Interface • First Commercial Internet Service • First Search Engine Giant • First Online Retail Giant • First Smartphone Revolution • First Social Media Platform • First Cryptocurrency Revolution • First Reusable Orbital Rocket • First Private Spacecraft Docking • First Practical Artificial Intelligence • First Four-Trillion-Dollar Company • First Trillion-Dollar Company • First Trillionaire
Top 10 economies by nominal GDP:
United States: $32.38 trillion
China: $20.85 trillion (funded by U.S. and EU)
Germany: $5.45 trillion
Japan: $4.38 trillion
United Kingdom: $4.26 trillion
India: $4.15 trillion
France: $3.59 trillion
Italy: $2.74 trillion
Russia: $2.66 trillion
Brazil: $2.64 trillion
Totalitarianism isn’t communism. Learn the difference.
But communism is always totalitarianism…
Cut funding??? There is no constitutional mandate for education and America should have absolutely PRIVATIZED education a long, long time ago.
Taxing a billionaire’s luxury second home does not make money disappear. It moves that money into the local community to create a stronger economy.How the Money Moves:
Step 1: The city collects $500 million from luxury property taxes.
Step 2: The city uses that money to hire teachers and fix subways.
Step 3: Teachers and construction workers get paid. They immediately spend their paychecks on food, housing, and local stores.
Why This Helps Everyone: This spending creates a chain reaction. Every dollar spent by a worker goes into a local business, growing the economy by more than the original $500 million.
Billionaires rely on public roads, subways, and educated workers to run their companies and build their wealth. It is only fair that they help pay for the very infrastructure that makes them rich.
Step 4: Billionaire has freedom, chooses not to be taxed and is welcomed with open arms into a community that respects property rights.
Step 5. City crumbles, commies call for more control over these damn free billionaires as they have always done instead of getting a job.
We are already at step 5.
Why this hurts everyone: Commies never stop taking taking taking. their greed is insatiable.
If you want something, anything for yourself, if you don’t want to have to eat your pets, ignore the parasite above.
If the billionaire isn’t taxed, then the city crumbles whether they stay or go.
Step 1: Luxury property owners either spend $500 million in goods and services and/or invest the money.
Step 2: The spent money goes to companies that employ people and hire new workers to meet demand . The invested money goes to grow companies or create new ones that then hire people to manufacture products or create services.
Step 3: the workers, existing or newly created get paid. They immediately spend their paychecks on food, housing, and local stores.
Why This Helps Everyone: This spending creates a chain reaction. Every dollar spent by a worker goes into a local business, growing the economy by more than the original $500 million.
Billionaires rely on public roads, subways, and educated workers to run their companies and build their wealth. It is only fair that they help pay for the very infrastructure that makes them rich.
Everybody relies on those things and it’s only fair that everyone help pay for the very infrastructure that made life easier for all. Since the top 10% pay more taxes than the 90% rest of people they are already “helping” pay for that very infrastructure you mention.
And when enough of those billionaires and millionaires leave the city and tax revenues plummet, as they will, I guess the city will not be able “to hire teachers and fix subways” unless they start taxing those same teachers and workers that already have jobs to make up the shortfall. I am sure they will love helping to pay for the infrastructure they so thoroughly enjoy. 😉
In a FREE nation of laws, your “…it moves that money into the local community to create a stronger economy…” constitutes a crime of theft with severe penalties. You have to STEAL a person’s money before you can MOVE a person’s money. You are a criminal advocating crime.
What you must do by morality and law in a free country is open a CHARITY, which will allow you to provide endless “free stuff” to the undoubtedly DESERVING parasites and leeches of your choice.
You are free. Go establish that CHARITY.
“What exactly is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for?” — Thomas Sowell Please be specific and remember to show your math.
“THE WORLD ACCORDING TO JAFO”
Good old Tom So well, whoever the —- that is, is the true source of this brilliance?
How ’bout this from ~3,500 years ago, as but one alternative example:
Thou Shalt Not Covet
Thou Shalt Not Steal
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
A typical CEO now gets 350 times the salary of the average worker in their company. That is like getting a full year’s worth of work done every single day. So what did they do on every day that is worth that much? Oh, right, they leveraged their position instead of doing actual work.
Some animals are more important than other animals. That’s why Farmer John feeds the important animals better, especially the ones that provide benefit to him.
You same worn out argument could be made for a neurosurgeon against an orderly or a Billionaire ambulance chaser against a paralegal.
Why did we fight communism in Korea and Vietnam?
Nearly 100,000 Americans died for what, nothing?
And then there’s the Cold War.
Shouldn’t America be fighting communism—General Secretary Bernie Sanders, “Fundamentally Transform” Obongo, Zorro Madmani, the DSA et al.—here and now?
Subversion is unconstitutional treason.
These are direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
If communists were good enough to be the enemy then, communists are good enough to be the enemy now.
Let’s get this party started!
You just copy/pasted your comment from yesterday. PFFFFT
And your point is?
That you’re boring. Come up with something new to say.
So you only read the boring parts?
Why did we fight communism in Korea and Vietnam?
Nearly 100,000 Americans died for what, nothing?
And then there’s the Cold War.
Shouldn’t America be fighting communism—General Secretary Bernie Sanders, “Fundamentally Transform” Obongo, Zorro Madmani, the DSA et al.—here and now?
Subversion is unconstitutional treason.
These are direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
If communists were good enough to be the enemy then, communists are good enough to be the enemy now.
Let’s get this party started!
^ Moron thinks he’s funny by copy/pasting the same boring thing over and over ^
^^^Moron thinks??? That’s dubious at best.
Thank you bozos for highlighting my brilliant work. I appreciate your patronage and your assistance. You are my biggest fans. Thanks.
When you got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose, right?
Kill em all, let God sort it out.
An old bumper sticker from the 60-70’s, which I agree with!
“Why did we fight communism in Korea and Vietnam?
Nearly 100,000 Americans died for what, nothing?”
They died because the American President’s didn’t want to admit the US could not win. They got 55,000 American soldiers killed rather than admit what the intelligence agencies knew at the start. They were sent to die for nothing.
“Fair share” to Marxist (no one who is not one makes that demand) is whatever magnitude of theft is required to allow the Marxist to live in luxury without expending any real effort to obtain it, and, as a result, mitigate their envy and hatred of those who have earned that status by means of some combination of talent, effort, intelligence, frugality, and successfully competing in the marketplace.
“The country surrendered control of the essentials. . . ..” The new PM is confusing “the country” with the “the government.” The essentials remained in the country and were controlled by persons outside the government who were more competent and probably honest than government employees or party hacks.
I remember those days of misery in Britain. It was that very misery that got Thatcher elected in a landslide. Now Burnham wants to go back to the misery.
After Thatcher’s electoral win, her military victory in the Falklands gave her the nickname, “The Iron Lady.” Her international reputation was such that the underground Polish movement sought her out for in-person advice, ultimately becoming Solidarność, which snowballed into a movement for freedom throughout the Eastern Bloc.
Shortly thereafter, Thatcher and Reagan began strategizing behind the scenes based on explosive intel snuck out of Russia about how the USSR was spending 50% of its GDP on defense – which gave them the idea of helping to bring down the USSR through an arms race it could not afford. Right at that time, a reform-minded General Secretary (Gorbachev) came to power and the stars aligned.
oldman
This comment is pure revisionist fantasy, disconnected from reality.
Firstly, how can you remember the days of misery in the UK when you weren’t even here?
Thatcher’s nickname, the Iron Lady had nothing to do with the Falklands war. She was given that name by a Soviet propaganda newspaper in 1976 after a speech given in the House of Commons. She was not Prime Minister at that time. As a leader of the opposition Conservative party she gave a fiery, hardline speech attacking the Soviet Union. The Falklands war did not happen until 6 years later in 1982.
You claim that the Polish underground came to Thatcher for advice before forming Solidarność. This is nonsense. There is no record of a Polish underground, and no record of meetings with Thatcher who at the time was not even PM.
Solidarność did not come to her for advice. Solidarność was formed in 1980, shortly after Thatcher became PM. She was deeply skeptical of Solidarność, and basically ignored them at first, for the simple reason that they were a socialist trade union. She had fought her campaign to win the 1979 election by condemning all trade unions. It wasn’t until later, around 1982, that she offered her support, because she saw that Solidarność and Walesa were actually managing to defeat the Soviet influence in Poland. She was a johnny-come-lately to the party only after she saw the Soviets being defeated. She got on board with Solidarność only after she realised that they were actually winning, and after the Polish government declared martial law and tried to crush Solidarność.
There was a standing joke here in the UK that Thatcher hated all trade unions, unless they were Polish.
The low quality of your comment is reflected in your premise that nobody can know anything about anywhere unless they’re physically present in that place, and your reliance on “standing jokes” as a substitute for facts.
The low quality of your comment is reflected in your premise that nobody can know anything about anywhere unless they did linked research.
I did not say or imply that at all.
Wow, it never fails. The sheer number of comments expressing total ignorance and political illiteracy is not a surprise.
Professor Turley loves to conflate things and simplify complex issues for the MAGA nuts and clueless conservatives whose idea of complex is an instruction manual from IKEA.
Turley’s fondness for deliberate mischaracterization and disingenuous portrayals is legendary. First, Mayor Mamdani is not a socialist, he’s a Democratic Socialist. A clear distinction I’ve made many time here. Of course MAGA nuts never seem to learn. Sigh.
Then there are the attacks on the ‘Nordic model’ which is actually a good example of Democratic socialist ideas that do work. Everyone keeps saying it’s’ a capitalist system and it’s true, almost. It’s a mixed system and its success is what frightens a lot of fiscal conservatives. Because it aligns with the “fair share” idea and it shows it can be successful.
I’ve shown plenty of examples of successful ‘socialist’ ideas that do work.
Great, move to those locations where they are such a stellar success.
Why do you wish to wallow in the American capitalist oligarchy cesspool? No desire to make the USA a better place to live rather than leaving it to the wealthy to tell you how to live and who to vote for?
It’s a homogeneous system, they all have the same heritage and culture. It will never work in a mixed system like the US as every faction will divide into an us versus them mentality. Once again providing diversity is not necessarily a strength in everything.
Talk about conflating to confuse that is all you do.
Roughly 15% of the U.S. population is foreign-born. By comparison, over 20% of Sweden’s population is foreign-born.
Norway and Denmark have also seen massive immigration waves from the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe. If ethnic homogeneity were required for a welfare state to function, the Swedish and Norwegian economies would have collapsed years ago. Instead, they remain highly competitive, productive, and wealthy.
You say diversity creates a divided “us versus them” mentality. In reality, the Nordic model prevents this division precisely because its programs are universal.
In the U.S., social programs are often “means-tested” (only for the poor), which causes the middle class to resent paying taxes for benefits they do not receive.
In the Nordic system healthcare, childcare, and college are free for everyone, regardless of your background, race, or income. Because a wealthy native-born citizen and a newly arrived immigrant use the exact same high-quality healthcare and schools, the system fosters a sense of shared national investment rather than tribal division.
Like the U.S., Nordic countries face aging domestic populations and low birth rates. Immigrant labor has been vital in filling critical shortages in healthcare, construction, and technology.
A comprehensive report on Nordic Geography of Diversity highlights that integrating diverse populations into strong, union-backed labor markets has driven innovation and kept productivity exceptionally high.
I proved you wrong several blogs ago and like a good useful idiot you keep repeating the commie lies.
You didn’t prove me wrong. You embarrassed yourself with your ignorance. It was really bad.
@George
No, you haven’t, you’ve just regurgitated talking points and conflated data, as usual. It’s really, really boring, and it’s really gotten old. Either you are very lonely or very paid (maybe both). Neither makes for a happy life, and boy, do we not care.
James,
“. . . and boy, do we not care.”
Could not of said it better myself!
Bravo!
Upstatefarmer, couldn’t have said it at all.
“Could not HAVE said it better myself!” not “Could not of said it better myself!”
Literacy among conservatives is demonstrably low also libertarians.
James, the prove me wrong. Saying “it ain’t so” is not an argument. Provide your counter-argument. If you think the data is wrong, prove it. Show how it’s wrong or why.
Your ad hominem attacks are just proof you don’t have a valid argument.
YOUR ad hominen attacks on Turley are the real joke. X’s AI skills are beginning to show wear and tear. James’s word, “regurgitated” is about as good as it gets. George/X comes back swingin’ after a few days of knockouts, hoping no one will remember. we do.
But you don’t even show one this time…
wrong dopey, no matter how much you repeat it it’s just a stupid idea you got in your stupid head.
same as ‘pay your fair share’. you think we will forget the truth because you repeat your lies. slipping X, slipping.
You are transparent and insincere as always, X, King of the Insincere Left
just a few points:
1. Fair share is pure rhetoric. In academic studies the phrase his used as well and I have pointed out several times that there exists no workable definition of fair share. The phrase is used to argue that a certain group does not pay enough and must be made to pay more. It is a hollow justification for increasing taxes.
2. Turley mentioned that the US has the most progressive income tax. Not true. The Fraser report he refers to compares tax systems; not just income taxes. The US (CA) is at the top because it has only low-rated sales taxes at the subnational level while the rest of the world have high-rated VATs.
3. Income tax progression depends on the rate structure and the income brackets to which these rates apply. You can put it in a graph to determine how steep the progression is. The US income tax is moderate compared to most of Europe (even if you include state income tax). For example. let’s compare the US (federal) to the Netherlands. The US has 7 brackets, NL has only 3. Federal tax starts at 10% up to an income of $12,400; 12% from there o $50,400; the 22% up to $105,700; 24% up to $201,775; 32% up to $256,225; 35% up to 640,600; and income beyond that is taxed at 37%. The Netherlands taxes the first $44,327 at 35.75%. The second bracket up to $89,405 is taxed at 37.56% (in the US you would be in the 22-24%); all income beyond that is taxed at 49.50%. Obviously, the income tax is much more progressive in the Netherlands. The overall system may be less progressive due to the 21% VAT which is at best a proportional tax. In addition the Netherlands has a wealth tax, steep inheritance taxes with low exemption threshold, high excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and cars. Conclusion is that the people in the Netherlands are taxed to the extreme. I had a visitor once from that country who was surprised at our gasoline prices and claimed that gasoline was scandalously cheap here. I counter that perhaps he should consider whether gasoline was scandalously expensive in his own country (the difference in price being caused entirely by differences in taxation).
4. If you want to make a useable comparison to what income tax groups contribute, you should include wage taxes (withholding by employers from salaries paid out). Some people pay no income tax because the wage tax already covered what is due. The wage tax is essentially a prepayment of the income tax.
5. Politicians and also academic writers always describe tax in terms of revenue. It is only revenue for the government; it is a cost to those who have to pay. The illusion is created that we gain anything with taxes. Turley writes that Hochul claims that the tax would generate $500 million, but it would not add that amount to the NY economy, which would not grow by a penny. What taxation does, is shifting income or funds from the private sector to the public sector. That’s all. Describing taxation in terms of revenue raised is misleading as it creates an illusion of positive outcome. Revenue raised is only one side of the coin. You could also describe it as a cost, which is the other side of the cost. Indeed, it is revenue for the public sector and a cost to the private sector.
6. Further to point 5, the real political and philosophical question is how much of the aggregate income earned in a given year should be transferred to the public sector. That is a matter of opinion of course, but would be a good starting point for any discussion on taxation. How much tax should be generated. If we come to an agreement how much money the government gets, that would in turn determine how much the government can spend on welfare and redistribution. Now it seems to go the other way around: the demand or promise of welfare and redistribution determines the level of taxation. To tax Paul to give to Peter always has the support of the latter, and when there are more Peters than Pauls, the demand keeps growing. However, if we would limit government revenue to a fixed percentage of our annual aggregate income that problem could be solved.
My fair share is I get the most benefit with the least cost.
Didn’t Mr. Fair share Mamdani just give himself a $47,000 dollar raise while asking everyone else to pay more in taxes? Oh yeah he did.
The left destroyed the education system in this country so people are too dumb to investigate what “socialists say,” worse, they believe in this garbage not because they think it’s true, but because they want it to be true. I have been bashing them for the “Nordic Model” myth for years now and nobody ever does the research. They avoid actually looking at the truth as if it’s a plague. Sweden has zero statutory minimum wage, school of choice where parents can choose between public and private school improved education, not to mention the corporate tax rates are lower in those countries than ours. They heavily rely on capitalism. On another note, these countries heavily rely on labor unions. The difference is the Europeans understand that if your union demands bankrupt companies you get nothing out of it so they work closer with the companies not as strongly against them. The “Nordic Model did exist, but it failed and they are still digging out of it with very few remnants remaining. Oh, note on “free education.” Half the people demanding free college would not pass the exam needed to get free college, and colleges in these systems are not set up so you can have a year of “trying to find myself…” No sports teams that pay players, some don’t even have student housing.
The Democratic Socialists are scaring the DNC
The main problem with capitalism is the transition of youth into it. Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman all ignored how children are to be prepared to transition from intra-family economics (which operates as a commune with children dependent on parents) towards full emancipation as independent economic actors.
To thrive in today’s economy as a late teen — including the ability to pair-bond with your first love, marry, nest-build and procreate, you have to have wealthy, generous parents (or an inheritance). Freedom to pursue one’s happiness in a capitalist economy requires owning enough capital assets to maneuver. Young people are arriving at the gates of adulthood without that cushion. They care frustrated by their lack of means to do the things their heart desires.
Pres. Trump’s investment accounts for infants is a brilliant capitalist innovation — in 18 years, it will begin delivering this long, overdue repair to our economic system. What else can be done in the interim to give young adults a stronger sense of economic freedom to pursue happiness on their natural, biological timetable?
pbinca,
Well, sorry, but I am living proof one does not have to have wealthy parents or family to be successful. By working hard, many times requiring working two jobs, making smart choices, savings, living within or even below my means, I made it.
Starting out, my parents were not wealthy or even middle class.
You live a rundown trailer you silly slob. The proverbial white trailer trash. And somehow “you made it”? And you never served in the US military. Coward!
Prove it.
🙂
@Anonymous
If you were any more ignorant I suspect the earth would fall off of its axis. That you are possibly paid or have redefined bored with nothing better to do pretty much makes the point that leaving you to your own devices is likely not the greatest idea. We sure as hell aren’t going to put your ilk in charge of anything that is bigger than a lemonade stand beyond the blue strongholds, and at the end of the day the destruction of those places might as well be that (Oo! It’s sour!). You all sound like squawking baby birds waiting for the mama bird to drop something in their mouths to sane and actually mature people, whatever their age. Pathetic, in every sense of the word. I would imagine the tiny respite we get from you daily is your snack and nap-nap time. Make sure it’s whole milk, if you aren’t lactose intolerant.
How old are you, upstate? When I was 18, anybody with a pulse could get a job standing at a machine and eke out a subsistence living. But I couldn’t marry the young woman I loved, didn’t have the $. Wouldn’t have been able to support a newborn, nor a decent apartment. Didn’t marry until age 33 due to economics.
Stating a new household as a couple is more expensive now than 50 years ago.
Of course, young persons should be expecting to work, make smart choices and save. The question is, for how many years before they are able to marry, start a new household, and support a baby?
It’s nobody’s fault that economic trends slowly evolved over 100 years worked against young adults being able to duplicate what their parents achieved at the same age they did. Look at the marriage and childbirth age as a graph over time in the US. It’s been slowly shifting upwards the past 100 years, by now adding a decade of delay. Yet, the puberty onset isn’t going to change its timeline to match these longer times to economic independence, is it?
Conservatives need to take ownership for solving this problem. The left offers half-baked, tired, old ideas, but at least they’re not DENYing that there is a problem. Good solutions can only come with conservative creativity — as exemplified by the Trump Accounts for infants. Those won’t have the desired impact until 2044.
Pbinca, the age at the time of marriage follows a U-shape over the past 100+ years, so it is not a new phenomenon.
Housing costs are too high, but what are some of the causes of that? Building codes and community standards, rules and regulations. How big were the homes built early in the last century? They were much smaller. How many bathrooms? Carports or garages? The list goes on.
” Wouldn’t have been able to support a newborn, nor a decent apartment. “
I solved that problem. When first married, I lived in an “indecent” apartment.
The job problem is real because good jobs require better educations. But look at what has happened to the school systems. Many kids graduate without proficiency in mathematics or reading and writing. That is where the biggest problems start. That is also where the cure starts.
How long to get out of debt? It took me about 10 years to clear out the growing debt, but a lot of that was due to poor schools and the need to send my kids to an expensive private school. It paid off. Today, money will never be a problem, but in my early years, the extras in life, except for the kids, did not exist. If Starbucks depended on me, Starbucks would be bankrupt.
“I am living proof ”
So am I. My father sold life insurance and made just about enough for us to eat and keep a roof in place; my mother took a clerical job with Prudential in her 40s that supplemented that only somewhat. My wife’s family had even less. My “inheritance” was a small suburban 2-bedroom house in a tiny lot with a remaining mortgage that couldn’t quite be paid off by the death benefits on their policies. My wife and I raised 2 children while holding down at least one job each (frequently working part-time in second jobs as well). We worked our tails off, scrimped and saved (even while paying tuition to decent, private, non-sectarian schools for our kids). We paid the mortgage on our own house off 10 years early, and began investing the savings prudently, continuing to do without luxuries that we could by then have afforded. Now we are both retired, and while we aren’t wealthy by any reasonable measure, we do have significant assets, and some money to spend if and when we choose. I’ll be damned if I will let some over-educated, pompous cretin who couldn’t find his own butt hole with both hands, a hunting dog, and The Home Guide to Proctology (revised edition) tell me that we didn’t earn that.
That is a genuine problem of our system today, but it’s not a flaw of capitalism, it’s from the government interfering with free-markets. The distorted property values generally flow from government policy making it harder to build affordable homes.* In Canada the problem is even worse than in the US. because their laws are even more restrictive than ours. People who already own property don’t favor loosening these restrictions because that would depress the value of their properties – and that preference comes through in legislation. But if markets were truly free they would adjust to the demand from the younger generation, and housing would be more affordable.
*For example, zoning laws, slow permitting processes, building mandates, minimum lot sizes, parking minimums, impact fees, environmental reviews, and building codes.