What is wealth? We often base our opinions on our observations and experience of life. They can also be influenced by the sources we get our information from. The older I get the more I realize that my opinions may be formed from incomplete information, and that they may not be fully correct as a result. Nevertheless, I have a confidence level of about 98 percent that I am correct on the subject at hand.
Decisions are almost always made in uncertainty. How much information is necessary to make good decisions? Although it is not possible to gather all the information necessary to arrive at 100 percent certainty, we are still able to get enough needed information to make a decision.
Expert opinions vary regarding what wealth is. In very general terms, there are two types of wealth. One is material wealth, which is usually based on the net worth of the money, goods and services held by an individual, corporation, or other legally recognized organization. The other is intangible wealth, which considers the quality of life enjoyed by people.
Material wealth and quality of life are interrelated. Those with more material wealth have more opportunities to enjoy a good quality of life. Often, however, if material wealth is misused, the result can be a diminished quality of the overall experience of life. Obviously, people who live in poverty, or who are “just getting by,” may have fewer opportunities to enjoy “the good life.” We should also remember that the difficulties we face in life can be overcome by a right relationship with God. (John 16:33)
A common criticism of capitalism is that society becomes stratified – that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. On the other hand, it is argued that although socialism seeks to remove socioeconomic differences, it results in ruined economies that fail to produce enough affordable goods and services, which people need to for a decent standard of living.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” (Winston Churchill) [1]
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” (Winston Churchill) [2]
The idea that in capitalism the rich get richer by exploiting the poor did not originate with the current radical socialists who seem to have taken over the Democratic Party. Neither did the idea that socialism would correct this injustice by redistributing the wealth. It is at least as old as the utopian movement in the 19th century. The term, “from each according to his ability to each according to his need,” may have originated with the French utopian Étienne-Gabriel Morelly. It was popularized by Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875). [3]
The idea of redistributing wealth seems to be focused in improving the quality of life of the general population by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. (My apologies to Robin Hood.) In the Soviet Union, and the Eastern European countries it dominated, this included the confiscation of private property by the government. As an example, the homes of prosperous persons were declared to be “underutilized,” and the government relegated the owners to a small portion of the home, while giving the rest of the home over to be used by one or more less fortunate families.
That idea has not been lost on Democratic Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) who once advocated for the confiscation and refurbishing of slum apartment houses to provide housing for the poor as a solution to urban blight. That the history of public housing in the United States has been a miserable failure seems to have escaped AOC. Housing projects were built and occupied, but the tenants’ style of living resulted in the rapid deterioration of the buildings. Further, they became a hotbed for drug abuse and criminal activities.
The Democratic Socialist wing of the Democratic Party is advocating that the rich be taxed to fund social programs that are intended for the poor. The result is already being seen in Zohran Kwame Mamdani’s governance of New York City. The rich and middle class people who are able to do so are relocating to places where the tax structure is more business friendly. The same thing is happening in California.
If tax the rich policies are extended to the national level, the same thing will happen. We will once again find that America’s means of production will be exported to foreign locations. Investment in American businesses that stay in the USA will dry up. Investment and a portion of profits are necessary for businesses to acquire the capital needed for product development, growth, and expansion. Without these, there is no growth in well paid private sector jobs. No jobs, no wages, and no wages, no consumption. Economic activity slows down, and without it tax revenue dissolves.
With growth in government, the cost of government increases and so do taxes. Job creation transferers from the private to the public sector. This causes government spending to exceed revenue. That drives deficit government spending. The advocates of Modern Monetary Theory (aka Macroeconomic Theory) tell us that deficit spending is good because it puts more money into the economy than it takes out. What they cavalierly ignore is that the result is inflationary. Although “funny money” printed to bridge the gap between revenue and spending temporarily stimulates the economy by increasing the amount of money available for consumption, the value of money decreases – it buys less. Consequently, it is inflationary, and it erodes the standard of living for the average person.
Those who advocate for socialism point to the Social Democracies of Europe as an example of socialism’s success. However, they fail to consider that the European Social Democracies have market driven, rather than socialist, centrally planned economies. Private property rights are regulated, but they are not destroyed. The European Social Democracies also heavily tax the middle class. In 2026, the personal income tax rate in Denmark is 60.50 percent. [4] In Sweden, socialist policies had to be modified because they were destroying small businesses and discouraging entrepreneurship. [5]
As President Trump has pointed out many of our European NATO partners neglected to spend the amount on defense that they were obligated to under the treaty. It is clear to even the casual observer that the Europeans helped to fund their socialist governments by skimping on defense spending.
When we give Democrats the Presidency and majorities in the US Senate and House of Representatives, they do the same thing. They always cut defense spending but spend like drunken sailors on social programs.
Once again, we can see that there is “no such thing as a free lunch.” When the Democratic Socialists and other big government advocates promise the public “free stuff” in the name of social justice (and to buy votes), somebody has to pay for it. Otherwise, the USA will eventually go broke, or become a nation in decline.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.” (Margaret Thatcher) [6]
The answer is for federal, state, and local governments to adopt tax structures and spending policies that encourage the development and expansion of the private sector. If the private sector prospers, they will need to expand the workforce. If more jobs are available, the supply of skilled and motivated workers will get smaller. The scarcity of labor will increase the amount that must be paid to attract good workers. Jobs and wages will increase, which will encourage consumption. More production, wages, and consumption will increase government revenues without the need to increase taxes. Increased revenue will reduce, and may eventually eliminate, the need for deficit spending.
Friends, centrally managed socialist economies failed in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Venezuela. Social Democracies in Europe have increased taxes on average people, not just the rich. Since the end of WWII, the capitalist, free market economies encouraged by the United States have raised the standard of living of millions of people around the world.
In November, we will choose
between capitalism’s overall record of success, or the false socialist promises
of a society that will be made more just through the redistribution of wealth. The midterm election will be decided by voter
turnout (participation). Please join me
by voting for candidates who support the traditional American way of life, and
against the socialist nonsense that is being offered by today’s Democratic Party.
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs
[5] Documentary “Sweden: Lessons for America?” James
and Maureen Trusty, Directors
