The Fine Print of Socialism

Recent pollings have made it clear: Socialism has a seat at the table for the midterms. With rising fuel costs and an affordability crisis, polls indicate that young people are attracted to socialism, in more than just the usual coastal areas. The promises of democratic socialist candidates are becoming increasingly more appealing to voters, but do they know what they’re signing up for? Dave Harvilicz warns that it’s easy to vote into socialism, but you cannot vote out of it. 

Democrat socialist-endorsed candidates, such as U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, have promoted tax policies they say would only make the ultra-wealthy pay more. Critics caution voters that the billionaire rhetoric is extremely misleading. In addition to a billionaire wealth tax, El-Sayed has proposed taxing capital gains and inheritances over $1 million as ordinary income, increasing Social Security tax on high earners, and imposing a progressive tax on wealth held in trusts. Families can accumulate significant assets through investments, a small business, or an inheritance without possessing anything close to billionaire-level wealth. If implemented, critics warn that these policies could create substantial tax consequences for families, especially when businesses or other appreciated assets are sold or passed down to the next generation. 

In his article, Harvilicz warns that taxes imposed in the name of “fairness” could mark the beginning of a broader expansion of government regulation. With increased attraction to socialist policies, greater government regulation in areas such as energy and climate policy would drive higher energy costs, placing a stronger financial burden on American families and domestic manufacturing. He asserts that higher costs could discourage domestic investment and weaken America’s manufacturing base and economic resilience. Harvilicz encourages readers to look beyond what these policies promise today and consider their potential long-term economic consequences. He believes with greater taxation, heavier government regulation, weakened property rights, and declining domestic production, will  ultimately leave less room for investment, innovation, and economic growth.

In many of President Trump’s most recent speeches, he has warned that communism is present in this midterm cycle. He claims that a vote for a Democrat is equivalent to that of a communist. While socialism and communism are different by definition, one is the stepping stone to the other. Trump and Harvilicz argue that an expansion of socialist policies and increased government control risk moving America away from the principles that have long driven opportunity, entrepreneurship, and individual freedom.

The debate over socialism goes far beyond a few wealth tax proposals.  It raises a much bigger question: How much control should the government have over our businesses, communities, and lives? This fall, voters must confront two competing visions for America’s future. Visions that could have drastic effects on opportunity, entrepreneurship, and the government’s capabilities for years to come. In the upcoming election, voters are no longer choosing between Republicans or Democrats. Voters have to decide what kind of country they want to leave behind–and what freedom and the American dream will look like for the next generation.