Let's begin by setting the stage with a couple of famous quotes and a single line from an iconic song released in 1971 by an underrated blues-rock band.
First, from Irish playwright and prominent socialist activist George Bernard Shaw, who sang the praises of socialism throughout his adult life:
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Shaw's quote has not only been the foundational tenet of the Democrat Party for more than six decades; it's also become a warning from conservatives to beware of those who cling to wealth redistribution as a panacea for all the ails of America — and the world as a whole.
Next, a critical warning about socialism from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Thatcher's admonition cut straight to the point about the fiscal fantasy (lies) behind the scam of socialism: "Free" stuff, government (taxpayer) handouts, and "taxing the rich" might sound generous to the intentionally ignorant, but as the old saying goes, "there ain't no such thing as free lunch."
Finally, from the classic "I'd Love to Change the World," by Ten Years After:
Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.
While the Left can't love that last line enough, they fail to think about the consequences if it became a reality — just as the previous two quotes suggest.
This brings us to New York City mayor-elect, and self-declared Democrat Socialist (read: Marxist), 34-year-old Zohran Mamdani, and his radical proposals for the Big Apple.
The bottom line here is that socialism always fails because it destroys incentives and efficiency — for both "the rich" and "the poor." History has shown, multiple times, that socialism brings economic collapse, shortages, and misery — from the defunct Soviet Union to Venezuela, where individual freedoms give way to government control, which leads to tyranny and poverty.
While there have been repeated attempts for generations to prove socialism is workable, the end result is always the same: It fails the people it most promises (lies to) to help. Hence:
Mamdani in a socialist nutshell. pic.twitter.com/Hajuf28VoV
— MikesRight (@RealLibSmacker) November 7, 2025
This brings us to The New York Times and its global economics correspondent — based in London, of course — Patricia Cohen, who, in a recent column, asked the burning question, "Are wealth taxes the best way to tax the ultra rich?"
Cohen gleefully seized on France’s latest economic meltdown as an excuse to condescendingly pontificate about the "benefits" of wealth taxes, absurdly portraying the robbery as a noble crusade against “staggering inequality” and ballooning government debt.
Here's an absurd snippet:
There have been calls to tax the rich ever since there have been taxes. One idea, though, arouses particularly fevered reactions: a tax on wealth, not just paychecks.
[...]
To supporters, taxing an individual’s total assets — stocks, real estate, yachts, diamond tiaras, racehorses, art, fine wines, private islands and jets — rather than just income is one of the few ways to get people with dynastic wealth to pay their fair share.
Ooh, there it is: "fair share."
If you have visions of Barack Obama dancing in your head after reading the words 'fair share," you're not alone. Throughout his presidency, Obama never tired about harping on the flawed notion of "the rich not paying their fair share." One of O's problems was of course his refusal to quantify what he deemed to be a "fair share."
Cohen did her best — yet failed, miserably — to normalize the idea of a wealth (confiscatory) tax:
Wealth taxes, though not as common as some other levies, have actually been around for a long time. If you think about it, real estate taxes are one form of a wealth tax that targets a particular asset.” She even pointed to other countries as case studies of the mainstreaming of wealth taxes, despite conceding that many of them were repealed due to “difficulty of administration, the burden on people who owned valuables but had little available cash, and the minimal amounts of revenue raised.” But, claimed Cohen, “Slowing growth and intense budget pressures have further ratcheted up interest in wealth taxes.”
So, how much is enough, my Democrat friends?
Ten percent? 25 percent? 50 percent? And where would such a "fair share" end? After all, Democrats are like spoiled children: Neither group ever gets enough; the more they get, the more they want.
ALSO CHECK OUT: The Entropic Truth Behind 'Free Stuff'
Cohen also couldn't miss a concocted opportunity to mention President Donald Trump:
In the United States, proposals for wealth taxes entered the mainstream during the final year of President Trump’s first term.
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both presidential candidates, offered plans ... that they said were aimed at avoiding the shortcomings of failed European wealth taxes.
And after President Joseph R. Biden Jr. took office, Senate Democrats introduced a wealth tax aimed at billionaires, though it did not pass.
While many of us have suggested New York City residents will get exactly what they deserve with Mamdani, I'm also among those who believe the city's little socialist experiment will not only be interesting to watch, but will also present a learning opportunity to those who are forced to live with it. In the end, it's my belief that it will fail spectacularly. The question is, then what? What — or whom —will the "takers" turn to, next?
The Bottom Line
While I’m tempted to “congratulate” NYC voters who supported the all-but-declared Marxist who never saw a dollar he didn’t want to steal from “the rich” to give to someone who didn’t earn it, I’ll just — yeah, I just said what I said.
