Editor’s note: This commentary is by David Flemming, who is policy analyst at the Ethan Allen Institute.
[I]n 2017, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders made over $1 million. Quite the contrast to the Sanders of the 1970s, who told the Burlington Free Press that “nobody should earn more than $1 million.” While Sanders might permit higher incomes today, given that his own income cleared the $1 million mark recently, he continues to embrace a democratic socialism that advocates for a maximum income as a way to reduce inequality. Such a policy would be catastrophic for America, and for the world.
Sanders recently received over $500,000 on an advance for his new book, “Where We Go From Here,” due out in November, plus nearly $400,000 on royalties from his past books like “Our Revolution.” Perhaps Sanders has upped his “max income” for reducing inequality a bit higher than in the 1970s, or perhaps he is a capitalist-author-genius at night who plays at socialist-senator during the day. Either way, Sanders is currently making 25 percent more than what the average Vermont one-percenter earns annually.
Indeed, the establishment-challenging senator would be a good deal poorer if he lived under a government that imposed income maximums like the one he is advocating for.
Copyright laws in free-trading societies are the mechanism through which enormous profits are within the reach of individuals in the most difficult of situations. Say a Vermont author in poverty writes a book that guides thousands out of lifelong depression. Or, a brilliant Boston doctor with thousands in medical school debt monetizes an invention that saves hundreds of lives. Even if the book and invention fall under copyright, the author and doctor will receive a mere pittance relative to the lives they saved all over the world.
To Sanders, this pittance can seem “egregiously large” if we realize that an entrepreneurs’ income is a mere fraction of the overall good their inventions and books have done for society. Sanders’ campaign inspired millions to work within our political system, as opposed to believing that that system is so corrupt that violence is the only answer. It would be unjust to confiscate income from Sanders for this service he provided to society, even as his books argue for this very “solution to inequality.”
The truth is, max incomes are mere imaginary lines in the sand that don’t mean much, even as Sanders inches “his line” away from his initial max income of $1 million.
Every dollar earned is obtained either justly or unjustly. Earning $10 million through an innovative business is just, but stealing $100 is unjust. The process for getting money can be condemned, but if we are not able to establish that an individual came by their income dishonestly, the worker is worthy of their wages. Consequently, any government maximum income would be necessarily unjust, and would likely stall both economic growth and job creation.
Invention breeds inequality, despite the best efforts of redistributionists like Sanders. At the end of the day, democratic-socialism needs income cutoffs to achieve its goal of dramatically lower inequality, but this would come at the cost of lower incomes for all. If Sanders were ever to impose income cutoffs on the U.S. economy, we would have fewer people like Sanders willing to take on new responsibilities that come with higher incomes. As such, the world would be worse off without America’s steady stream of life-saving inventions.
Free-trading societies run best when they protect freedom of speech and the press, not just the most deserving. Over time, the worst ideas like democratic socialism will be discarded. Meanwhile, it is better to protect the high incomes of corporate-busting revolutionaries like Sanders than to draw arbitrary lines in the sand around maximum incomes.
