There is a policy being proposed by some members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) that ranks among the most dangerous, and yet, very few people are talking about it. 

Over the weekend, Daniel Di Martino, a Venezuelan immigrant who fled the horrors of his home country, Manhattan Institute fellow, and economist, explained that one of the DSA’s most dangerous proposals is a national wealth registry: a centralized government database containing information about how much you own, what you are worth, and every asset you possess, all in the name of taxing the wealthy.

"And also, you have to consider many people are not talking about the fact that on [Angie Nixon's] website, she also wants to enact a national wealth registry, meaning you and I are going to have to tell the IRS not only the value of our house, but the value of our paintings, the value of our couch, the value of our cars so that the IRS can tie it all up and then tell us how much we owe in taxes to our dear federal government," Di Martino said. "This is how socialism works. You will own nothing and then you will be happy."

On Nixon’s website, under the priorities tab helpfully titled “Making Billionaires and Corporations Pay Their Fair Share,” she proposes “a federal asset registry and real IRS enforcement, so the ultra-wealthy can no longer hide assets or dodge audits—while ensuring the IRS stays focused on high-dollar evasion, not everyday taxpayers.” 

Naturally, the plan leaves out the minor details. Who exactly would be placed in this federal asset registry? Just billionaires? Millionaires? Anyone the government decides has accumulated slightly too much success? Would it track bank accounts, homes, investments, businesses, family property, or all of the above? Nixon does not say, but Americans are supposed to be comforted by the idea of building a specific list of everyone it believes has too much, and what exactly they have.

Recommended
Two Major Cities Face Prolonged Power Outages. Guess What They Both Have in Common. Amy Curtis What the Hell Is Wrong With Women? Kurt Schlichter

The proposal also rests on a familiar progressive tactic, treating tax avoidance and tax evasion as the same problem. The ultra-wealthy generally do not need to evade taxes; they pay well-trained lawyers and accountants to use the loopholes Congress has spent decades stuffing into an absurdly complex and ever-growing tax code. Rather than simplify that code or close specific loopholes, Nixon’s solution is exactly what one would expect from the DSA, give the IRS more power, create another federal database, and assure everyone that it will only be used against the right people.

It is unclear whether every member of the Democratic Socialists of America supports a national wealth registry. It does not appear to be a standard campaign promise beyond Nixon, at least not yet. But it is exactly the kind of proposal that can catch fire as DSA candidates continue mounting insurgent campaigns against establishment Democrats. Nixon’s recent primary win is a reminder that these candidates are not merely shouting from the sidelines anymore.

There is a coming reckoning in this country, and wealth will be at the center of it. Americans are struggling with the cost of living; “affordability” has become the word of the day. But instead of confronting the policies that made daily life more expensive, the political conversation is increasingly turning into contempt for anyone who is doing better than everyone else. Cost of living and inflation now rank as Americans’ leading concern in national polling. Elon Musk’s brief status as the world’s first trillionaire only accelerated that debate. The rise of the Democratic Socialists of America has given politicians an eager audience for turning understandable frustration into resentment, and resentment into policy.

Conservatives must reignite our trust in free-market economics, not only because it is the most prosperous system this country has ever known, but because it ensures that success and failure are largely shaped by the individual, not dictated by the state or placed permanently out of anyone’s reach. In other words, free-market economics reinforces a simple but increasingly unfashionable idea, that people should be allowed to earn what they achieve, keep what they build, and bear responsibility for the choices they make. 

It produces a more prosperous country, and a more grateful one, because success is no longer something to be treated as something to punish, but as something worth striving for.