As we head into the 2020 election season, we are once again hearing the cry to move away from capitalism to socialism in the United States. The idea of free health care, free education and free basic income for all is compelling and presented as fair, whereas capitalism is presented as unfair and even racist. Speaking on March 15^th, 2019, former Texas congressman and Democratic candidate for president Beto O’Rourke stated, “It is clearly an imperfect, unfair, unjust and racist capitalist economy.”

A Fuzzy Understanding of Socialism and Its Implications

There is an increased interest in socialism, especially among younger people. A national Reason-Rupe survey found that 53 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds view socialism favorably, compared to only one-quarter of Americans over 55. At the same time, however, millennials don’t like the idea of the government running things, so it’s clear that they may not understand what socialism is, or what the implications are.

The promise of universal basic income (UBI), a social policy that guarantees a fixed, unconditional income from the government for everyone, free college tuition and free health care are all very appealing, especially to many younger Americans. Yet while many Americans find the socialist policy appealing, they don’t understand what the implications are. Kate S. Rourke, in her article “You Owe Me: Examining a Generation of Entitlement,” writes that there is a sense that the government will provide these “free lunches” without any true sense of how they will get paid, other than “The rich must pay.”

So what do millennials think socialism is? In the Reason-Rupe survey mentioned above, respondents were asked to use their own words to describe socialism. Millennials who viewed socialism favorably were more likely to think of it as just people being kind or “being together,” as one millennial put it. Others thought of socialism as just a more generous social safety net. Some thought it referred to social media like Twitter and Facebook!

Americans’ often fuzzy understanding of socialism can skew research results. A Harvard study revealed millennials’ apparent disregard for capitalism and favorable attitude toward socialism. However, the article acknowledged, “It is more likely that the results are less a repudiation of capitalism and more a rejection of the ‘status quo,’ which is a strange mix of cronyism, capitalism and socialism.”

In the study, millennials did not indicate support for capitalism but said they do not view the government as a solution, either. Only 27 percent answered that they believed the government should do more to regulate the economy, and only 26 percent responded that government spending can increase economic growth.

Someone Has to Pay for All the Freebies

First and foremost, “free” isn’t really free. To pay for socialist programs and policies, taxes must increase dramatically, which can take away the incentive for businesses to hire people and grow. Conversely, we have seen that lowering income taxes and reducing regulation leads to more jobs for everyone.

In the United States, as of March 2019, we have some of the lowest unemployment rates in our history and in the world. According to October 2018 figures from the International Monetary Fund, the unemployment rate in the United States was 3.5 percent, compared to much higher rates in socialist countries: Greece at 18.1 percent, France at 8.5 percent and Venezuela at 38 percent.

Proposals to fund free education, free health care and UBI in the United states range from returning income tax rates to pre-1982 levels, adding a Value Added Tax or National Sales tax (in the UK, this is 20 percent) and adding a tax to all securities transactions. All of these moves will increase the cost of goods and services to everyone and can reduce the growth of our economy.

Making decisions based on perception, or misinformation, rather than facts can lead to actions that fail to meet our needs and objectives or are harmful to our future. Seeking instant gratification and the easy path is often at the expense of our long-term well-being.

Policies that provide so-called free college, free wages and free health care are not free and will negatively impact all us in the long-run — most of all, young people. As with many things, the people these benefits are supposed to help are the ones who will be hurt the most. Aside from the psychological impact of never really accomplishing anything, these policies can make our economy suffer and even fail, as evidenced by countries that have enacted socialist policy.

“Free” Higher Education Isn’t Free

In the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders made free higher education a cornerstone of his presidential campaign, helping him get to a 54 percent favorability rating among 18- to 29-year-olds, according to a Harvard poll. Introducing the bill in a press conference, Sanders said the United States is falling behind as a world leader in educating young people. He might not be wrong about that. Moreover, the sentiment that “Our job — if we are smart — is to make it easier for people to get the education they need, not harder,” is a good one, in our opinion.

How we accomplish this, however, is a matter for discussion. Creating incentives for people to develop a skill and for private business to support this goal makes a lot of sense. Sanders admitted that the plan is costly — and he wants Wall Street to pay for it. “Now, some people say that this legislation is expensive, and they’re right. It is,” he said. “Well, I’ll tell you how we’re going to pay for it. We are going to ask Wall Street to end their speculation. We’re going to put a speculation tax on Wall Street.”

This so called “speculation tax” or “speculation fee” will impact every working person who has a 401(k), IRA or any other type of investment. This will not impact the rich, but lower and middle income Americans who are trying to save for their futures. According to USA Today, the estimated cost of the program is $47 billion per year. That would cover, Sanders estimates, 67 percent of the $70 billion it costs for tuition at public colleges and universities. He proposes that states would cover the remaining 33 percent. This could lead to additional state income tax, fees and expense that would impact everyone.

“Free” Health Care Isn’t Free, Either

The single-payer health-care system that Bernie Sanders and others advocate would shift payment for all health care services to the federal government, eliminate private health insurance plans and dump all Americans onto public health care coverage. One estimate predicts that the scheme will most certainly include a massive payroll tax hike, an additional 4 percent personal income tax on all Americans and at least an 8 percent tax hike on businesses (even the small ones). The plan would cost, by a conservative estimate, at minimum, $16 trillion to sustain, just for the next decade. This could mean giving everyone Medicare or a new health-care system.

And Neither is “Free” Income

Universal basic income (UBI) is a policy that guarantees a fixed, unconditional income to all members of a designated group or entire country. For centuries, thinkers from Thomas Paine to Milton Friedman have kicked this concept around. Proponents claim UBI would be an efficient replacement for the United States’ expensive entitlement programs and, as a result, would actually reduce overall costs.

The reality is that UBI would just replace one pricey system for another. And unlike the current entitlement/welfare program, which has standards for determining who qualifies for certain aid, UBI would be given to everyone. This would dramatically increase the pool of citizens receiving benefits from the state and inflict massive expenses across the board. As mentioned, this would also create a disincentive for working, as we have seen in places like Greece. There are always claims that UBI could decrease, reform or even abolish our welfare system. But no one seems to have any idea about how this transition would actually look.

The likely scenario is that UBI would be in addition to, not instead of, the current welfare program. The idea of changing Social Security is known as the “third rail of politics” because the mere mention of it can mean political death. Anyone in the policy realm knows that there is no better way to alienate older constituents than by threatening to take away their Social Security benefits. In fact, the mere mention of decreases usually causes rooms full of senior citizens to fear for their well-being. Even if an alternative plan is presented to them, it does not calm their fears of what might happen during the transitionary period.

Also, trying to get individuals transitioned off of one welfare plan and into the next requires, at least temporarily, the funding of both programs. A decision to enact UBI would not magically abolish the American welfare system. America’s welfare program has been around for so long, it would take time to unroot it. Too many people have become reliant on our welfare state to have it simply wiped out overnight.

And who is going to pay for the process in the meantime? Well, any working American! At some point it no longer makes sense to work when you can simply get ‘free’ income from the government.

If anything, incorporating UBI in America would most likely result in an additional layer of welfare being added on top of our existing programs. This would, in effect, increase the state’s power rather than decrease it. Governments are rarely keen on relinquishing their power, and there is great power in controlling the welfare of the citizenry. It is therefore highly unlikely that the welfare state as we know it today would simply cease to exist.

UBI creates the illusion of decreasing the welfare state, when the facts of the matter all point to the contrary. Everyone would like to live in a society where no one wants for anything and everyone is provided for. But we live in a society of individuals with individual aspirations and goals. Pretending that we can centrally plan a welfare system with so many distinct wants and needs is unrealistic and unobtainable.

Socialism Is a Focus for the 2020 Election

The push for socialist policy is becoming more mainstream and will be a focus of the 2020 presidential election.

On March 18, 2019, Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang reiterated on MSNBC his proposal to give every American universal basic income each month — $1,000 per month for doing nothing — by taxing tech giants such as Amazon and Google. “It’s about 1.8 trillion a year past current expenses,” he said, before pointing out that Amazon paid “zero” taxes last year. Yang went on to state, “Amazon’s sucking up $20 billion in business every year, putting 30 percent of American malls out of business. We need to pass a value-added tax that would get the American people a slice of every Amazon transaction, every Google search, every robot truck mile.”

What he doesn’t state is how many jobs the tech giants have created and how they in fact help lower- and middle-income people by providing lower-cost goods and services. The problem is that socialism doesn’t work. It ultimately hurts the most vulnerable in our society while enriching a few elites at the top. Perhaps this is what those politicians proposing socialist policy want.

During his 2016 bid for the presidency, Bernie Sanders really moved the socialist agenda to the mainstream. Sanders presents socialism as just a generous social safety net. This narrative says government is a benevolent caretaker and pays for everybody’s needs by taking from the very rich to help the poor and the middle class.

Ironically, when you start to dig a little deeper, many who claim to support socialism do not actually like the true definition of it — the idea of government running businesses. If socialism is framed as government running Uber, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc., it does not go over well. The Reason-Rupe study mentioned earlier notes that millennial preferences might not be so different from older generations, once terms are defined.

Socialism Has a Poor Track Record

In my opinion, we must move away from labels and perceptions and look at the facts. We have seen over and over that a centralized or socialist economy doesn’t work. It takes away the incentive for individuals to grow and leads to high unemployment and lower standards of living.

Stephen Moore, the Distinguished Visiting Fellow for Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation, takes it even further. He noted in 2015 that “Greece was about to slide into fiscal oblivion. This is the natural and unavoidable consequence of socialism everywhere it has been tried. Financial collapse.”

History has proven that that lower tax rates and less government regulation will lead to more economic prosperity and lower unemployment. Capitalism and a free economy lead to higher employment and more opportunities for all. Paying a guaranteed income to everyone will disincentivize many from working.

As taxes rise and there is no incentive to grow business, productivity drops. As productivity drops, revenue to the government drops, and more taxes must be levied. Ultimately economies collapse, while unemployment and poverty rise. History has repeated itself many times in this regard. Whether it’s the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, the former East Germany, North Korea, Laos, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, Venezuela or any of the other failed experiments in socialism, it has never worked anywhere.

On May 17, 2018, Investor’s Business Daily stated, “There has never been a successful socialist government in history. None. Everywhere socialist precepts are put in place, poverty, loss of freedom and rights, and societal decline inevitably follow. Collapse is a frequent result… It has led only to misery, deprivation, government control and a loss of basic human rights. Socialist regimes always start off with high ideals, promising ‘free’ this, and ‘free’ that — education, health care, whatever. But as their ideas fail, they inevitably resort to compulsion, and eventually torture, political ‘re-education,’ imprisonment, exile and murder for those who disagree.”

Let’s look at just a few examples of countries in which socialist policies have been enacted.

1. Cuba

Cuba is one of the most prominent socialist nations, having a mostly state-run economy, a national health-care program, government-paid (free) education at all levels, subsidized housing, utilities, entertainment and even subsidized food programs. These subsidies compensate for the low salaries of Cuban workers. According to Cuba’s National Office of Statistics, wages in Cuba averaged just 494.4 pesos ($18.66) monthly from 2008 to 2015. Compare that figure with income in the United States. The median U.S. household income in 2017 was $61,372 per year, or $5,114.33 per month.

2. Greece

Unemployment— youth unemployment in particular — remains one of the biggest struggles in Greece. In 2016, 47.3 percent of the Greek population under age 25 was out of work. That’s nearly half the population and more than two times the average rate across the euro zone. This situation is largely the result of large government pensions and benefits and declining tax revenue. Ironically, lower taxes on the wealthy generally increase tax revenue.

3. Sweden

From 1970 to 1991, Sweden’s socialist government attempted socialism, and it failed dismally. In fact, Sweden recorded the lowest growth rate in Western Europe. After 1991, the government introduced market reform, tax cuts and welfare cuts. Those changes resulted in massive growth, allowing the country to have the second-highest growth rate in Europe, with only the UK being higher during this period.

4. Venezuela

The International Monetary Fund predicted that by the end of 2018, the annual inflation rate in Venezuela would reach 1 million percent. That means that a candy bar that cost $1 today would cost $10,000 at the end of the year. An article in The Washington Post explains why hyperinflations like those in Venezuela occur:

The government wants to spend much more money than it is collecting in taxes — so much more that no one is willing to lend it the money to cover the deficit. Instead, the government uses the central bank to finance the deficit. That puts more money in the economy, but since it’s chasing the same number of goods and services, prices rise to soak up all the extra cash. Unless the government manages to close its budget deficit, it must print even more money to buy the same amount of stuff.

The article goes on to say that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro stays on this destructive path while the country’s citizens starve because of socialism.

This is not an issue of left vs. right or of Democrat vs. Republican. This is an American issue. The rise in popularity of socialism in the United States should be a concern to all of us. Just how far have Americans leaned toward socialism? According to a 2017 survey of adults by the American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI), 40 percent of adults said they preferred socialism to capitalism. That is alarming! I believe the people in this camp need to review what history has told us about socialism’s repeated failure and to understand what socialism really is.

Why Socialism Doesn’t Work

So why does socialism fail again and again? Mark J. Perry, Ph.D., a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus, gives this reason:

Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives. In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail.

As we write this in April 2019, we are seeing one of the strongest economies in history for the United States, with record employment, rising wages, strong corporate profits and rising markets. This is the result of less tax, less government regulation and more free markets. This benefits everyone, especially lower- and middle-income Americans. This economic prosperity is good news, especially for today’s younger generations to succeed.

We have an amazing opportunity to benefit all Americans with good jobs and a strong economy. Some of the people who are in favor of socialist policies have the best intentions. But it simply doesn’t matter if those espousing free wages and free college are doing so for their own political gains or because they believe it will benefit someone. What matters is that these policies can cripple our economy and country. This is not a political opinion but an economic fact. As we approach the 2020 elections, it is important to consider and support candidates whose economic and social policies will benefit the country — regardless of party affiliation.

Why Capitalism Does Work

Capitalism is not fair, and that’s why it works. Capitalism creates the incentive to innovate and work hard to be rewarded, which leads to more jobs and a better economy for all. We must get away from semantics, politics and labels and focus on the real problems that these “free programs” address. In many ways, creating jobs, through lower taxes and less government intervention does, solves the issues. People can pay off debts (college loans or otherwise), afford housing and food, and receive quality health care and health insurance.

Nobody knows what the future holds. But regardless of the new political and economic policy, world events or changes that come, we are here for you. Rather than planning based on speculation, we believe in planning based on your needs and current facts. Our customized and proactive approach allows you to adapt to any changes in our tax laws, markets or economy.

We look forward to being your partner. Please contact us whenever we may be of service to you, your family and friends. Right now, we are taking clients only by referral. We are happy to meet, without cost or obligation, with anyone you feel would benefit from our personal Vision Planning™ process.

__________

This information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. Any opinions are those of the professionals at Carver Financial Services, Inc., and not necessarily those of Raymond James. Links are being provided for information purposes only. Raymond James is not affiliated with and does not endorse, authorize or sponsor any of the listed websites or their respective sponsors. Raymond James is not responsible for the content of any website or the collection or use of information regarding any website’s users and/or members.

Many people think about retiring early and just enjoying themselves. This is the 100-mile view of the FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early) movement, which focuses on a goal of retiring very early—in your 30s or 40s. Financial blogs, podcasts and internet message boards have sprung up to educate wannabes about this movement.

Over the past five years, Google searches for “Financial Independence Retire Early” have increased by 94 percent.

Retiring so early sounds fantastic, but this approach isn’t something most people can achieve. We want to present both the pros and cons of this approach here. We strongly advise that you meet with a financial planner as you plan your retirement—at whatever age you retire.

What it Takes to Use the FIRE Approach to Retiring

Those seeking to attain FIRE intentionally maximize their savings rate by finding ways to increase their income or decrease their expenses. The objective is to accumulate assets until the resulting passive income provides enough money for living expenses in perpetuity.

Proponents of the FIRE movement suggest a withdrawal rate of 3 to 4 percent as a guide. Based on this guideline, you must save 25 to 33 times your anticipated living expense. Upon reaching financial independence, paid work becomes optional, and you can retire from traditional work decades earlier than the standard retirement age.

According to MarketWatch, “Many of the FIRE movement’s vocal advocates either earn substantial incomes from blogging, writing books and other endeavors, or they have a spouse who still works full time. In other words, they really aren’t living off the savings they amassed during extraordinarily brief working careers.”

There is a debate raging in the FIRE community about how much a person needs to have set aside before quitting his or her 9-to-5 job:

• One side, known as Fat FIRE, believes retirees should have enough saved so they have a $75,000 annual budget in retirement.
• The other side, Lean FIRE, maintains that a $40,000-per-year budget will do. To generate $75,000 per year with a 3 percent withdrawal rate, someone would have to save $2.5 million—something that is not easy to do by the age of 30 or 40. To have $40,000 per year available, someone would need to save $1,333,000. To do so with other current obligations takes a very frugal lifestyle with most normal earnings. Then, once you “retire” living on $40,000 per year, that doesn’t leave much money for emergencies or many luxuries.

We believe there is a balance to enjoying life both while we are working and then when we retire. Those who are a part of the FIRE movement often maintain austere lifestyles to save for very early retirement and then to be able to live.

Some FIRE proponents use public assistance such as food stamps, Medicaid and other welfare programs to live on. We do not believe that using welfare is a great standard of living. Even those who do manage to save enough to retire early and live today, might not have enough money to live on in the future.

The Downsides of the FIRE Approach

Although the FIRE approach is a godsend for those people who can make it happen, most people cannot do so.

One MarketWatch senior analyst believes FIRE proponents are doing pre-retirees a disservice by even offering it as an option. He says, “Only a very small minority of individuals have sufficient assets to retire early at more than a subsistence level. And when they realize how much smaller their 401(k)s are from what would be needed, they may very well decide to incur far riskier strategies than they would have otherwise — and end up worse off than they would have been had the movement never existed.”

This analyst notes that, according to Vanguard figures, investors in the 35-to-44 age group have, on average, just $68,935. The median account size—the level for which half have larger balances and half smaller—is $25,800. And some pre-retirees have no 401(k) account at all. He concludes, “An investor who retired with a 401(k) balance this size and who used the so-called 4 percent spending rule would therefore have to retire on a yearly income between $1,032 and $2,757. Good luck with that.”

A 2018 TD Ameritrade study revealed that the “RE” in the “FIRE” acronym — retire early — isn’t really what most people intend to do. They do want financial independence — the “FI” portion of the acronym — but they don’t have visions of lying on a beach, doing nothing, for the rest of their lives. They want to stay active and productive, even in retirement.

The survey revealed that three-quarters of financially independent respondents claimed that achieving that independence was more important than actually bowing out permanently from the workforce. In fact, more than 4 in 10 of both the financially independent and non-independent respondents plan to continue working after they “retire,” both because they enjoy what they do and because they don’t want to live frugally in retirement.

Don’t Forget to Consider Cost-of-Living Increases

We don’t want to take the fun out of considering FIRE as an option for your future, but we want you to weigh all the factors wisely. Cost-of-living increases can erode your nest egg faster than many people realize.

If you have a portfolio of relatively passive investments and draw 3 to 4 percent today, you would need the portfolio to grow significantly so that your income can keep up with inflation. Those who decide to have children or have larger medical expenses will likely see their cost of living go up substantially.

If we assume a relatively low increase in cost of living, such as 4 percent per year, then your cost of living will double every 18 years. This might not sound like much, but if you retire at age 35 and live to be 90, then your cost of living will be more than eight times what it is today! If you save $1 million and draw 4 percent per year, you would have $40,000 (before tax) to live on. That isn’t much in today’s world. By the time you are 60, your cost of living will be $87,303 per year.

Enjoy Your Life Now and Later

We believe you can enjoy your life today and have the retirement you dream of. This takes good planning, a little balance and knowing what is important to you. We can help you live the life you want now and enjoy the retirement you dream of in the future. Contact us without cost or obligation to discuss your personal vision and how we can help you achieve it.

This information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that it is accurate or complete, it is not a statement of all available data necessary for making an investment decision, and it does not constitute a recommendation. Any opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of Raymond James. Investing involves risk and you may incur a profit or loss regardless of strategy selected.