Dear Reader,

Last week, I wrote about how a “billionaire wealth tax” is almost guaranteed to just be the starting point…

Until eventually, we’ll all be subject to them.

Not to mention, the numbers show that it will barely make a difference to our titanic debt load.

Of course, if you bring this up with certain people, they’ll hit you with the classic:

“But the rich need to pay their fair share.”

On the surface, this phrase sounds pretty reasonable. Almost impossible to disagree with.

But in reality, it’s nothing more than a catchy cliche (which is why the politicians love peddling it).

Because it also hides a deeper, more fundamental question. And that is:

What Does It Mean to “Pay Your Fair Share”?

Fair share of what?

Fair according to whom?

And how much is enough?

Because if you look at who actually pays federal income taxes in America, the numbers don’t exactly match the slogan.

The top 1% pays roughly 38% of all federal income taxes.

The bottom 50% pays around 3%.

And for the past 45 years, the share paid by higher earners has generally gone UP, not down.

Meanwhile, the share of the tax burden borne by the bottom 50% has actually decreased.

Jeff Bezos recently came out to say that the bottom half shouldn’t need to pay any income taxes at all.

Now, obviously he’s likely saying this to help push back against the whole “evil greedy billionaires” narrative.

But I’m also sure he’s aware of the hard numbers.

Their contribution to the federal coffers is negligible.

Show the ideologues this data and you’ll probably hear something like:

“But this is only their share of FEDERAL income taxes! What about state and local taxes?”

Fair point.

Well, here’s some data looking at total income received by each quintile – including government transfers – and comparing it to total taxes paid across federal, state, and local governments.

As you can see, the top 20% received 41.5% of total income, but paid 48.8% of total taxes.

The bottom 20% received 9.8% of total income, but paid only 4.3% of total taxes.

So even when you include state and local taxes, the top still paid a larger share of total taxes than their share of income…

While the bottom paid a much smaller share of total taxes than their share of income.

Now admittedly, this data is pretty old.

But given the federal income-tax trend since then, there’s no reason to assume the burden has somehow shifted away from higher earners.

In fact, it’s more likely that the higher earners are bearing even more of the tax burden in proportion to their income – while the lower earners are bearing less.

So, if the bottom already receives a larger share of income than it pays in total taxes…

And the top already pays a larger share of taxes than it receives in income…

Then What Exactly Does “Fair Share” Mean?

Like I said earlier, it’s nothing but a cliche…

A way to claim that a certain group has received more than it has earned – even when the numbers show the complete opposite picture.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I didn’t write this to demonize the poor and the unfortunate.

I did it to blow apart this “fair share” nonsense – and expose the real numbers behind this mirage.

And of course, I understand that not every rich person earned their money honorably.

Some people get rich by building things.

Others get rich by getting close to power.

There’s a difference between the entrepreneur who creates something millions of people voluntarily use…

And the crony who gets rich through subsidies, bailouts, government contracts, regulatory capture, or political access.

One is a producer.

The other is an extractor.

And if you want to attack the extractors – I’m 100% with you.

Attack the bailouts, the subsidies, the regulatory machinery that protects politically connected insiders.

But don’t use anger at the extractors as an excuse to punish everyone who produces.

That’s the trick politicians keep playing.

They take justified anger at cronyism…

Then redirect it toward anyone with wealth.

And that brings us to…

The Real Problem With “Fair Share” Politics

There’s an old phrase Americans know well:

“No taxation without representation.”

But the uncomfortable inverse is this:

What happens when you have representation without taxation?

If one small group pays most of the bill, while another far larger group can vote for benefits funded by that bill, the incentive is obvious.

More spending. More redistribution.

More politicians promising to take from “them” and give to “you.”

That is why the “fair share” argument never ends.

Because “fair” is never defined.

There is no number, no finish line.

No moment where the political class finally says:

“Okay, the productive people have paid enough.”

If the top 1% paying roughly 38% of federal income taxes isn’t enough, what is?

50%? 75%? Everything?

That’s the problem with “fair share.”