

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Participants seen spelling out #TaxTheRich at Times Square. As 6 bills will soon be introduced in the legislature to tax wealthy corporations and individuals who haven't been paying their fair share, a coalition of Activists gathered around New York City landmarks to call for the Equitable Taxation of Corporations, demanding legislators to pass the Financial Transaction Tax to generate around 9 billion dollars needed for COVID Recovery, and Essential Services. (Photo by Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)
We hear it all the time: The wealthy must pay their fair share in tax.
Many of the wealthy, and the members of Congress they sponsor, contend they already are. And they have all sorts of facts and figures to make that appear true. After all, for a billionaire, even a tiny tax payment in percentage terms is a big check.
So, are the rich paying their fair share?
We took a straightforward approach to that inquiry. First, we estimated the share of America's total tax payments made by the wealthiest of the wealthy, the top .01 percent. A household in the top .01% is wealthier than 9,999 out of every 10,000 households.
Professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, co-authors of The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, made this job easy. They did the heavy lifting of estimating, year-by-year, the overall tax rate - that is, total tax payments (including corporate tax, employment tax, individual income tax and state level tax payments) as a percentage of income - for the top .01 percent and for the entire population. They estimated the share of the nation's income flowing to the top .01 percent on a yearly basis as well.
To find the percentage of the total national taxes paid by the top .01 percent in a given year, we first multiplied the overall tax rate of the top .01 percent by the overall income share of the top .01 percent. This gave us the percentage of total national income paid by the top .01 percent in tax. We then divided that by the percentage of total national income paid by the entire population (top .01 percent included) in tax to get our final "tax share" of the top .01 percent.
Then, we compared that "tax share" of the top .01 percent, year-by-year, to the share of the nation's wealth held by the top .01 percent, again piggybacking on the work of Professors Saez and Zucman.
Here's that comparison:
Consider what's transpired over the past 70 years. The tax share of the top .01 percent changed over time, but it's not far today from where it was in 1953 - about 5 percent. The wealth ownership share of the top .01 percent during that period about quadrupled, from 2.5 percent to very close to 10 percent.
For the rest of us, the bottom 99.99 percent, our share of the overall tax has been about equal to our share of the nation's wealth, slightly less than our share of the nation's wealth 70 years ago and slightly more than our share of the nation's wealth today.
The situation 70 years ago made sense. It adhered to the principle that tax payments should be based on the ability to pay, with those at the top bearing the heaviest burden relative to their wealth. Thus, the very wealthiest segment of a society should pay a share of the total tax burden greater than its share of the society's wealth. The situation today turns that basic moral principle on its head. When the share of tax payments made the wealthy are one-half their share of the nation's total wealth, such that they're bearing the lightest tax burden relative to their wealth.
That's not paying their fair share. Or anything remotely close.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
We hear it all the time: The wealthy must pay their fair share in tax.
Many of the wealthy, and the members of Congress they sponsor, contend they already are. And they have all sorts of facts and figures to make that appear true. After all, for a billionaire, even a tiny tax payment in percentage terms is a big check.
So, are the rich paying their fair share?
We took a straightforward approach to that inquiry. First, we estimated the share of America's total tax payments made by the wealthiest of the wealthy, the top .01 percent. A household in the top .01% is wealthier than 9,999 out of every 10,000 households.
Professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, co-authors of The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, made this job easy. They did the heavy lifting of estimating, year-by-year, the overall tax rate - that is, total tax payments (including corporate tax, employment tax, individual income tax and state level tax payments) as a percentage of income - for the top .01 percent and for the entire population. They estimated the share of the nation's income flowing to the top .01 percent on a yearly basis as well.
To find the percentage of the total national taxes paid by the top .01 percent in a given year, we first multiplied the overall tax rate of the top .01 percent by the overall income share of the top .01 percent. This gave us the percentage of total national income paid by the top .01 percent in tax. We then divided that by the percentage of total national income paid by the entire population (top .01 percent included) in tax to get our final "tax share" of the top .01 percent.
Then, we compared that "tax share" of the top .01 percent, year-by-year, to the share of the nation's wealth held by the top .01 percent, again piggybacking on the work of Professors Saez and Zucman.
Here's that comparison:
Consider what's transpired over the past 70 years. The tax share of the top .01 percent changed over time, but it's not far today from where it was in 1953 - about 5 percent. The wealth ownership share of the top .01 percent during that period about quadrupled, from 2.5 percent to very close to 10 percent.
For the rest of us, the bottom 99.99 percent, our share of the overall tax has been about equal to our share of the nation's wealth, slightly less than our share of the nation's wealth 70 years ago and slightly more than our share of the nation's wealth today.
The situation 70 years ago made sense. It adhered to the principle that tax payments should be based on the ability to pay, with those at the top bearing the heaviest burden relative to their wealth. Thus, the very wealthiest segment of a society should pay a share of the total tax burden greater than its share of the society's wealth. The situation today turns that basic moral principle on its head. When the share of tax payments made the wealthy are one-half their share of the nation's total wealth, such that they're bearing the lightest tax burden relative to their wealth.
That's not paying their fair share. Or anything remotely close.
We hear it all the time: The wealthy must pay their fair share in tax.
Many of the wealthy, and the members of Congress they sponsor, contend they already are. And they have all sorts of facts and figures to make that appear true. After all, for a billionaire, even a tiny tax payment in percentage terms is a big check.
So, are the rich paying their fair share?
We took a straightforward approach to that inquiry. First, we estimated the share of America's total tax payments made by the wealthiest of the wealthy, the top .01 percent. A household in the top .01% is wealthier than 9,999 out of every 10,000 households.
Professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, co-authors of The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, made this job easy. They did the heavy lifting of estimating, year-by-year, the overall tax rate - that is, total tax payments (including corporate tax, employment tax, individual income tax and state level tax payments) as a percentage of income - for the top .01 percent and for the entire population. They estimated the share of the nation's income flowing to the top .01 percent on a yearly basis as well.
To find the percentage of the total national taxes paid by the top .01 percent in a given year, we first multiplied the overall tax rate of the top .01 percent by the overall income share of the top .01 percent. This gave us the percentage of total national income paid by the top .01 percent in tax. We then divided that by the percentage of total national income paid by the entire population (top .01 percent included) in tax to get our final "tax share" of the top .01 percent.
Then, we compared that "tax share" of the top .01 percent, year-by-year, to the share of the nation's wealth held by the top .01 percent, again piggybacking on the work of Professors Saez and Zucman.
Here's that comparison:
Consider what's transpired over the past 70 years. The tax share of the top .01 percent changed over time, but it's not far today from where it was in 1953 - about 5 percent. The wealth ownership share of the top .01 percent during that period about quadrupled, from 2.5 percent to very close to 10 percent.
For the rest of us, the bottom 99.99 percent, our share of the overall tax has been about equal to our share of the nation's wealth, slightly less than our share of the nation's wealth 70 years ago and slightly more than our share of the nation's wealth today.
The situation 70 years ago made sense. It adhered to the principle that tax payments should be based on the ability to pay, with those at the top bearing the heaviest burden relative to their wealth. Thus, the very wealthiest segment of a society should pay a share of the total tax burden greater than its share of the society's wealth. The situation today turns that basic moral principle on its head. When the share of tax payments made the wealthy are one-half their share of the nation's total wealth, such that they're bearing the lightest tax burden relative to their wealth.
That's not paying their fair share. Or anything remotely close.