“Pay your fair share.” It’s a phrase that’s been used so often in political debates and budget speeches that it’s nearly lost all concrete meaning. Like many feel-good slogans, it tugs at a universal desire for justice—but what does it actually mean when applied to taxes, government spending, or income distribution? Is there even such a thing as a “fair share,” objectively speaking? And who gets to define it?
To answer that, we have to pull back the curtain—on both the numbers and the history.
The Numbers Don’t Lie—But They Do Complicate Things
Start with raw data. In the U.S., the top 1% of earners paid about 40% of all federal income taxes in 2022. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of earners paid roughly 3%. This isn’t opinion—it’s IRS data. When advocates argue that the rich need to “pay their fair share,” that raises the question: what number would satisfy that requirement? 50%? 60%? More?
Let’s flip it. Suppose we applied a flat tax rate across the board. Using 2024 figures, the total U.S. income was around $29.3 trillion, and total federal revenue came in at $4.9 trillion. That means a flat tax of approximately 16.7% would generate the same revenue as our current progressive system.
Now consider someone making $30,000 a year: under a 16.7% flat tax, they’d owe $5,010. For someone making $500,000, it’s $83,500. Everyone pays the same rate, but the dollar amounts differ—substantially. It’s easy to argue that this is “fair” in the literal sense: the rules are the same for everyone. But is it socially or politically acceptable? That’s where things get fuzzy.
Historically Speaking, “Fair Share” Meant Simplicity
Historically, fairness in contribution often meant proportionality. In ancient societies and religious systems, tithing—giving 10% of income—was a common model. It didn’t matter whether you were rich or poor; everyone chipped in the same portion. That idea had simplicity and moral clarity, and it was widely accepted.
Things changed as modern governments grew more complex. During the early 20th century, progressive taxation gained ground, partly driven by ideas from thinkers like Henry George and later John Maynard Keynes. These frameworks assumed that those who benefited more from the system—or who had greater financial capacity—should contribute more. That shift reflected a move from equality (same rate for everyone) to equity (redistribution based on ability).
But there was a philosophical price to pay.
The Modern Disconnect: Contribution Without Representation?
As government expanded its responsibilities, so did the gap between who pays for the state and who benefits from it. Today, many Americans receive services paid for primarily by others. In Vermont, for example, the top income earners shoulder a significant portion of the state’s tax revenue, while state employment is higher per capita than the national average—and salaries for public workers here are also above average.
That’s not a dig at state workers; it’s a fact. And it leads to an uncomfortable truth: when fewer people are funding a larger apparatus that benefits many, the idea of a “fair share” starts to look more like a political weapon than an ethical standard.
In pure economic terms, when spending growth outpaces revenue growth—as often happens in Vermont—the shortfall gets filled by increasing taxes on a shrinking number of higher earners, or through debt. Either way, it erodes the original promise of a social contract grounded in fairness.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
Who Defines “Fair”?
Perhaps the better question is: who gets to define fairness?
For many libertarians and fiscal conservatives, fairness means consistency and transparency. You don’t punish people for earning more, and you don’t ask government to do what individuals, families, or local communities can do better. A flat tax—or even a per capita “equal share” contribution—fits that worldview.
On the other hand, progressives may argue that fairness means taking care of the most vulnerable, and that a society is only as strong as its weakest members. To them, asking more from the wealthy is not just fair—it’s moral.
There’s no escaping that these definitions are value-laden. But that’s precisely why the conversation needs to shift toward concrete tools, not just rhetorical flourishes.
The Case for Transparency: A Fair-Share-O-Meter?
Imagine a simple tool—a “fair-share-o-meter”—that lets any Vermonter or American see exactly what they’re contributing and what they’re receiving. It could break it down by income level, display flat-rate versus progressive outcomes, and even compare per-resident costs for essential services. Want to know what it costs to run the state per person? Punch in your income and see how your share stacks up.
It wouldn’t settle the moral debate, but it would do something better: it would anchor that debate in reality. It would make it harder to hide behind slogans.
Conclusion: The Truth About Fairness
So, is there such a thing as a fair share? In principle, yes. But it depends entirely on what lens you’re looking through. Fairness can mean equal treatment, equal burden, or equal outcome—and those ideas often contradict one another.
What we can say for certain is this: the truth gets clearer when you follow the numbers. And once you understand how much you’re paying, how much others are paying, and where it’s all going, you’re in a better position to judge whether the system is truly fair—or just politically convenient.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #FairShare #TaxTruth #VermontIssues
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply