The perennial cry that “the rich must pay their fair share” echoes through the halls of political discourse, a mantra wielded by activists, pundits, and politicians alike. Yet, as Thomas Savidge reveals in his incisive analysis for the American Institute for Economic Research, the data tells a starkly different story—one that exposes the fallacy of this narrative and underscores the deeper assault on the natural right to retain the fruits of one’s labor.
Far from shirking their tax obligations, America’s high-income earners shoulder a disproportionate share of the federal income tax burden, a reality that not only undermines the “fair share” rhetoric but also threatens the capital necessary for economic growth and individual liberty.
In 2022, the top 10 percent of income earners—those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) above the median—earned nearly half of all income but paid a staggering 72 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent alone, earning 26 percent of the nation’s income, bore 46 percent of the tax burden, surpassing the combined contributions of the bottom 95 percent. These figures, drawn from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, dismantle the myth that the wealthy evade their civic duty. Instead, they reveal a tax system already heavily skewed against those who produce the most, a system that penalizes success and siphons away the very resources that fuel economic dynamism.
At its core, the right to keep what one earns is a fundamental tenet of natural law. The labor of an individual—whether through intellectual innovation, physical effort, or entrepreneurial risk—creates value that belongs to the creator. To forcibly take a portion of that value, particularly at escalating rates as income rises, violates the principle that individuals own the fruits of their labor. This isn’t merely an economic issue; it’s a moral one. When the state demands an ever-larger share of one’s earnings, it diminishes the individual’s sovereignty, treating their productivity as a communal resource to be plundered at will. This progressive tax structure, far from being a neutral policy, echoes the tenth plank of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which explicitly calls for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” The alignment is no coincidence—it’s a deliberate design to redistribute wealth, not through voluntary exchange, but through coercive state power.
The consequences of this approach extend beyond individual rights to the broader economic ecosystem. High-income earners don’t hoard their wealth in vaults, as the “Scrooge Fallacy” would have us believe. Instead, they invest it—channeling capital into businesses, startups, and innovations that create jobs and drive progress. This leverageable capital is the lifeblood of economic growth. When a wealthy individual funds a new venture, they enable entrepreneurs to hire workers, purchase equipment, and bring new products to market. These activities ripple outward, raising standards of living and creating opportunities for those far removed from the initial investment. Yet, when the state siphons off this capital through punitive taxation, it stifles these possibilities. The dollars that could have seeded a new factory or tech startup instead vanish into the bureaucratic maw, often funding inefficient programs or political patronage.
Consider the numbers: in 2021, the top 1 percent paid an effective federal income tax rate of 25.9 percent, while the bottom 50 percent paid just 2.3 percent. This disparity isn’t evidence of fairness but of a system that disproportionately burdens those who create the most value. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the top quintile earned 58.8 percent of income but paid 83.6 percent of federal taxes in 2021. Meanwhile, over 53 million low- and middle-income Americans paid no income tax at all, thanks to credits, deductions, and the so-called “Earned Income Tax Credit” (EITC), which literally forward-pays taxes purportedly taken by the feds to pay for future uses of Medicare and Medicaid (both, not sanctioned by the US Constitution). These EITC “credit payments” actually are welfare payments handed to those whom the feds term “indigent” and represent a subsidy that the feds also promise to pay AGAIN when the current recipient of the EITC signs up for the aforementioned federal medical programs.
Related: Brooklyn Landlords Forced to Pay for Squatters' Relocation: A Rights Violation
The “fair share” narrative ignores the broader economic harm of progressive taxation. High taxes on the wealthy reduce the capital available for investment, slowing job creation and innovation. As Savidge notes, the Tax Foundation reports that raising corporate tax rates drives businesses to relocate to lower-tax jurisdictions, costing jobs and economic vitality. Moreover, the wealthy already contribute significantly to society beyond taxes. Their investments in early-stage technologies—once luxuries, now necessities—have historically driven down costs and made innovations accessible to all. From smartphones to medical advancements, the “ultra-rich” often fund the initial high-cost, low-quality versions that pave the way for mass adoption.
Finally, the use of the term “fair share” is important to destroy.
As Thomas Sowell pointedly notes, it is not up to a robber to claim he or she can claim any semblance of “fair” interaction with his victim.
The government is a machine of aggression, which, by its nature, is not “fair”.
“What exactly is your 'fair share' of what 'someone else' has worked for?”
The push for higher taxes on the wealthy often stems from envy or a misguided sense of justice, but it fails to grapple with the reality of who actually pays for the state’s largesse. The top earners already bear a disproportionate burden, and further taxing them risks choking the engine of economic growth. Instead of vilifying success, we should celebrate it—and protect the natural right to keep what one earns.
Let’s reject the siren call of “fairness defined by the thief” and embrace the liberty to own, create, invest, and prosper.