Commentary

Soulia: What IS a “fair share”?

By on • ( 17 Comments )
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Searching for truth behind the buzzword

By Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com

“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.

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.

Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Commentary

17 replies »

  1. When one third get your money to live off, and another third get you money for high paying jobs, then you get the majority voting to take the minority of business generating wealth, aka tax the rich.

    We are owned by the corporations, NGO’s and nonprofits…….we could have better health care and education for 50% less money, but people can’t grift as much without big budgets.

    We have protected monopolies, the biggest being Montpelier, great article, well done.

  2. Bernie has been espousing the “fair share” for years. What is his definition?

  3. To assert that we must pay ‘our fair share of taxes’, implies the subtle accusation that we aren’t already paying our fair share; and, more deceptively, that we need to increase taxes – never lower them.

    The only people making this argument are those who don’t pay taxes to begin with, or those who perpetrate this ‘protection racket’ for their own personal gain. Taxes collected in the U.S., after all, represent the world’s single largest source of cash flow. And organized crime syndicates, of all shapes and sizes, always first stalk their prey at this great financial watering hole.

    More on this topic in a bit.

  4. Who then gets to define most vulnerable? What happens when the definition changes and it will. At one time Welfare was for the most vulnerable, not any more……

  5. All taxation is thievery. All of it. Our property taxation is not constitutionally directed, and creates feudalism where the state claims superior title. The Income tax is voluntary, there is no law, except for those who work in DC or live in the territories to file. The middle stuff, the commerce and licensure and on and on is regulatory inhibition. If the constitution were obeyed then the government would not have given the Federal reserve (private cartel) banks their power, and it could issue the money it needed to run government, with the agreement via elections of the people. Historically, the needs of government were slimmer and they were achieved through mainly tariffs. The Congress has specific delegated authorities, and as a maxim of law, otherwise known as our common law from which the basis of our law is built (not precedent as the bar would prefer to change common law to, not unlike gene therapy becoming a ‘vaccine”), delegated authority cannot be relegated, which is exactly what occurred in 1913, with the help of the press and corruptible persons in politics, namely Woodrow Willson, planted to power for that very reason. Additionally the IRS was formed that year ( never properly ratified and as stated without any other demand but voluntary, it was passed as a tax only on the governmental workers, otherwise the public would have rebelled) and the switch to public election of senators that heretofore were elected by the house, and the line of accountability held for (much less) corruptibility. Go ahead send declaratory questions to your town, ask them if they claim superior title to your land and only pretend you to be the owner for frauds sake, and also ask them what their interpretation of ‘inalienable’ as used in Article 1 of the VT constitution. Then you could add whether they recognize that same as the highest law of this land and their primary oath to uphold it or by failing to void their position.

  6. While it may be true that: “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%.”, it’s also true that the top 1% has more than 90% of the money, meanwhile, the bottom 50% has less than 3% of the money.

    • This claim is an exaggeration, i.e., it’s incorrect.

      As of 2024–2025 data: The top 1% of taxpayers own approximately 30–32% of total U.S. wealth (not >90%).

      Never mind that the claim irrationally conflates apples (income) with oranges (wealth).

      Consider that having greater wealth also means having greater risk, including the increased responsibility to successfully manage it, socially and personally. Those with limited or no wealth don’t have that responsibility, nor do they have the experience required to maintain it.

      The question then is, who should control that wealth? The people who generated it through their work and prudent investment? Or those who have little wealth or the commensurate skills to successfully invest?

      Does this mean ‘upward mobility’ doesn’t exist? No. Of course not.

      In the free market litmus test, those who earn wealth have a much higher degree of success investing it. Those who don’t earn wealth don’t have that experience.

      For example, the average lottery winner (with less than six figure awards) tends to treat their new wealth merely as disposable income. Meanwhile roughly one third of U.S. millionaires today are likely to fall below the $1 million net-worth threshold within ten years, being replaced by new millionaires.

      As you can see, making economic judgements by comparing apples (income) with oranges (wealth) is more often than not beset with error-prone conclusions.

  7. The clause in the Constitution that states, “Congress shall have the power to tax” needs to be removed. Elected officials don’t know when to stop taxing nor do they know when to stop changing the laws. Remove that power to tax and they no longer can.

    • There is nothing more permanent than a temporary Government program. Exactly what is being argued about currently, the temporary COVID Obamacare subsidies which Democrats want to make permanent like in forever to cover for the failure of their Democrat only health insurance program

    • Why not just remove the offending elected officials? The odds that these corrupt politicians will vote to remove their power to tax are nonexistent. It’s up to voters, one way or another. Just elect officials who aren’t despots.

      “In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” – Benjamin Franklin’s address to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

      Apparently, we are at the crossroads of being able to keep our Republic.

  8. I’d estimate a fair share would be about 80% of whatever Sanders is worth.

    Start paying the piper Bernie, just to show you put your MONEY where your big mouth is.

  9. We are teaching envy.

    Envy of money- Marxism
    Envy of the opposite sex- Transgenderism

  10. The “Fair Share” buzzword goes all the way back to 1913. How were so many people deluded in 1913? Not only was the Federal Reserve established, but tariffs which funded the government were eliminated and the Progressive income tax (16th Amendment) was installed to make sure everybody paid their “fair share”, when in reality they installed a system which they knew down the road could be weaponized and used against political opponents. Then they passed the 17th Amendment allowing the Senators to be elected to office instead of being appointed by the state legislatures bypassing the natural term limits the founders built into Constitution. Right after all the Senators were bought up by the special interests of the day, they turned around and passed laws allowing them to create foundations so they could circumvent the income tax. All this was done under the father of Progressivism, President Woodrow Wilson. And the United States has never been the same. The camel got more than his nose under the tent. Scratch a progressive and you’ll find a fascist.