What is a 'fair share' of taxes?

Editor's note:  This Christian Post special series is designed to inform Evangelical voters about the foundational facts behind the major issues shaping today's elections. Noted theologian Wayne Grudem has written these public policy backgrounders to help prepare voters for the elections ahead.  

While CP considers Grudem's biblical perspectives important reading for today's voters, this series does not necessarily represent the company's editorial position on these issues.

Our purpose is to help readers have the Power to Understand the Times.

The phrase “fair share” comes up again and again in Democratic Party talking points. The 2024 Democratic Party platform uses it repeatedly to explain how the party plans to pay for a long list of expensive items: It will make millionaires and billionaires “finally pay their fair share.” Here are some of the things the platform says will be paid for this way:

Lower taxes for middle-class and low-income Americans:

We're fighting to [...] cut costs and make the tax code fairer for the middle class, while making the wealthy and big corporations finally pay their fair share. (Platform, p. 14)

President Biden's plans will cut taxes for middle-class and low-income Americans — and we'll finance those cuts by making the ultra-wealthy and big corporations finally start paying their fair share. (p. 15)

Preventing the bankruptcy of Social Security and expanding benefits:

We'll strengthen [...] [Social Security] and expand benefits by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. (p. 28)

Adding dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare:

We'll look to expand traditional Medicare coverage to include dental, vision, and hearing services, which are so key to health and quality of life, by making the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share. (p. 28)

Making Medicare solvent:

Democrats will make Medicare permanently solvent, by making the wealthy pay their fair share in Medicare taxes. (p. 28)

Four kinds of tax that could be counted 'fair'

But how much is a “fair share”? The platform never says. Yet when Democrats promise to make wealthy Americans “finally” pay their fair share, they signal that the amount will be significantly higher than it is now.

We already have four kinds of taxes that American voters consider fair in different circumstances:

1. Head tax
2. Tax based on benefits received
3. Flat tax
4. Progressive tax

Here is a summary of how much each would require from a middle-income family and from two wealthy families.

(1) Head tax: Everyone pays the same amount, and that sameness is what makes it fair.

One example is a highway toll where every car pays $3, whether the driver is rich or poor. People think it is fair because everybody pays the same amount.

Results of a head tax for one average family and two rich families

If our income tax rates were based on a head tax, we can calculate what that would mean for an average-income family and for two wealthy families, in all three cases with a husband and wife filing jointly.

The median household income in the United States in 2024 was $83,730, but for ease of computation I will use $84,000 to represent an average, middle-income taxpayer. That means half of all households earn more than $84,000 and half earn less. Here are the three sample households:

Middle-income Family A: $84,000 annual gross income
Rich Family B: $1,000,000 annual gross income
Ultra-rich Family C: $10,000,000 annual gross income

If every citizen had to pay the same amount, the tax due for the 2024 tax year would have been the total collected in federal income taxes ($2.4 trillion) divided by the number of U.S. tax returns filed (161 million) — about $15,000 for each person or each married couple filing jointly.

(This $15,000 does not include Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are calculated separately. It also does not include other federal revenue sources such as corporate taxes, tariffs, excise taxes on things like gasoline and airline tickets, and fees for passports and other services.)

Summary: Amount of tax due under a head tax
Middle-income Family A: $15,000
Rich Family B: $15,000
Ultra-rich Family C: $15,000

This would be a significant expense for middle-income households and nearly impossible for lower-income families. Although people don't generally object to a head tax for highway tolls, I don't think anyone would want to use it for something as big as personal income.

(2) Tax based on benefits received: Each person pays for the benefits he or she receives from a functioning government.

One example is a sales tax. The sales tax where I live, in Arizona, is about 8%. If I buy a cheap television for $100, I pay $8 in sales tax. If I buy an expensive television for $1,000, I pay $80. The principle is simple: If I receive an item of greater value, I pay more.

But it is hard to calculate the value each person receives from a functioning government. (I am not counting welfare payments here, only the general benefits all citizens receive.)

Everyone drives on the same roads. Everyone benefits from health standards for restaurants, grocery stores and hotels. Everyone has access to the Postal Service and the national parks. Everyone is protected by FDA safety standards for prescription medicines. Everyone is able to fly bomb-free because of TSA screening on commercial airlines. And everyone enjoys a strong military that protects us from foreign invasion. Such general benefits, and many others, are enjoyed roughly equally by all citizens, so a tax based on benefits received would argue that everyone should pay an equal amount.

Summary: Amount of tax due under a tax based on benefits received
Middle-income Family A: $15,000
Rich Family B: $15,000
Ultra-rich Family C: $15,000

In practice, then, a tax based on benefits received would look much like a head tax. It would be an excessive burden on lower-income taxpayers, and I do not think anyone would consider it an appropriate fair share.

(3) Flat tax: Everyone pays a fixed proportion of income.

One example in the United States today is the Social Security tax of 6.2% on wages up to a certain amount — $184,500 in 2026. Everyone pays 6.2% of his or her wages up to that ceiling and nothing above it, so it is a partial flat tax. (The employer also pays 6.2%.)

Another example is found in state income taxes. Ten states have a flat income tax: Arizona (the lowest, at 2.5%), Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts (the highest, at 5%), Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Utah.

Speaking as a professor of Christian theology and ethics, I find it interesting that in the Old Testament laws given to Israel, the basic tithe required of the people was a flat tax of 10%:

And every tithe of herds and flocks, every tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman's staff, shall be holy to the LORD. (Lev. 27:32, ESV)

But the Bible also offers some support for the idea that poor people should be allowed to pay a smaller fee for some assessments:

But if he cannot afford a lamb, then he shall bring to the LORD as his compensation for the sin that he has committed two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. (Lev. 5:7, ESV)

I have two other observations about this passage. First, the poor person still must contribute something; there is no provision for anyone to pay nothing. Second, the passage does not support a progressive tax (see below), in which wealthy people would contribute an increasing percentage at higher income levels. At every income level, the tithe remains 10%.

If the United States adopted a flat tax of 20%, the costs for our three sample families would be:

Summary: Amount of tax due under a 20% flat tax
Middle-income Family A: $84,000 x 20% = $16,800
Rich Family B: $1,000,000 x 20% = $200,000 (about 12 times Family A)
Ultra-rich Family C: $10,000,000 x 20% = $2,000,000 (about 119 times Family A)

My own conclusion is that such a system has an instinctive sense of fairness about it. There is an essential sameness built into it at every level. People who earn more pay more, sometimes substantially more, but they pay the same percentage as everyone else.

Such a system could also be adjusted so that people in the lower income brackets pay less than 20%. It would not then be entirely flat at the bottom, but everybody would pay something.

In fact, I think a flat tax somewhere around 20%–25% would be the best meaning we could assign to the phrase “fair share.” But we still have one more kind of tax to consider.

(4) Progressive tax: Everyone pays an increasing proportion of income as income rises.

Our present income tax system in the United States is steeply progressive. Lower- and middle-income people pay much less than they would under a flat tax, and higher-income people pay much more.

For a married couple filing jointly, the tax owed on the first $32,200 — the standard deduction — is $0. After that, the rate is 10% on the next $24,800 (that is, up to $57,000 in gross income), and from there it climbs to 37% of taxable income for the very rich.

The following calculations show the federal income tax owed by a married couple filing jointly under the IRS 2026 tax brackets, using the standard deduction of $16,100 per person announced Oct. 9, 2025.

Middle-income Family A, earning $84,000

• Gross income: $84,000
• Standard deduction (2026, married filing jointly): $32,200
• Taxable income = $84,000 − $32,200 = $51,800
• 10% on the first $24,800 = $2,480
• 12% on the next $27,000 = $3,240

Total federal income tax = $2,480 + $3,240 = $5,720

Effective tax rate = $5,720 / $84,000 = 6.8% of gross income before deductions

Rich Family B, earning $1,000,000

• Gross income: $1,000,000
• Standard deduction (2026, married filing jointly): $32,200
• Taxable income = $1,000,000 − $32,200 = $967,800

Tax computation by brackets:

1. 10% on the first $24,800 = $2,480
2. 12% on the next $76,000 = $9,120
3. 22% on the next $110,600 = $24,332
4. 24% on the next $192,150 = $46,116
5. 32% on the next $108,900 = $34,848
6. 35% on the next $256,250 = $89,687.50
7. 37% on the remaining $199,100 = $73,667

Total federal income tax = $280,251

Effective tax rate = 28.03% of gross income before deductions

Ultra-rich Family C, earning $10,000,000

• Gross income: $10,000,000
• Standard deduction (2026, married filing jointly): $32,200
• Taxable income = $10,000,000 − $32,200 = $9,967,800

Tax computation by brackets:

1. 10% on the first $24,800 = $2,480
2. 12% on the next $76,000 = $9,120
3. 22% on the next $110,600 = $24,332
4. 24% on the next $192,150 = $46,116
5. 32% on the next $108,900 = $34,848
6. 35% on the next $256,250 = $89,687.50
7. 37% on the remaining $9,199,100 = $3,403,667

Total federal income tax = $3,610,251

Effective tax rate = 36.1% of gross income before deductions

Summary: Amount of tax due under the 2026 progressive tax
Middle-income Family A: $5,720
Rich Family B: $280,251 (49 times Family A)
Ultra-rich Family C: $3,610,251 (631 times Family A)

Rich Family B pays 49 times what middle-income Family A pays, and ultra-rich Family C pays just over 631 times what Family A pays. Is that a fair share for Family B and Family C to pay? All three families receive roughly equal value from living under a functioning government, as noted above. On what basis is it fair for one family to pay more than 49 times, and another 631 times, what an average family pays?

One more example for comparison: a high-middle-income family

High-middle-income Family D, earning $300,000

• Gross income: $300,000
• Standard deduction (2026, married filing jointly): $32,200
• Taxable income = $300,000 − $32,200 = $267,800

Now apply the 2026 tax brackets:

1. 10% on the first $24,800 = $2,480
2. 12% on the next $76,000 ($100,800 − $24,800) = $9,120
3. 22% on the next $110,600 ($211,400 − $100,800) = $24,332
4. 24% on the next $56,400 ($267,800 − $211,400) = $13,536

Total federal income tax = $49,468

Effective tax rate = 16.5% of gross income before deductions

This progressive tax schedule is the current Republican position

This steeply progressive schedule is what our present political process has decided is fair. It was enacted by Republicans in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and reaffirmed, with adjustments for inflation, in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Trump signed July 4, 2025. So I think it is accurate to say this is the current consensus Republican understanding of a fair share for rich people to pay.

But Democrats continue to insist that wealthy Americans are not yet paying their fair share. (Before the 2017 law, rates were significantly higher for many brackets, reaching 39.6% on income above $480,050.)

Two objections could be raised at this point.

Objection 1: Rich people use many deductions to reduce their tax bill. Many wealthy Americans claim large itemized deductions instead of the $16,100-per-person standard deduction — for charitable giving to churches, synagogues, universities and nonprofit organizations that care for the homeless and the hungry; for state and local income taxes; for retirement contributions; for mortgage and student loan interest; and for various business expenses. These deductions reduce a person's gross income to an adjusted gross income that is much lower than actual income.

In response, I agree that many wealthy Americans claim large deductions. But Congress authorized all of them, deciding in each case that the expense — a gift to a church or another charity, for instance — brings overall benefit to society, so people should not pay taxes on what they give to these purposes. And even if a rich person cut his tax bill in half through deductions, he would still pay many times what a middle-income family pays.

Objection 2: Wealthy Americans own many properties that are rising in value, and they pay no tax on the increase. Because they have not yet sold the properties, the gains are not counted as taxable income.

A wealthy person might own four or five rental houses worth far more than he paid for them, and he owes nothing on the increase. He grows rich while paying no tax on the gain.

My response is that our income tax system is based on the income a person receives, not on net worth. It is a tax on income, not on wealth. When the property is sold, any profit is taxable, and the owner will still pay a capital gains tax on the amount gained.

How much tax do rich people actually pay?

The Tax Foundation has analyzed taxes paid in 2022, the most recent data the IRS has made available. The top 1% of taxpayers — those with adjusted gross income of about $663,000 or more — paid an average tax rate of 26.1%.

If we look at the total collected nationwide, the top 1% earned 22.4% of the nation's adjusted gross income and paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes. Yes, that is correct: Just 1% of U.S. taxpayers paid more than 40% of the total money collected in income taxes. Is that a fair share?

If we look at the top half of all taxpayers, that top 50% paid 97% of all income taxes collected. The bottom half paid 3% and faced an average tax rate of 3.7%. Many lower-income people paid no income tax at all, though they did pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare. (And some low-income workers who owe no income tax can still receive cash refunds from the government through the Earned Income Tax Credit, which can amount to several thousand dollars.)

Why should income tax be based on ability to pay?

So I return to the question: If we look not at percentages of income but at actual dollar amounts paid, why should a wealthy family pay 49 times or 631 times what a middle-income family pays in taxes? Perhaps I have misunderstood something, but I think the only basis on which this progressive tax can be justified is ability to pay. The reasoning is that the rich have the ability to pay more, therefore they should pay more, sometimes much more.

But we don't ask wealthy people to pay for most other things based on their ability to pay. Grocery stores don't stop them at the register and say, “You have a large ability to pay, so you have to pay 49 times what an average family would pay for that basket of food.” And highway toll collectors don't say, “The toll for ordinary people is $3, but you have a very large ability to pay, so your toll will be $3 x 49 = $147.”

So why should we say it is fair for rich Family B to pay 49 times the amount paid by middle-income Family A, or for ultra-rich Family C to pay 631 times, simply because they have a greater ability to pay? There is no sameness in this progressive system, because people are paying neither the same amount nor the same percentage. Wealthy Americans already pay a massive amount in taxes, and the Democratic claim that rich people should “pay their fair share” argues for something they already do, many times over.

How should we think about people who are rich?

As far as I am aware, I do not personally know anyone who earns $1 million a year or anything close to that. My goal in this essay is not to help any particular wealthy people but to challenge the way many Americans think about the rich. Democrats who repeat over and over that the rich must “finally pay their fair share” are promoting a quiet animosity toward wealthy people in general, and I think that animosity is detrimental to society.

My goal is also to encourage a basic attitude of appreciation for those who are wealthy, because it seems to me that in their work they create benefits that all of us enjoy.

Forbes magazine publishes every year a list of the 400 wealthiest people in the United States. On the 2025 list, net worth ranges from $428 billion at the top (Elon Musk) down to $3.8 billion for those at the end of the list. As I look over the list, I have several observations.

(1) Most of them earned their wealth and did not inherit it. In fact, I do not think any of the top 10 inherited their wealth. The top 10 are:

1. Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX)
2. Larry Ellison (Oracle)
3. Mark Zuckerberg (Meta)
4. Jeff Bezos (Amazon)
5. Larry Page (Google)
6. Sergey Brin (Google)
7. Steve Ballmer (Microsoft)
8. Jensen Huang (Nvidia)
9. Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway)
10. Michael Dell (Dell)

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that the next two names on the list, at Nos. 11 and 12, are Rob Walton and Jim Walton, both of whom inherited their wealth from the Walton family and the Walmart empire.

(2) For most of them, the primary motivation was not greed but an inward drive to invent, produce and sell products that are useful to people generally. When I hear or read criticism claiming that wealthy people are motivated mainly by greed, I find it unpersuasive.

I do not personally know anyone on the Forbes 400, but I have known and interacted with hundreds of other people who work in the business world, and I think the vast majority are motivated by a desire to support themselves and their families and to create or sell products that are genuinely useful and helpful. Simply working hard to earn more money honestly is not greed, because greed is a strong desire to possess more than one deserves. Greedy people commonly fail in the business world, because others simply do not want to do business with them.

In addition, criticism of another person's motives is seldom based on enough information and is often wildly incorrect. I find it difficult to know and evaluate my own motives for one decision or another, so I think people should be cautious about accusing someone else of evil motives such as greed. How do you know what is in someone else's heart?

(3) Their immense financial success does not hurt me. Sometimes I read criticism that assumes a rich person became rich by taking more than his rightful share of society's wealth, leaving less to go around for everybody else. But this is a false picture of how an economy works.

A nation's economy is not a fixed pie from which everyone takes a share, so that nobody should take too much. It is more like a local farmers market, where each farmer grows and harvests his own crop of apples, carrots, tomatoes and watermelons, and brings to market the additional wealth he himself has created. The farmer has not stolen the apples and carrots he sells; he has created new wealth that did not exist before.

Local artists who bring their paintings to sell at an art fair are another example of creating wealth that did not exist before. In the same way, the creators of Facebook, Google and Dell computers have created new wealth that did not exist before, and they have profited from the wealth they themselves created.

(4) We should not penalize the rich for being rich. In the Bible, the book of Proverbs warns against penalizing successful people even though they have done nothing wrong:

To impose a fine on a righteous man is not good, nor to strike the noble for their uprightness. (Prov. 17:26, ESV)

(5) Wealthy people bring substantial benefits to society. The claim that billionaires are not paying their fair share fails to take account of the fact that the work of these rich people has brought immense enrichment to our lives. Our society, and in fact the entire world, is much better off because of their work.

Looking again at the list of the 10 or 12 richest Americans, I realize that I am sitting in a desk chair I bought from Amazon, working on a computer I bought from Dell, running several programs produced by Microsoft, drawing on information I found using Google and wearing a sweatshirt I bought from Walmart. All these products are the result of thousands of hours of work connected to these incredibly wealthy individuals, and my life is more productive and more pleasant because of what they have produced. Another benefit is that the companies they built have provided jobs for millions of people.

High taxes hinder economic growth

If a government requires wealthy people to pay more than their fair share, we might think, “So what? They won't miss it.” But that response fails to recognize at least two harmful consequences of taxing the rich too heavily.

First, taxing too heavily hinders economic growth. It transfers too much money from highly skilled and highly productive entrepreneurs and other business owners and puts it in the hands of government officials who are less skilled in business and less economically productive. (Is there any such thing as an economically efficient government agency?) It also takes wealth owned by millions of people throughout the economy and concentrates it in the hands of government officials, who already control more money than anyone else in any economy.

In 1776, Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, wrote that the laws of England protecting a worker's right to keep what he earns are enough, by themselves, to drive a nation from poverty to prosperity:

That security which the laws in Great Britain give to every man that he shall enjoy the fruits of his own labour, is alone sufficient to make any country flourish. [...] The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition, when [...] [allowed] to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it [...] alone, and without any assistance [...] [is] capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 581)

This is why keeping taxes as low as possible is important for economic growth.

The highest federal income tax bracket requires people to pay 37%, and when Social Security and Medicare taxes are added, and then state and local taxes including property taxes, a family's total tax burden today can exceed 50% of income. But higher taxes hinder growth, because people will not work as hard for an extra dollar if half of it has to go to the government.

The link between tax cuts and economic growth was seen clearly in a fairly recent event. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, passed in the first year of President Trump's first term, was soon followed by surprisingly strong growth in the overall economy and the creation of thousands of jobs.

High taxes diminish private property

The second reason governments should not tax too heavily is the need to respect the right to private ownership of property. Although governments must collect taxes to pay for the limited needs of government, the vast majority of property within a nation should belong to individual persons — not to the government and not to “society” as a whole. In fact, private property is the essential difference between a capitalist society, which protects private property, and a communist society, which abolishes it.

Karl Marx (1818–1883), the father of modern communism, thought that an economic system allowing private ownership of property was harmful to human society, because it allowed some people to become extremely wealthy and powerful and then to use that power to exploit the oppressed workers in their factories. Therefore, he thought, private property should be abolished. Marx wrote:

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. (Communist Manifesto, 1848)

This is a horrible mistake, and it is strongly dehumanizing. Instead of leading to a new paradise where everyone joyfully shared all things in common, it led to communist governments that literally killed millions of people in Russia under Stalin and in China under Mao, and elsewhere. And these governments have trapped the remaining people in abject poverty and totalitarian oppression — note Russia, North Korea and Cuba.

What about the national debt?

If we are not going to tax the rich more, how can we ever hope to reduce the national debt, which is now approaching $40 trillion? The answer will be complex, and I do not have space to discuss it here. But the solution can be summarized briefly: Instead of taxing more, spend less.

The false claim that rich people pay very little tax

Democrats frequently speak of “millionaires and billionaires” with the implication that they control society and especially the economy. They get rich while ordinary workers suffer. They must be defeated and their oppressive behavior stopped. This is similar to the argument of communists who seek to persuade people that a wealthy, powerful, greedy group is oppressing the ordinary people of a nation.

The Democratic platform even says that billionaires pay income tax of only 8% of their income, far less than ordinary workers. Here again is the platform:

There are a thousand billionaires in America, and they pay an average of 8 percent in taxes — a far lower rate than a firefighter or teacher. Democrats will make billionaires pay a minimum income tax rate of 25 percent, raising $500 billion in 10 years. (Platform, p. 15)

This is a highly misleading statement. The mention of “a far lower rate than a firefighter or teacher” makes readers think it refers to the income tax rate paid on gross income, or perhaps on taxable income as reported on IRS Form 1040. But there is no such thing as an 8% federal tax rate. A married couple filing jointly can earn up to $32,200 — the standard deduction — and have a taxable income of $0. After that, they must pay 10% on every dollar up to $24,800 in taxable income (about $57,000 in gross income), and a greater percentage on any income above that.

There is no such thing as someone paying 8% on taxable income, and it is certainly not true that U.S. billionaires pay an average of 8% in taxes on taxable income. The statement is simply false.

If we consider what wealthy people pay on adjusted gross income, the Tax Foundation analysis mentioned above puts the average for the top 1% at 26.1% — not 8%.

The only way the platform's statement could be true is if it refers to 8% of something other than taxable income or adjusted gross income. But when it compares the tax rate of these billionaires to the rate paid by “a firefighter or teacher,” readers will naturally assume it refers to the rate paid on taxable income or perhaps on gross income. In either case, the statement is false.

Conclusion

So what is a fair share? It is an intentionally vague concept into which politicians can insert any amount they want. But when actual legislation is proposed, we find that it always means “much more.” Democrats use the phrase “fair share” to advance the idea that wealthy people are paying too little and should pay more for the system to be fair. I have never seen this claim presented alongside the fact that wealthy people already pay something like 40 or 50 or even more than 600 times the amount paid by people in the middle-income range, nor is any explanation given to show why a more steeply progressive tax schedule would be fair.

It is time to recognize that wealthy Americans already pay far more than their fair share. We should be thankful for them, not demonize them.