Ah, taxes. How can someone not be interested in the discussion of the subject? You’ve got class divides, political divides, endless statistics (many of them cherry-picked), and tons of history all buried within one little issue. Following the branches of that trunk, it leads us to government services, cost thereof, and all sorts of other items ripe for debate.

Oh, and we all pay them. That, too. Unless you’ve never purchased a single item and never worked a day in your life. Even then, you might have driven through a toll once. Opinions on the issue are as varied as our personalities themselves. One side may be arguing they should be lower across the board (and services reduced proportionately), while the other is stating we all need to pay more to improve our social safety net. Plenty of people fall in-between.

Depending on your period of reference, taxes are either comparatively low or comparatively high in historical terms. It also depends on what taxes you include. Sales? Gasoline? Just straight income? Sin taxes derived from cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling? Toll roads?

Around the time trickle-down economics became popular, the conversation around taxes in the developed world changed. Words like “fairness” and “equality” gave way to words like “stimulate” and “reduced burden.” Very progressive income tax systems in the developed world began to look a little more like a basic tier list or caste system. No one really took issue with that, either. The wealthy are paying less? Well, am I paying less? I am? Alright, case closed.

Self-centered Americans (like me) might think this is a uniquely domestic trend, but they’d be wrong. Canada’s top marginal income tax rate was once well over 70%. Beginning in the 1980s or so, it began to gradually fall to today’s 33%. Similarly, the UK oscillated all over the place for its top rate from the 1940s to the late 1970s. They entertained such numbers as 90% and 83% before they too saw a reduction beginning in the 1980s.

Of course, top marginal tax rates only tell us so much. We have to look at other, less publicized income streams to get a true picture of revenue collection. And for public opinion, we need to look at polling and surveys. That last piece is what’s been interesting lately. Public opinion doesn’t seem to be universally against progressive taxes anymore. The pendulum is swinging back.

A system of fairness

Ultimately, your beliefs on taxes come down to fairness. Which type of fairness and how you define the word is where things start to go sideways. You could focus on wealth concentration, for one — is it fair for 1% of the population to control an extremely disproportionate amount of the wealth?

Or, you can focus on the reward/penalty aspect. Is it fair that someone successful should pay more for the same exact services and protections as someone else? How much burden should someone carry for programs and systems they’ll never use? People quote both these arguments to each other quite often.

Which would make it seem like this was a fairly divisive issue. In some areas, it certainly is. But, as is often the case, those surface-level discussions hide a more nuanced truth: most of the developed world is more than ready to raise taxes on the wealthy. You just have to frame the proposition correctly to avoid knee-jerk answers.

What do I mean? Well, let’s take one of many “United States Social Security is Going Bankrupt” surveys. Here’s one hot off the presses, so to speak. When presented with options to shore up Social Security, 79% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats were in favor of implanting payroll taxes up to $400,000 in income instead of the current $147,000.

In effect, that’s a tax hike on the top 8–9% of earners in the United States (and yes, people who claim to be poor at $150,000, that’s how high up the ladder you are.) When’s the last time you’ve seen over 75% support from both parties on anything?

Whether you or I support that idea on principle or in practice is almost a moot point. There’s a policy issue, a proposed solution, and broad support. The way we’ve been going politically, I think I’d welcome any reasonable attempt at solving any problem, whether I agreed or not. Just seeing some type of honest, thoughtful discussion followed by action would be reward enough. For me, anyway.

But when you frame these questions on principle, all of that support disappears. That can also be due to vagueness in terms of what tax is being raised. In Canada, for example, an overwhelming majority supported a tax increase of 1% — provided it was on the wealthiest residents. But more generalized taxes? Not so much. 84% support government spending on child care, but only 36% continue to support that same notion if it’s the GST that gets raised.

There’s an appetite globally to move away from the trickle-down and towards a more progressive tax system, for sure. Polling and studies show that. But if nations and their politicians intend to actually make progress on this issue, they need to learn to be more nuanced, more concrete. “Raising taxes” as a suggestion will still fail. “Raising the W tax on the top X% of earners by Y in order to pay for Z” may actually start to get somewhere.

The realities of emotion

Which brings us right back to fairness. It seems the public opinion slant is toward fairness in wealth concentration more than anything else. Income inequality is an issue on many minds in many nations. This is to be expected when all followed a similar economic and strategic trajectory to one another for decades. As such, their woes and public opinion are often much more similar than one would think.

While the average citizen is not an economist, they do have a gut-level understanding of fairness. This is an understanding that’s developed uniquely to each individual based on their upbringing, life style, awareness, career, etc. This is why flat-taxes, such as those proposed in the United States by that pizza man involving the number 9 tend not to go very far despite having catchiness and simplicity on their side. The populace is more intelligent than it may first appear.

The idea of some billionaire saving hundreds of thousands of dollars while they get $7.68 back in their paycheck just doesn’t pass the smell test anymore. Information is more abundantly available now than in earlier decades — those who are legitimately curious about these things can educate themselves more easily. I’d argue there’s more awareness. Not all of the internet has been bad, I suppose.

Additionally, the government will get its money somehow. If it’s not via income tax, it’s likely going to be by some other, sneakier measure. Maybe it’s gasoline taxes, maybe something on cigarettes, maybe just the old straight-up sales tax. Rest assured, if the government wants more money, it’ll get it. Take it from me — I lived most of my life in New Jersey. There was always some fund to rob when graft left too big a hole in a different one.

Making proposals concrete and actually having some transparency with sources of funds and where they will be used is a good step in the right direction. It keeps baser emotions out of the process and re-focuses the topic as an academic, rational one rather than an ideological, principled one. Now making sure those funds are actually appropriated correctly…well, let’s just take it one step at a time, shall we?

We do have a major problem with wealth gaps in many countries, a problem that appears set to grow more pronounced with technological developments and on generational lines, as well. Our labor force participation number gets ever-more dismal, something that will be compounded by automation. Criminal justice systems all over the world need an overhaul, as do social safety nets in many countries that are wealthy enough to have one. Let’s not even begin to look at healthcare.

All of these problems may have solutions, but it’s highly unlikely that those solutions will be free. As we look toward the future and start to envision how to stave off catastrophes, it would be useful to keep in mind there’s an appetite for tax increases to pay for some of this. Just word the damn question properly.

Join 6,000+ financially smart people & subscribe to our newsletter.

This article is for informational purposes only. It should not be considered Financial or Legal Advice. Not all information will be accurate. Consult a financial professional before making any major financial decisions.