Taxes do not merely pay for government. They help make democratic government possible, argues TPC’s Vanessa Williamson in her new book, The Price of Democracy. In a recent conversation with economist Paul Krugman, Williamson argued that democracy requires more than citizens who can vote. It also requires a government capable of acting on their choices.
“If the government doesn’t have enough money to act,” Williamson told Krugman, voting can become “inconsequential.”
Taxation and representation grew up together
Williamson traces one strand of that relationship at least as far back as Magna Carta, when English barons demanded that King John obtain consent before imposing extraordinary taxes. As rulers became dependent on taxpayers, taxpayers gained political leverage.
Taxpayers with more political power might demand lower taxes. But Williamson argues that the historical pattern is often the opposite: Democracies tend to raise more revenue when citizens have more say over what government does with it.
Krugman raised a related point in their conversation. Countries with large social insurance systems generally do not finance them solely by taxing a small group of wealthy households. Large, lasting government programs generally require broad, lasting sources of revenue.
Broad participation can coexist with progressive taxation
That need for broad, lasting revenue is already reflected in the federal tax system. Debates often focus on the individual income tax, but many US households that owe little or no federal income tax still pay payroll taxes (Table 1).
Broad participation, however, does not mean every taxpayer must bear the same burden. TPC’s baseline estimates for 2026 show that average federal tax rates (including individual and corporate income tax, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, the estate tax, customs duties and excise taxes) generally rise with income. The system thus combines broad participation with overall progressivity—a balance that helps connect taxation to both civic responsibility and ability to pay.
Americans may be less anti-tax than our politics suggest
Williamson points to what researchers call “tax morale,” or people’s willingness to pay taxes they believe they legitimately owe. For decades, surveys Williamson cites have found that roughly nine in ten Americans agree that paying one’s fair share of taxes is a civic duty.
And when Americans are asked about problems with the tax system, their longstanding concerns include wealthy people and corporations not paying their share and the complexity of the tax code. The amount they personally pay ranks lower.
The key question is not: Do Americans enjoy paying taxes? Rather, it is: When do they consider paying taxes to be fair and worthwhile?
Williamson points to data showing that public attitudes toward taxpaying have remained relatively stable even as national tax politics became much more anti-tax. She attributes the difference to the role of organized interests, party politics, and elected leaders’ own assumptions about what voters will tolerate.
Social Security shows the political power of paying taxes
In their conversation, Krugman asked why President Franklin Roosevelt (D) chose to finance Social Security through payroll taxes. Williamson explained that Roosevelt wanted workers to contribute directly to the program and to see themselves as stakeholders in it. Social Security became one of the federal government’s most enduring and popular programs.
But large, permanent programs need large, permanent sources of revenue.
Williamson strongly supports greater taxation of very high incomes and wealth. But she also distinguishes between using taxes to make the system more progressive and raising enough revenue to finance government over time.
That distinction matters at the scale of the federal budget. TPC’s Jessica Riedl estimates that stabilizing the federal debt would require policy changes equal to about 4.3 percent of GDP annually within a decade. Even several aggressive tax increases affecting high-income households and corporations, combined, would fall well short of that amount.
Can politicians make the case for paying for government?
Williamson argues that elected officials at the national level have become reluctant to be direct with voters. If Americans want government to provide social insurance, infrastructure, public health, and other collective goods, most Americans may eventually have to help pay for them.
Americans have accepted broad-based taxes to finance programs they value. They overwhelmingly endorse the principle of paying one’s fair share. And Social Security, one of the nation’s most politically durable programs, was deliberately designed around the idea that millions of people would contribute to it.
Americans might reject the argument that valuable government is worth paying for.
But first, politicians would have to make it.
