Every few years a major story breaks claiming that the richest Americans pay vanishingly low effective tax rates — sometimes single digits, sometimes near zero. ProPublica’s 2021 reporting on leaked IRS data was the most prominent recent example. The numbers in those stories aren’t fabricated. They are also calculated in a way that conflates two different things: realized income (what the tax code taxes) and unrealized wealth gains (what it doesn’t). The result is a headline that’s literally accurate and rhetorically engineered to imply something the numbers don’t actually show. Both the imprecision and the underlying policy issue deserve clearer treatment than either side usually offers.
What the calculation actually does
The “true tax rate” framing in those stories divides federal income tax paid by the change in the person’s net worth over a period. If a billionaire’s stock holdings gained $20 billion in market value and they paid $200 million in income tax, that’s reported as a 1% rate. The U.S. tax code, however, does not tax unrealized capital gains. Stock that goes up in value isn’t taxed until it’s sold. So the calculation is comparing taxes owed under current law against a much larger denominator that current law doesn’t reach. By that yardstick, anyone whose home appreciates faster than their salary also pays a “near-zero” rate — the math works the same way at every income level.
The policy issue is real even if the rhetoric is sloppy
This isn’t to say there’s no story. The wealthy do have access to tax-minimization tools — borrowing against appreciated assets to avoid realization, step-up in basis at death that wipes out lifetime gains, charitable structures, opportunity zone investments — that meaningfully reduce lifetime effective tax rates relative to income earners who can’t defer. The realization-based system genuinely advantages capital over labor, and that’s a defensible target of policy debate. The honest version of the argument talks about realization, step-up basis, and borrowing-against-stock without invoking a “true tax rate” denominator that doesn’t reflect the actual law.
What reform proposals actually look like
Mark-to-market taxation of large unrealized gains, the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax floated by the Biden administration, ending step-up at death, and limiting borrowing-against-assets strategies are all serious policy proposals with serious mechanical and constitutional questions. Mark-to-market raises real liquidity and valuation problems. Removing step-up has been proposed multiple times across both parties and never passed. The honest conversation about taxing wealth involves trade-offs, not slogans. The slogan version — “they pay nothing” — is sticky precisely because it skips the trade-offs.
How to read the next headline
When the next “rich pay no taxes” story hits, look for the denominator. If the rate uses change-in-net-worth, the comparison is to a base the law doesn’t tax. That doesn’t make the underlying issue fake. It does make the headline number a rhetorical artifact rather than a measured rate.
The takeaway
The ultra-wealthy do exploit real features of the realization-based tax system, and that’s worth a real debate. Calculating their “tax rate” against unrealized gains conflates the question with the answer. Better journalism — and better policymaking — starts with the actual mechanics.
Leave a Reply