What Does A ‘Fair Share’ Really Mean?

With all the debate about taxation in our state, I’ve been trying to educate myself more to better understand it myself. I’ve also had several discussions with students about ideas like equality and fairness, especially since many of them constantly repeat phrases like “the rich should pay their fair share.” We have talked to them at length about what “fairness” means, and so while studying, I came across an analogy that I found interesting.

The premise is simple: 10 men go to lunch every week and all order the exact same thing. Each week, the bill comes to $100. There are several ways they could divide the bill. What seems obvious at first is that each man should simply pay for his own meal: $10 each. No one was forced to come to lunch; they all knew the cost and chose to participate. Seems fair.

However, as a society, we often view this as unfair because each man earns a different wage. In terms of taxation, this resembles a regressive system because the burden falls more heavily on lower-income individuals. For example, if man 1 makes $100 a day, his $10 lunch is 10% of his income. While man 10 makes $1,000, his lunch is only 1% of his income. Fair?

To address this perceived imbalance, we have adopted a progressive system, where the bill is divided based on ability to pay. It now looks something like this:

•Men 1–4 (lowest income) pay $0.

•Man 5 pays $1.

•Man 6 pays $3.

•Man 7 pays $7.

•Man 8 pays $12.

•Man 9 pays $18.

•Man 10 (highest income) pays $59.

Fair?

At first glance, it’s clear that the higher earners are paying significantly more. Yet, even in systems like this, we still hear calls that “the rich should pay their fair share.”

In the story, the men continue dining together each week, satisfied with the arrangement. Then one day, the restaurant owner decides to reward his loyal customers by reducing the bill by $20. Let’s call this a tax– I mean lunch break. The total is now $80.

Rather than splitting it evenly at $8 each, they choose to maintain their “fair” progressive system. The four lowest earners still pay nothing, so the remaining six must adjust their contributions. If you divide the $20 saving by 6, it is $3.33. Yet, if they reduced each bill by $3, then man 5 and man 6 actually got paid to eat. Instead, they decided to continue with the progressive system again.

The new breakdown looks like this:

•Men 1–4 still pay $0.

•Man 5 now pays $0 (100% reduction).

•Man 6 pays $2 (33% reduction).

•Man 7 pays $5 (28% reduction).

•Man 8 pays $9 (25% reduction).

•Man 9: pays $14 (22% reduction).

•Man 10: pays $49 (16% reduction).

Under this system, everyone benefits. In fact, the first five diners now eat for free, and everyone pays less money. Initially, everyone is pleased. But as they leave, they begin comparing how much each actually saved:

•Men 1–5 experience no change (already paying $0).

•Man 6 saves $1.

•Man 7 saves $2.

•Man 8 saves $3.

•Man 9 saves $4.

•Man 10 saves $10.

At this point, dissatisfaction begins to grow. The nine others feel the wealthiest diner benefited the most because he received the largest dollar reduction, even though he is also paying the most to begin with. To them, the system now feels unfair— tilted in favor of the rich.

Finally, the story ends when the following week, the 10th man decides not to return, let’s say he moved to Texas. While the bill is now only $70, without his $49 contribution, the remaining nine can no longer cover the bill.

I understand this is not a perfect analogy. There are many other factors involved in taxation and the broader economy. And in any functioning society, there likely should be some level of built-in fairness to support those in genuine need.

Where I find myself wrestling, and where many of my students seem to struggle, is with the definition of fairness. When those who pay little to no income tax argue that tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy—who already pay the majority of total taxes—it raises important questions about perspective.

At some point, we must ask: What does “fair share” actually mean?

If a system results in some contributing little while others contribute the majority and are still told they should pay more, it’s worth asking whether that system is sustainable in the long run.

James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com. Thanks to the Southwest Ledger and the Lawton Constitution for sharing his column.