Governance

How Governments Are Increasingly Taxing the Rich — And Why It’s Working Better Than You Think

Published

5 months ago

February 17, 2026

Tax systems are more progressive than the headlines suggest. A deep dive into global data reveals a countervailing force quietly reshaping economic inequality.

There is a story most people believe about inequality: that the rich have gotten richer, governments have stood aside, and the gap between the powerful and the powerless has grown wider with each passing decade. It is a compelling narrative. It has fueled populist movements from Paris to Pennsylvania. And it is, in important ways, true.

But it is only half the story.

The half that rarely makes the front page is this: while pre-tax incomes have grown more unequal across much of the developed world, tax codes have quietly, methodically, and often controversially been reengineered to push back. The modern tax system — maligned by progressives as a handmaiden of the wealthy and by conservatives as a punishing drag on enterprise — has actually become considerably more redistributive than it was a generation ago. Today’s taxman, it turns out, looks less like the Sheriff of Nottingham and rather more like Robin Hood.

The Inequality Surge — And the Silent Counter-Surge

The raw numbers on pre-tax inequality are stark. In 1980, the top 1% of American earners commanded roughly 9% of national pre-tax income. By 2022, that share had climbed to 16% — nearly double. Europe followed a similar, if less dramatic, trajectory: the top 1%’s share rose from around 8% to 12% over the same period, according to data tracked by the World Inequality Database (wid.world, DA 70).

This concentration at the top has coincided with the stagnation of middle-class wages across rich nations — a phenomenon economists now widely cite as a driver of the populist upheavals that reshaped Western politics after 2016. When people feel the system is rigged, they vote accordingly.

Yet here is the data point that rarely features in those conversations: even as pre-tax inequality grew, post-tax inequality in many countries grew far less — and in some cases, barely at all. By comparing the distribution of income before and after taxes and transfers, economists can measure how much redistribution a tax system actually delivers. That measure has risen sharply over the past four decades in most wealthy democracies.

The Numbers Behind the Narrative

A rigorous analysis of post-tax income distributions, drawing on OECD Taxation and Inequality data (oecd.org, DA 90), reveals the scale of the shift. The United States today redistributes approximately twice as much income through its tax-and-transfer system as it did in the 1960s. Germany and Japan, the world’s second- and fourth-largest economies, have also significantly expanded the redistributive reach of their fiscal systems. Britain and Canada are not far behind.

By the best available estimates, roughly seven in ten developed countries now operate more progressive tax-and-benefit systems than they did in 1990. The exceptions — Belarus, Eritrea, Haiti — are either dysfunctional states or, as in the case of Scandinavia, systems that were already so redistributive that marginal gains became structurally difficult to achieve. Norway and Sweden didn’t become less progressive because they abandoned the principle; they simply had less room to move.

The Tax Foundation’s 2025 Federal Income Tax Data Update (taxfoundation.org, DA 80) offers a granular look at the American case. The top 1% of U.S. earners now pay an effective federal income tax rate substantially above their historical average, contributing a disproportionate share of total receipts. Progressivity in the U.S. code — measured by the share of taxes paid by upper-income brackets relative to their share of income — has been on an upward trend since the early 2000s, a fact that cuts against the popular assumption that American tax policy has simply catered to the wealthy.

How Progressive Tax Benefits Are Actually Delivered

The mechanics matter. Progressive tax benefits do not arise solely from higher marginal rates on the wealthy — though that is one lever. They are also engineered through refundable tax credits for lower earners (the U.S. Earned Income Tax Credit is a prime example), the phase-out of deductions at higher incomes, the expansion of means-tested transfer payments, and the treatment of payroll versus capital income.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2025 report (census.gov, DA 92) underscores both the achievement and the limits of this system. Post-tax income inequality in the United States did rise by approximately 14% between 2009 and 2024, even accounting for redistribution — a sobering reminder that the tax code’s progressive thrust has not fully offset the underlying surge in market incomes. The very wealthy have captured productivity gains and asset appreciation at a rate that even a more aggressive redistributive system struggles to neutralize entirely.

That tension between pre-tax divergence and post-tax convergence is at the heart of the modern policy debate. Income redistribution trends globally, as documented in the World Inequality Database’s 2023–2024 data, show that many countries now display what researchers describe as “flat global taxation profiles” — meaning that once all taxes (including consumption and payroll taxes, which are regressive) are accounted for, the net progressivity of the full fiscal system is considerably more modest than headline income tax rates suggest.

Governments Taxing the Rich: What Works, and What Doesn’t

The global experiment in taxing higher incomes more aggressively has generated both evidence and controversy. France’s short-lived 75% top marginal rate under President Hollande became a case study in capital flight and political backlash. By contrast, the Nordic countries have sustained high top rates while maintaining robust economic dynamism — though critics note their tax bases are notably broad, with consumption taxes doing significant heavy lifting.

The wealth tax impact on the economy has proven particularly contested. Sweden abolished its wealth tax in 2007 following substantial evidence that it was driving capital offshore. Spain reintroduced a form of it in 2022, with mixed results. The academic literature, including a landmark 2024 OECD working paper, finds that the behavioral responses to high marginal rates — avoidance, deferral, emigration — significantly erode the practical revenue yield, suggesting that the design of progressive systems matters as much as their stated ambition.

The Manhattan Institute’s research on the limits of taxing the rich (manhattan-institute.org) offers a rigorous counterpoint worth engaging seriously: there is a ceiling to how much revenue can be extracted from high earners before diminishing returns — and perverse incentives — begin to dominate. That ceiling is lower than redistributionists tend to assume and higher than supply-siders insist. The empirical literature puts the revenue-maximizing top marginal rate somewhere in the range of 50–70%, though the precise figure is sensitive to assumptions about capital mobility and income elasticity.

The Political Economy of Redistribution

There is a deeper irony embedded in this story. The very success of progressive taxation in moderating post-tax inequality may have paradoxically reduced the political salience of tax reform. If the after-tax Gini coefficient looks relatively stable, policymakers can point to a system that is “working” — even as pre-tax divergence continues unabated and wealth (as distinct from income) inequality reaches historic extremes.

The Economist’s analysis of how governments are soaking the rich (economist.com, DA 93) correctly identifies that much of the redistribution occurring today happens not through dramatic rate increases but through the quiet accumulation of tax expenditures, transfer payments, and bracket creep. This is redistribution by stealth — effective in aggregate, but poorly understood by voters, and therefore fragile.

That fragility matters. A redistributive architecture that operates through complexity rather than transparency is vulnerable to elite capture, to political backlash, and to the kind of simplification drives that tend to benefit those with the resources to optimize against a newly rationalized code.

Looking Forward: Policy Implications for 2025 and Beyond

The data presents a nuanced verdict. Progressive tax systems in wealthy democracies have done considerably more to moderate inequality than their critics acknowledge. The claim that governments have simply let the rich run away with the gains is empirically unsound. Yet the redistributive effort required has grown dramatically — and the economic friction it generates, in terms of tax avoidance, investment distortions, and political conflict, is rising alongside it.

Several policy directions appear most promising based on the available evidence:

Broadening the base while maintaining progression. Systems that rely on narrow income tax bases are more vulnerable to avoidance. Consumption taxes with low-income offsets, or a more systematic approach to capital gains taxation (including accrual-based treatment for the very wealthy), could expand the redistributive toolkit without requiring punishing marginal rates.

Targeting wealth as well as income. As the World Inequality Database documents, much of the divergence at the top is now driven by asset appreciation rather than labor income. A well-designed, internationally coordinated minimum tax on very large wealth — as proposed in academic frameworks endorsed at the G20 level — could address what income tax systems structurally miss.

International coordination to limit base erosion. The OECD’s Global Minimum Tax initiative represents the most significant shift in the international tax architecture in decades. Its full implementation would meaningfully constrain the ability of multinationals and wealthy individuals to arbitrage tax systems — a precondition for progressive systems to deliver their stated redistributive goals.

The arc of tax history in the modern era bends, tentatively and imperfectly, toward greater progressivity. Whether that arc can continue to bend fast enough to offset the forces generating pre-tax inequality is the central fiscal question of the coming decade. Governments have proven more Robin Hood than Sheriff of Nottingham. The question now is whether the forest is large enough — and whether there are enough stagecoaches left to rob.

Sources: World Inequality Database (wid.world); OECD Taxation and Inequality 2024 (oecd.org); U.S. Census Bureau Income and Poverty Report 2025 (census.gov); Tax Foundation Federal Income Tax Data 2025 (taxfoundation.org); The Economist, “How Governments Are Increasingly Soaking the Rich” (economist.com); Manhattan Institute, “The Limits of Taxing the Rich” (manhattan-institute.org)

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

Christine Lagarde’s Early ECB Exit: Europe’s Financial Future

Don't Miss

Pakistan Poised to Ace IMF Targets: A Closer Look at the February 2026 Review

Click to comment

Analysis

Britain’s Sixth Prime Minister in a Decade: What Starmer’s Exit Means for Gilts, Sterling and Your Portfolio

Published

1 week ago

July 20, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Introduction

Keir Starmer’s resignation as UK Prime Minister on 22 June 2026 has done something British politics has made almost routine over the past decade: force bond traders, currency desks and pension fund managers to re-price the United Kingdom overnight. Starmer’s departure makes him the sixth prime minister to leave office in roughly ten years, a churn rate that stands out even among G7 peers, and it lands at a moment when the UK’s fiscal position is already under close watch by holders of its debt. This is not merely a Westminster story. It is a market story, and one with direct consequences for mortgage rates, pension valuations and the cost of servicing Britain’s roughly £2.8 trillion national debt.

What Happened

Starmer’s resignation followed months of eroding authority inside the Labour Party, capped by the exit of his deputy prime minister earlier in the year over a property tax dispute. He will remain in post as a caretaker until Labour elects a successor, with nominations closing in mid-July and a new leader expected to be confirmed before Parliament returns in September. Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Greater Manchester who won a recent by-election to re-enter the Commons, has emerged as the clear frontrunner after health secretary Wes Streeting opted not to stand against him — raising the prospect of what commentators are calling a “coronation” rather than a contested race, though leadership contests in the Labour Party have surprised before (Trustnet).

Why Markets Reacted

UK 10-year gilt yields moved to around 4.85% in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, a level that reflects accumulated political and fiscal uncertainty rather than a single day’s news (IG UK). That is materially higher than yields on comparable government debt in other major economies, and analysts describe it as a standing “political risk premium” that UK assets have carried since the 2016 Brexit referendum and that has shown little sign of narrowing given the scale of leadership turnover since (IG UK).

Importantly, strategists at RBC Wealth Management note that broader global forces — including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and shifting Middle East energy dynamics — may end up mattering more for gilt direction than the Westminster reshuffle itself, a reminder that UK political drama plays out against a backdrop investors cannot ignore (RBC Wealth Management).

The Chancellor Question Is the Real Swing Factor

Every analyst note on this transition converges on the same point: the identity of the prime minister matters less to bond markets than the identity of the chancellor. Burnham is reportedly considering retaining Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, a move that would signal continuity with the current fiscal rules framework that has, despite repeated shocks, kept UK public finances on a broadly stable trajectory (RBC Wealth Management). Morningstar’s coverage of the transition period noted that a chancellor perceived as less fiscally conservative could prompt gilt markets to demand a permanently higher yield premium on UK debt, raising government borrowing costs and creating headwinds for growth-sensitive assets (Morningstar UK).

This is not a hypothetical concern. UK bond markets punished the short-lived Truss government swiftly in 2022 when its fiscal plans broke with market expectations, an episode that remains the reference point for how quickly sentiment can turn (IG UK). The institutional guardrails that ultimately forced that correction — an independent Bank of England, the Office for Budget Responsibility, and deep, liquid gilt markets — remain in place today and are cited as a structural stabiliser that pure political turbulence cannot easily override (IG UK).

The Bank of England’s Parallel Balancing Act

The leadership change lands just before a pivotal Bank of England decision. The Monetary Policy Committee held Bank Rate at 3.75% in a 7–2 vote on 18 June, with two members pushing for a hike to 4.00% on the back of services inflation running at 3.7% even as headline CPI held at 2.8% (Cambridge Currencies). The next rate decision, alongside a fresh Monetary Policy Report, falls on 30 July 2026, and economists are now debating not whether the Bank hikes again but when it can safely resume cutting (Cambridge Currencies).

Separately, the Bank’s July 2026 Financial Stability Report flagged a distinct but related risk: heavy reliance by AI-focused companies on debt financing to fund infrastructure buildouts, and the potential for a global AI valuation correction to spill into sovereign debt markets, including gilts, if investor confidence were to sour broadly (Bank of England). The Bank’s own stress-test scenario found that even under a hypothetical AI equity shock, US Treasury and UK gilt markets continued to function, though officials cautioned that consequences could have been more severe had those markets come under direct pressure (Bank of England Financial Stability Report).

What This Means for Households and Investors

Mortgages: Elevated gilt yields tend to feed through to fixed-rate mortgage pricing, since lenders fund those products in the swaps and gilt markets. A sustained rise in yields raises the cost of refinancing for millions of UK borrowers.
Sterling: Currency desks flagged the risk of further weakness against the dollar if leadership uncertainty persists, though the picture has been complicated by swings in global energy prices tied to Middle East developments (Morningstar UK).
Equities: The FTSE 100 has shown relative resilience, trading near the 10,700 level in the run-up to the transition, buoyed in part by its heavy weighting toward globally diversified, dollar-earning multinationals that are less exposed to purely domestic UK political risk (Nakitte UK Markets Brief).
Pensions and annuities: Higher long-dated gilt yields are a double-edged sword for defined-benefit schemes — improving funding ratios in some cases while raising the government’s own debt-servicing bill.

Outlook

The working assumption among UK-focused strategists is that markets will treat the leadership transition itself as a secondary risk factor behind the chancellor appointment and the 30 July Bank of England decision. Should Burnham retain Rachel Reeves and signal continuity with existing fiscal rules, the political risk premium already embedded in gilt pricing may prove sticky rather than escalating further. A break from that fiscal framework, by contrast, is the scenario analysts say would most likely reprice UK risk sharply higher — a dynamic Britain has now lived through twice in under four years.

Key Takeaways

Starmer’s resignation makes the UK the most politically volatile G7 economy of the past decade, with six prime ministerial changes since roughly 2016.
Gilt yields near 4.85% reflect an accumulated political risk premium rather than a single-day reaction.
The identity of the next chancellor — not the next prime minister — is the variable markets are watching most closely.
The Bank of England’s 30 July decision and its AI-linked financial stability concerns add a second, parallel layer of market risk.
Institutional guardrails (BoE independence, the OBR, deep gilt markets) remain the key structural buffer against a Truss-style repricing event.

*Sources: IG UK, RBC Wealth Management, Morningstar UK, Trustnet, Bank of England Financial Stability Report, July 2026, Cambridge Currencies BoE Rate Forecast, [Nakitte UK Markets Brief](https://www.nakitte.com/briefs/gb-2026-07-

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Governance

National Contributions Tax” Explained: Burnham-Era Reform 2026

Published

2 weeks ago

July 13, 2026

Abdul Rahman

A group of senior UK economists led by Lord O’Neill of Gatley has proposed scrapping income tax, National Insurance, and capital gains, dividend and inheritance taxes in favor of a single “national contributions” levy, alongside replacing stamp duty with a 1% property valuation charge. The plan claims it could unlock £38bn in fiscal headroom and raise £18bn — and it’s landing just as Andy Burnham prepares to become prime minister.

Why this is surfacing right now

Most UK coverage has focused on the horse-race politics of Keir Starmer’s resignation and Andy Burnham’s expected succession as prime minister on July 20, 2026. What’s been under-covered is the structural tax reform proposal now sitting on the desk of whoever holds that office. Lord O’Neill and five other economists have published a report through the UCL Institute for Global Prosperity calling for a fundamental redesign of how the UK taxes income and wealth (CPA).

The mechanics: instead of stacking income tax, National Insurance, and separate levies on capital gains, dividends and inheritance, the UK would consolidate all of it into one “national contributions” tax. Stamp duty on property transactions would be replaced with an annual 1% levy on property valuations. The report’s authors argue this could create £38bn of additional fiscal headroom while raising £18bn in net new revenue — a combination that would matter enormously to a new government already facing warnings from the Office for Budget Responsibility about UK debt trajectories.

The bigger fiscal backdrop making this urgent

This isn’t a proposal floating in a vacuum. The OBR has warned that public debt could climb toward 300% of GDP by 2075 without intervention, and that nearly 50 million people could eventually fall into the higher tax bracket if current thresholds stay frozen while spending goes uncontrolled — potentially pulling even full-time workers on the National Living Wage into the 40% band by the late 2060s (CPA). The UK’s tax-to-GDP ratio is already projected to rise from 37% in 2019/20 to 43% by 2030/31.

Against that backdrop, the political calculation facing Burnham is unusually tight: he has signaled Labour’s manifesto still leaves room for maneuver on taxes, provided the party avoids raising the headline rates of income tax, VAT or National Insurance (CPA). A single consolidated levy could, in theory, let a government reshape effective tax burdens without technically breaking that pledge — which is precisely why business groups are watching this proposal so closely.

Who wins and loses under a consolidated levy

Higher earners and investors currently benefiting from the gap between income tax rates and lower capital gains rates would likely see that gap close, which is why fintech entrepreneurs have already pushed back hard. Thought Machine founder Paul Taylor has called proposals to align capital gains tax with income tax “profoundly unfair” and warned it could discourage the investment the UK needs to support venture-backed IPOs (CPA).
Property owners would trade a one-off stamp duty charge for an ongoing annual valuation-based levy — a structural shift with very different cash-flow implications for anyone holding property long-term versus trading it frequently.
The Treasury gains a simpler, harder-to-avoid tax base, which is the core appeal for fiscal planners worried about long-run debt sustainability.

What UK businesses and investors should track next

Business confidence in the UK has already fallen to an 18-month low, with firms citing tax uncertainty as a leading factor, according to S&P Global data (CPA). Until the new government clarifies whether it will pursue anything resembling the national contributions model, expect continued caution on hiring and investment — a dynamic we cover in depth in our UK business confidence explainer.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Tariffs

Trump Tariffs 2026: Economic Impact, Household Costs & Trade War Outlook

Published

1 month ago

June 27, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Trump’s 2026 tariffs represent the largest US tax increase as a share of GDP since 1993, costing households $1,500 on average. Here’s how the trade war is reshaping global supply chains, prices, and growth.

The tariff regime assembled by the Trump administration since 2025 now constitutes the largest U.S. tax increase as a share of GDP since 1993—a fact that took more than a year to fully register in household budgets, but whose full weight is being felt with increasing force in the middle months of 2026.

The average American household will pay an estimated $1,500 more in 2026 as a direct consequence of elevated import duties, according to Tax Foundation analysis—up from roughly $1,000 in 2025. The costs are not distributed evenly. Lower-income households, which spend a higher proportion of their income on goods (particularly apparel, electronics, and food), absorb a larger relative burden.

A Legal Architecture Under Pressure

The tariff program has faced serious legal challenges. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the President cannot use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act—IEEPA—to impose tariffs. The decision stripped the administration of the legal vehicle it had used to impose much of its most aggressive tariff architecture.

But the administration adapted rather than retreated. In the same week as the ruling, President Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% tariff on all countries under Section 122—a different statutory authority tied to balance-of-payments deficits—covering approximately $1.2 trillion worth of imports. The administration also initiated multiple Section 301 investigations into 60 countries on March 11, examining whether those nations allow imports of products made by forced labor. The list includes the European Union, positioning both parties for a potential renewal of the transatlantic trade conflict that a deal in 2025 had temporarily paused.

On pharmaceuticals, the administration signaled that tariffs on imported drugs could rise toward 200% by mid- to late-2026—a figure that would represent an extraordinary disruption to global pharmaceutical supply chains, though J.P. Morgan analysts noted that inventory builds and domestic manufacturing announcements by large biopharma companies should limit near-term exposure for major producers.

The China Equilibrium

U.S.-China trade relations have settled into an uneasy equilibrium. Following the June 11, 2025 trade deal announcement that left in place 20% fentanyl-related tariffs and 10% reciprocal tariffs for a combined 30%, and a subsequent series of extensions and escalations that included a 100% tariff imposed in November 2025, the two countries entered 2026 with a tense but functional trading relationship.

Chinese exporters responded to U.S. tariffs not by collapsing but by redirecting. China’s semiconductor exports surged 110% year-over-year in May 2026. That strength reflects both genuine demand from AI-related industries globally and a deliberate Chinese strategy of deepening trade relationships with Southeast Asia, the Gulf, and Europe to reduce dependence on U.S. market access.

The economic cost of U.S. tariffs on China, per J.P. Morgan Global Research, was to reduce Chinese GDP growth by roughly 0.6 percentage points through the combined effect of export drag and weaker domestic investment. But China’s export machine proved more resilient than many forecasters expected, partly because third countries absorbed Chinese goods that could not reach the U.S. market directly.

Inflation Is the Tariff’s Most Persistent Legacy

The clearest economic consequence of the tariff regime is its contribution to inflation. Businesses faced with import tariffs have three choices: absorb the cost and compress margins; pass it to consumers in higher prices; or reshore production in the U.S. at significantly higher labor costs. All three options carry economic costs, and in practice most companies have pursued a combination.

Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic noted in research published late 2025 that U.S. firms expected tariffs to account for 40% of their total unit cost growth in 2025 and 2026. That contribution to inflation is structural rather than transitory—unlike oil prices, which can fall as conflict dynamics ease, tariff-driven cost increases remain embedded in supply chain economics until the tariffs themselves are removed or the supply chains are restructured.

The Council on Foreign Relations analysis of tariff-Treasury interactions found that tariff uncertainty—independent of the tariffs themselves—was raising the risk premium in U.S. Treasury markets: “An eventual court ruling against the administration’s reliance on IEEPA could significantly alter the implementation path,” J.P. Morgan’s Nora Szentivanyi noted, adding that even without IEEPA, alternative statutory pathways would keep elevated tariffs in place.

Where the Trade War Goes Next

The Section 301 investigations launched in March against 60 countries—including EU members—signal that the tariff posture is not an emergency measure being wound down but a permanent feature of U.S. trade policy. Many market participants expect that Treasury will need to increase issuance of longer-term bonds starting in Q4 2026 partly to ensure liquidity along the yield curve—with tariff revenue being one of the contested variables in fiscal planning.

For U.S. businesses, the clearest strategic message from the tariff regime’s staying power is that supply chain localization is no longer a nice-to-have contingency plan. It is a competitive necessity in an environment where trade routes can change with a single executive order and where the legal found