Tom Steyer said it again last week. Billionaires like him should pay more in taxes. So did members of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy Americans pushing for higher rates on the rich. Their message lands with familiar force. Yet none of them simply writes a big check to the U.S. Treasury.
The question comes up every time. If they believe it so strongly, why not pay? The answer sits deeper than hypocrisy. It reveals how the tax system actually works. And why voluntary gestures fall short.
The Limits of Voluntary Payments
IRS rules do allow extra contributions. Taxpayers can send more than owed. The government accepts these gifts and applies them to the general fund. But the sums remain tiny. A few millionaires writing checks won’t move the needle on national deficits or fund major programs.
Patriotic Millionaires laid it out clearly in a recent perspective. “When we say we want to pay ‘more’ taxes, what we mean is that we want to finally start paying our fair share,” the group explained (Patriotic Millionaires). One member, Emma Davis from the Canadian arm, paid an extra $1 million to demonstrate her point. “Do I think my $1 million is going to fix any of this? Of course not,” she said. “Individual actions cannot solve entrenched structural problems. Only an effective and ethical tax code, mandatory and universally applied, scales enough to have a real impact.”
Her action made news. It changed nothing about the broader picture. The group compares voluntary payments to tossing a half-cup of water on a million-acre forest fire. States face budget shortfalls. Cities need revenue for roads, schools and health care. A handful of extra checks from the wealthy won’t cover it. Everyone in the top brackets must face the same higher obligation.
But there’s more. The tax code already lets the richest pay less than their secretaries in effective rates. Warren Buffett highlighted this years ago. ProPublica later revealed the details through leaked returns. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and others reported true tax rates under 1 percent in some years despite massive wealth gains. They borrow against appreciating assets rather than sell and trigger capital gains. The strategy avoids ordinary income tax entirely.
Kiplinger explored exactly this mismatch. IRS collections represent obligations, not donations. Ultra-wealthy households shield fortunes through deductions, credits and timing that average earners cannot access (Kiplinger). Sending extra money after using every legal shelter doesn’t fix the underlying rules. It just adds to a pot without addressing why the system produces such low effective rates for billionaires in the first place.
And those rates matter. Recent data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows at least 88 profitable U.S. corporations paid zero federal income tax in 2025 despite $105 billion in pretax profits (ITEP). The pattern echoes what individuals achieve. Tax policy since 2017 has expanded breaks. New changes under the current administration further trimmed benefits for charitable giving starting in 2026, according to CNBC reporting (CNBC).
High earners lose full deductions above certain thresholds. The incentive to give to charity shrinks at the margin. Yet many billionaires prefer foundations and donor-advised funds anyway. These vehicles let them direct money with control and timing that direct IRS payments never allow. A voluntary Treasury gift offers no naming rights, no legacy project, no influence over how funds get spent. Private philanthropy does.
California’s proposed billionaire tax on unrealized gains adds fresh tension. Some wealthy residents have already left the state to avoid it. Six billionaires exited before a key cutoff, potentially costing the proposal $27 billion in revenue, Fortune reported. The measure targets net worth above certain levels. It treats charitable transfers after a public announcement date as non-reducing for tax purposes. The rich adapt quickly. They hire teams of advisers who model every scenario.
This behavior explains the reluctance. Paying extra to the IRS signals acceptance of the current flawed system. It implies the rules work fine if only a few contribute more. Advocates want the rules rewritten so all high earners pay higher effective rates on wealth, not just reported income. Mandatory changes hit balance sheets across the board. They reduce the ability of any single billionaire to opt out through loopholes or relocation.
Ray Madoff, a tax professor, made the case on Ezra Klein’s podcast this April. The system lets wealth grow untaxed for years. Borrowing against it creates liquidity without taxable events. “We know what they paid,” Madoff noted of figures like Buffett and Bloomberg. The New York Times highlighted how this setup leaves the tax code broken (The New York Times).
Critics on social media push back. They call the stance performative. Why not lead by example? The counter holds. One person’s extra payment doesn’t bind competitors or close shelters others continue to exploit. It doesn’t stop concentrated power. Patriotic Millionaires argue extreme wealth lets figures like Musk reshape companies and influence policy. Only a tax code that acts as a counterweight can balance that scale. “The only chance we have to defeat them is by putting them up against another Goliath, and that Goliath is a fair… tax code,” the group wrote.
History offers parallels. Calls for higher taxes on the rich surfaced during the Gilded Age and again in the 1930s. Effective rates on top earners reached 70 percent or more in the postwar decades. Revenue funded infrastructure and social programs. Today’s effective rates for many billionaires sit far lower. Unrealized gains, carried interest and stepped-up basis at death all play roles.
States experiment with their own solutions. Illinois considered taxes on unrealized gains. California pushes its measure despite outflows. These efforts face legal challenges and mobility risks. The wealthy can and do move. Six California billionaires did so ahead of the vote.
Meanwhile, the federal tax gap persists. Estimates put unpaid taxes near $1 trillion annually, much of it from high earners and corporations. IRS enforcement has struggled. Recent funding helped but faces political pressure. The agency audits the poor more than the rich in some categories because returns are simpler to review.
So the billionaires keep talking. Steyer proposes closing specific loopholes on corporate real estate. Others back a billionaire minimum tax or wealth levies. None cut personal checks for the simple reason that it wouldn’t achieve their stated goals. Systemic reform requires legislation. It demands political will that individual transfers cannot create.
The gap between rhetoric and action frustrates many. Ordinary taxpayers write checks every year without choice. They watch as reported rates for the wealthiest remain low. The frustration is real. But the solution these wealthy advocates seek isn’t personal generosity. It’s rewriting the code so the system demands more from all of them. Equally. Predictably. Without easy exits.
That distinction explains everything. A check to the IRS changes one balance sheet. Higher statutory rates and closed loopholes change incentives for an entire class. The first feels good for a moment. The second alters power and revenue for decades. Billionaires who say “tax me more” have chosen the harder path. Whether Congress follows remains the open question.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication