If You Want Higher Taxes, Should You Pay More Voluntarily?

In August 2011 Warren Buffett wrote in the New York Times that his federal tax bill for the prior year, $6,938,744, was too small a share of his income, and asked Congress to raise rates on people like him.¹ The next month Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell answered that if Buffett “is feeling guilty about it, I think he should send in a check.”² In January 2012 Buffett offered to match any voluntary contribution that congressional Republicans made toward the debt, and three for one for McConnell.

The challenge is a fair one to put to anyone who says their own taxes are too low, and it has a literal answer. The Treasury accepts gifts, and the payment form takes Venmo. Whether supporters of higher taxes are obliged to use it is a separate question, and the answer depends on what exactly they claimed.

The short version

Anyone can pay the federal government more than they owe, through Pay.gov or by check. Few do: gifts to reduce the public debt have totaled $68.4 million since 1996, which at the fiscal 2026 rate of borrowing covers about 18 minutes. That tells you little about whether supporters of higher taxes mean it. A tax binds everyone in a bracket at once; a gift binds only the giver. A person can coherently agree to pay a share that everyone like them also pays, and decline to pay it alone. The charge of inconsistency holds against someone who says they personally owe more no matter what others pay, or that they would gladly pay more today. If you do give, the gift is usually deductible, so the Treasury nets less than you send unless you skip the deduction.

How to pay the Treasury more than you owe

There are two official routes on Pay.gov, run by different offices of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service:³

Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt. Money is held in a separate account and can be used only to retire federal debt.
Donations to the U.S. Government. Money goes to an account called “Gifts to the United States,” which the form describes as established in 1843 and available for general government use.

Both forms require a Pay.gov sign-in, accept gifts of $5 or more, and take a bank transfer, PayPal, Venmo, or a debit or credit card. A debt gift can also go by check, payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service with a note in the memo line that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public, mailed to Attn Dept G, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188.⁴

There is no line on Form 1040 for paying extra. The IRS instructions send would-be donors to Pay.gov and tell them “Don’t add your gift to any tax you may owe.”⁵ Overpaying your income tax does not work as a gift either: an overpayment is refunded, offset against other federal debts you owe, or applied to next year’s estimated tax.

What happens to the money

The debt account rests on a 1961 statute, now 31 U.S.C. § 3113. It lets the Treasury accept money “made only on the condition that it be used to reduce the public debt,” and requires the Secretary to use it to pay, redeem, or buy back federal obligations, which are then “canceled and retired and may not be reissued.”⁶

In practice the two accounts have the same effect. The government borrowed $1.99 trillion in fiscal 2026,⁷ so any dollar it receives without strings is a dollar it does not borrow that year, whichever account it lands in. Neither gift changes a tax rate or an appropriation. That limits what a gift can stand in for. Someone who wants higher taxes to shrink the deficit can approximate their policy with a debt gift. Someone who wants higher taxes to pay for a specific program, such as subsidized health insurance or child care, cannot: there is no form that funds a program Congress has not passed.

How much people give

The Fiscal Service publishes every month of debt gifts since fiscal 1996.⁸ From then through August 2026 they total $68.4 million. The median full fiscal year from 1998 to 2025 brought in $1.7 million. Fiscal 2025 brought in $1.2 million, against a deficit of $1.78 trillion.

At the fiscal 2026 pace of borrowing, about $3.8 million a minute, the entire 30-year total covers roughly 18 minutes. The largest year, 2012, came after Buffett’s op-ed and the public argument over McConnell’s challenge: $7.7 million, more than four times the median, most of it in four months between November 2011 and May 2012. The data do not identify donors, so that is a coincidence of timing, and it could equally reflect a few large bequests.

Joel Slemrod and Yulia Kuchumova studied explicit gifts to the federal government over the last century. They describe the gifts as small next to both federal taxes and donations to charities, and only weakly related to the government’s fiscal position, with the war years and their aftermath accounting for most of the pattern they find.⁹

A British gift shows the same scale problem. In 1928 an anonymous donor, later identified as Gaspard Farrer, put about £500,000 into a trust, the National Fund, to be paid toward the UK national debt once it was large enough to retire the whole thing. By 2020 it had grown to £512 million, and courts ruled between 2020 and 2023 that it should go toward reducing the debt rather than back to the donor’s family or to general charity. In 2024–25 the fund transferred £585 million in cash plus some gilts, and the debt office used the proceeds to buy and cancel government bonds.¹⁰ A century of compounding produced a gift equal to about 0.02% of UK public sector net debt, which stood at £2.81 trillion in March 2025.¹¹

Massachusetts put the option on the tax form

Massachusetts runs the cleanest test of the question. Its income tax return must, by law, “provide an election to voluntarily pay tax at a rate of 5.85% on taxable income which would otherwise be taxed at a rate of 5.0%.”¹² Opting in takes one filled-in oval on a form the filer is already completing.

Few filers fill it in. Figures from the state Department of Revenue, as reported by the press, put the count at 2,727 filers for 2009 and 1,083 for 2013. A 2017 report put the average since 2002 at about 1,200 filers a year, raising a little over $250,000 a year.¹³ We found no published count after 2018.

In 2022 Massachusetts voters approved a mandatory 4% surtax on income over $1 million, 52% to 48%.¹⁴ In fiscal 2026 it raised $3.38 billion, according to the Department of Revenue’s preliminary certification.¹⁵ That is roughly 13,000 times the optional rate’s average take, although the two figures come from different years.

Two cautions keep this from proving more than it does. The groups differ: the surtax applies only to income above about $1.1 million, while the optional rate is open to every filer, and most people who voted for the surtax would never owe it. And the optional rate counts come secondhand from news reports, with nothing published after 2018 that we could find. Within those limits the pattern is clear. Given a frictionless way to pay more, about 1,200 filers a year used it. Given a law, the money arrived.

Why supporting a tax does not oblige you to volunteer it

Economists have studied voluntary funding of public goods for decades, mostly in laboratory games where players choose how much of an endowment to put into a shared pot that benefits everyone.¹⁶ The most useful finding for this question is that cooperation is mostly conditional. In a widely cited experiment by Fischbacher, Gächter and Fehr, about half the players contributed more when they expected others to contribute more, and about a third contributed nothing regardless.¹⁷ A conditional cooperator who supports a tax and declines to give alone is behaving exactly as the evidence predicts. The tax is the mechanism that tells them what everyone else will pay.

Moral philosophers reach a similar place by a different route. Liam Murphy argues that what morality asks of a person in helping others should not exceed what it would ask if everyone else did their fair share, so nobody is required to make up for those who do not. His argument concerns duties to help in general; applying it to taxes is our extension.¹⁸ Under that view, a supporter of higher taxes owes the higher rate once it applies to everyone, and nothing extra before then. Murphy and Thomas Nagel make a related point about the baseline: property rights are created by laws, of which the tax system is a part, so pre-tax income has no special claim to be the “real” starting point from which taxes are taken.¹⁹

The lab evidence on giving to government points the same way. When Li, Eckel, Grossman and Brown let students give real money to government agencies and to matched private charities working on the same causes, they gave an average of 22% of their endowment to the agencies and 27% to the charities.²⁰ The gap varied with the cause, the level of government, how efficient the agency seemed, and the giver’s income and political affiliation, and the partisan pattern depended on the cause: Democrats gave more to government than Republicans for cancer research and disaster relief, and Republicans gave more to government for education. In a follow-up, letting donors choose the agency more than doubled both the share who gave and the average gift, compared with giving to the federal general fund.²¹ A Pay.gov gift is the general-fund case: the giver controls nothing about how the money is spent.

None of this makes a gift meaningless. Andreoni’s theory of “warm glow” giving holds that people value the act of giving as well as its result,²² and Crumpler and Grossman found that 57% of participants still gave, an average of 20% of their endowment, in a setup where every dollar they gave reduced the experimenter’s contribution by a dollar and so changed nothing for the charity.²³ A gift says something real about the giver. It does not measure what they would accept as a rule for everyone.

When the hypocrisy charge sticks

G. A. Cohen, an egalitarian philosopher, asked the question of his own side in a 2000 book titled If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?²⁴ He rejected some of the standard defenses, including that one person’s gift is a drop in the ocean, since a gift can still help particular people. He also doubted the claim that people can accept a tax while being unable to give voluntarily, since anyone can commit to a standing payment. He ended without a firm verdict. Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman went further in 2021, arguing that if egalitarianism is true, rich egalitarians are obliged to give their excess income to the poor, to political advocacy, or to governments.²⁵

Those arguments are aimed at people who hold a demanding moral view about their own wealth. They have less force against someone whose claim is about tax policy. What a person said determines how much a refusal to give undercuts it:

What the person said	Does not giving undercut it?
“People in my bracket should pay a higher rate.”	No. The claim is about a rule that binds everyone in the bracket.
“Higher taxes should fund universal child care.”	No. A gift cannot fund a program that does not exist.
“The deficit is a crisis and we all need to pay more.”	Partly. A debt gift serves the stated goal directly.
“I don’t need all this money; I’d gladly pay more.”	Yes. The claim is about the speaker, today, under current law.
“It is wrong for me to keep income above what I need.”	Yes, though the money could go to a charity rather than the Treasury.

Experiments on how people judge hypocrisy explain why the charge stings when it does apply. In five studies, Jordan, Sommers, Bloom and Rand found that people judge hypocrites more harshly than people who simply lie about their conduct, because condemning a behavior implies that you do not engage in it.²⁶ The penalty disappeared for hypocrites who admitted the lapse. By that logic, “I’d gladly pay more” from someone who does not sends a false signal about their own conduct. “I support a law that would raise my taxes, and I will pay it when it passes” sends none.

Apply the same test in both directions

The test has to give the same answer whichever way a person wants the tax code to move. Summitward’s case for ending the charitable deduction argues for ending the deduction, including the extra break for donated appreciated stock, and then says of that break: “This is the part of the subsidy I would repeal, and the part I use while it exists.” That is the same position as a supporter of higher taxes who pays the current rate. If it is consistent to argue for removing a deduction while claiming it, it is consistent to argue for a higher rate while paying the current one. Critics who accept one and condemn the other are applying the standard selectively.

If you do give: the tax math

A gift to the United States “for exclusively public purposes” is a charitable contribution under the tax code,²⁷ and the IRS 1040 instructions say of debt gifts that “You may be able to deduct this gift on your 2026 tax return.”⁵ That produces an odd loop: the Treasury hands part of your gift back to you as a tax cut. Counting federal tax only, what the gift costs you and what the Treasury gains are the same number, because the deduction moves money from one to the other.

The 2026 rules from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act apply:²⁷

Itemizers can deduct charitable gifts only above 0.5% of AGI. The amount below that floor is generally lost, not carried forward.
Non-itemizers can deduct up to $1,000 of cash gifts ($2,000 joint). Governmental units count as qualifying recipients, and the 0.5% floor does not apply.
Top-bracket filers get at most 35 cents of tax benefit per deducted dollar, not 37.
Gifts of $250 or more need a written acknowledgment from the recipient to be deducted.

For one modeled single filer with $250,000 of AGI and $30,000 of other itemized deductions, taxable income is $220,000, in the 32% bracket. A $5,000 debt gift works out as follows:

One modeled single filer, 2026	Claim the deduction	Skip the deduction
Gift	$5,000	$5,000
0.5% AGI floor	−$1,250	n/a
Deductible amount	$3,750	$0
Federal tax saved at 32%	$1,200	$0
Net to the Treasury (and cost to the filer)	$3,800	$5,000

Nothing requires you to claim a deduction, so the simplest way to make a gift count in full is to leave it off your return. If you would rather claim it and still have the Treasury net $5,000, this filer would need to give about $6,765, because the deduction returns 32 cents of every dollar above the floor. A state deduction for the gift lowers what it costs you further, but that money comes from your state, so the federal gain does not change. To run your own numbers for a cash gift, the calculator in the appreciated stock and DAF guide applies the same 2026 rules.

Where an extra dollar does the most

If you have decided to give beyond what you owe, match the recipient to the reason:

You think the deficit is too large. A debt gift serves that goal directly, and each dollar retires a dollar of federal borrowing.
You want higher taxes to pay for something specific, such as aid to low-income households. A charity working on that goal can spend the money on it; the Treasury cannot. The Li et al. results suggest most donors share that preference.
You want the law changed. Advocacy and political donations aim at the rule itself. They are not deductible.
You have not covered the basics. An emergency fund, high-interest debt, and your own retirement saving come first. A gift that leaves your plan short helps nobody for long.

Key Takeaways

Anyone can pay the federal government more than they owe through two Pay.gov forms or by check. Form 1040 has no line for it, and an overpayment of tax is refunded.
Gifts to reduce the public debt totaled $68.4 million from fiscal 1996 through August 2026, about 18 minutes of fiscal 2026 borrowing.
Massachusetts offers an optional higher rate on its tax form. Press reports of state data put takers at about 1,200 filers a year; its mandatory millionaire surtax raised $3.38 billion in fiscal 2026.
Supporting a tax that binds everyone is consistent with declining to pay it alone. The charge of hypocrisy holds when the claim is personal: “I owe more” or “I would gladly pay more.”
A gift to the Treasury is usually deductible, so the Treasury nets less than the gift unless you skip the deduction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you voluntarily pay more taxes to the IRS?

Not through your tax return. Form 1040 has no line for it, and any overpayment is refunded or applied to next year’s estimated tax. To give the federal government extra money, use the Pay.gov forms “Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt” or “Donations to the U.S. Government,” or mail a check to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

Are donations to reduce the national debt tax deductible?

Generally yes. Gifts to the United States for public purposes are charitable contributions under section 170(c)(1) of the tax code. In 2026 itemizers deduct only the amount above 0.5% of AGI, and non-itemizers can deduct up to $1,000 of cash gifts ($2,000 joint). Confirm your situation with a tax professional.

How much do Americans donate to pay down the national debt?

About $1.2 million in fiscal 2025, and $68.4 million in total from fiscal 1996 through August 2026, according to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. The median year since 1998 was $1.7 million.

Does a gift to the Treasury reduce the debt?

Yes, by the amount the Treasury nets. Gifts to the debt account must by law be used to retire federal debt, and because the government runs a deficit, a general gift also reduces that year’s borrowing. A gift does not change any tax or spending law.

Is it hypocritical to support higher taxes and not pay extra?

It depends on the claim. Supporting a higher rate for everyone in your bracket is consistent with paying only the current rate, the same way arguing to repeal a deduction is consistent with claiming it. Saying you personally owe more, or would gladly pay more today, and then not doing it is inconsistent.

Can I choose to pay a higher state income tax rate?

In Massachusetts, yes: Form 1 offers an optional 5.85% rate in place of the standard 5.0%. Virginia lets taxpayers donate to the state general fund.²⁸

Related Guides

Sources

Buffett, W. E. (2011, August 14). Stop Coddling the Super-Rich. The New York Times.
ABC News (2012, January). Warren Buffett to Match Republicans’ Tax Donations. Quotes McConnell (September 2011) and Buffett’s matching offer.
Pay.gov. Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt and Donations to the U.S. Government. Form text accessed October 2026.
TreasuryDirect. Public Debt FAQs. Check instructions for gifts to reduce the debt.
Internal Revenue Service. 2025 Instructions for Form 1040. “How Do You Make a Gift To Reduce Debt Held By the Public?” and lines 34–36.
31 U.S.C. § 3113, Accepting gifts. Originally Pub. L. 87-58 (1961).
Bureau of the Fiscal Service. Monthly Treasury Statement, September 2026. Fiscal 2026 deficit $1,992.5 billion; fiscal 2025 $1,775.4 billion.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service. Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public. FiscalData API, retrieved October 18, 2026. Monthly records from October 1997; fiscal 1996 and 1997 are single September records.
Slemrod, J., & Kuchumova, Y. (2023). Gifts to government. International Tax and Public Finance 30(2), 453–492.
High Court of England and Wales. Re National Fund [2020] EWHC 2988 (Ch); Court of Appeal, [2023] EWCA Civ 1332; UK Debt Management Office, CRND accounts 2024–25.
Office for National Statistics. Public sector finances, UK: March 2025. PSND ex £2,813.9 billion, provisional.
Massachusetts Department of Revenue. 2025 Form 1 Instructions, line 22 (NBER mirror).
New England Public Media. Here’s A Question, Massachusetts: Do You Voluntarily Pay Higher Taxes? (2015) and Voluntarily Pay More Taxes? Few In Mass. Opt For Higher Rate (2017); 2009 figure via Pioneer Institute, citing DOR.
Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth. 2022 Question 1 results: 1,267,132 yes, 1,158,225 no.
Massachusetts Department of Revenue. FY2026 surtax certification, July 20, 2026: $3,380,320,213. Preliminary, subject to the December 2026 report.
Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research. In J. Kagel & A. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics, 111–194.
Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters 71(3), 397–404.
Murphy, L. B. (2000). Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory. Oxford University Press.
Murphy, L., & Nagel, T. (2002). The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice. Oxford University Press.
Li, S. X., Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Brown, T. L. (2011). Giving to government: Voluntary taxation in the lab. Journal of Public Economics 95(9–10), 1190–1201.
Li, S. X., Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Brown, T. L. (2015). Directed giving enhances voluntary giving to government. Economics Letters 133, 51–54.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving. Economic Journal 100(401), 464–477.
Crumpler, H., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of Public Economics 92(5–6), 1011–1021.
Cohen, G. A. (2000). If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? Harvard University Press.
Brennan, J., & Freiman, C. (2021). If You’re an Egalitarian, You Shouldn’t Be So Rich. Journal of Ethics 25(3), 323–337. Discussed in Pleasants (2023).
Jordan, J. J., Sommers, R., Bloom, P., & Rand, D. G. (2017). Why Do We Hate Hypocrites? Evidence for a Theory of False Signaling. Psychological Science 28(3), 356–368.
26 U.S.C. § 170: (c)(1) governmental recipients; (b)(1)(I) 0.5% floor; (p) non-itemizer deduction; (f)(8) written acknowledgment. Top-bracket limit in § 68. See also IRS Chief Counsel INFO 2012-0060.
Code of Virginia § 58.1-17, donations to the general fund.

Author disclosure

Educational content and personal opinion on public policy, not tax, legal, or investment advice. The worked example is one modeled filer and ignores state taxes and other interactions. Confirm the treatment of any gift with a tax professional.