In South Africa, there is a perception of taxation that suggests the country is supported by a small number of formal taxpayers. This concept is often used to create a sense of guilt among low-income citizens, which, however, represents only half the truth and may carry a racist undertone.
A more important question is not just who registers as a taxpayer, but who actually generates the income from which taxes are collected, and who ultimately bears the tax burden. Viewing the South African economy from this perspective reveals a different picture.
It is labor that goes to work every day. Labor produces goods, builds housing, drives trucks, services hospitals, works in mines, runs restaurants, educates children, processes transactions, and maintains the functioning of factories, farms, shops, and offices. Income from labor is taxed even before the worker can dispose of it as they wish.
In 2024/25, South Africa collected R733.2 billion in Personal Income Tax (PIT), making PIT the largest category of tax revenue at 39.5% of net tax revenue. SARS itself states that PIT is 'mainly paid by working individuals.' In comparison, Corporate Income Tax (CIT) brought in R323.2 billion.
The first conclusion is obvious: South Africa's tax system is not financed exclusively by corporations and a narrow elite; it is an economy where working people are the central fiscal resource. The situation becomes even more telling when examining PIT.
The most significant aspect of this situation is the PAYE system, or Pay As You Earn. According to National Treasury income data, tax collection from employees amounted to approximately R710.3 billion in 2024/25, excluding relevant credits and refunds.
This is not a theoretical tax; it is deducted directly from wages and collected from people for the work performed. These are funds withdrawn from the worker's income before they receive disposable income. This distinction matters. A corporation can speak of its 'tax contribution' because CIT appears as a line item of corporate tax, but the worker's contribution is often psychologically separated from the economic activity that generated it. PAYE becomes government statistics rather than what it truly is: a direct claim on the economic value created through employment, channeled through workers.
The burden does not end when the worker receives the remaining salary. The worker then enters the consumer economy. When this salary is spent on taxable goods and services, VAT is levied. When a worker buys petrol or diesel, fuel taxes are included in the price. Customs duties and import VAT also affect prices and, ultimately, household expenses when goods are imported. Only VAT brought in R457.8 billion in net revenue in 2024/25.
For a wage-dependent household, consumption taxes are paid out of that salary. The worker is taxed upon earning the income and again upon spending it.
Here, the argument about South Africa's 'narrow tax base' proves insufficient. Although the formal income tax base is narrow, SARS reports that in 2024, 80.4% of individual taxpayers had taxable income below R500,000. Therefore, the question should be reframed: instead of 'How many people pay income tax?', the question should be: 'What volume of taxes does the economy extract from the labor and consumption of working households?'
Now consider the corporation. Company financial statements show wages and salaries as an expense. From an accounting perspective, this is perfectly logical. However, an extraordinary economic irony is hidden here. The worker appears in the company's records as a cost, but not as the corresponding asset that creates value and, consequently, income flow. Nevertheless, without the worker, there is no production; without production, there is no sales revenue; without revenue, there is no operating surplus; and without an operating surplus, there is no corporate profit, and consequently, no corporate income tax.
Thus, the worker occupies a strange position in capitalism: simultaneously viewed as a cost to the enterprise and as a source of value for it. The balance sheet records machinery, buildings, intellectual property, financial assets, and inventory, but the people who make these assets productive are typically not accounted for as assets. This is not an accounting error; accounting standards are designed for specific purposes, and human beings cannot simply be capitalized on a company's balance sheet. But economically, this omission is profound.
Labor is indispensable for creating the final result, even if the labor itself is not shown as an asset on the balance sheet. This is the point lost in isolated discussions of corporate tax. Comparing the tax paid by labor with CIT demonstrates this clearly. In 2024/25, PAYE was approximately R710 billion, net PIT was R733.2 billion, and net CIT was R323.2 billion. Thus, PAYE was more than twice the net CIT, and PIT was more than 2.2 times the net CIT.
However, even such a comparison underestimates the economic contribution of labor. CIT is a tax on profit after deducting allowable expenses, and wages are one such expense. That is, before the company achieves taxable profit, it has already paid workers for creating the product that generates its revenue. Then the company is taxed on what remains. Therefore, introducing corporate tax and labor taxation as independent pillars of the economy is misleading. Labor helps create the taxable corporate surplus while generating income for the state through PAYE.
This argument requires closer examination. Indeed, South Africa's tax base is narrow, and SARS data shows that high-income taxpayers bear a disproportionately large share of PIT, and this cannot be ignored. However, the conclusion often drawn from this fact is too broad. The common assertion that 'a small percentage of taxpayers supports the country' can subtly transform into a statement that a small percentage of South Africans bears the entire tax burden of the country. These are different statements. A worker with a modest salary may not contribute much to PIT, but that worker does not exist outside the tax system. A poor worker may be a small direct income tax payer, but they are a constant participant in the tax system. This difference is hugely significant in a country where extreme poverty and inequality persist.
Another reason why aggregate PIT figures can distort public understanding is this: income tax is highly visible, while VAT is not. When SARS deducts R2000 from a worker's salary, the worker sees that tax. When a worker spends R2000 in a supermarket, the tax is built into the price, reducing the household's purchasing power. This is especially important for poor households, as they tend to spend a much larger proportion of their income on consumption. Wealthy households may save a significant portion of their income, invest it, acquire assets, or earn capital income. Poor households are likely to spend most of their income just to survive.
This leads us to an even deeper problem. South Africa has built an economic system where labor is indispensable for wealth creation, but it has relatively weak power over the distribution of that wealth. The employee creates value, and the company extracts revenue. The company deducts costs and pays tax on the remaining profit. The shareholder receives dividends or capital gains, and the manager receives compensation. And the worker receives a salary. And then the worker is told that a small group of taxpayers supports the tax system. But where did the income come from that makes most of this system possible? From economic activity. And economic activity does not happen without people. Machines, mines, factories, and hospitals cannot organize themselves. Capital becomes productive because people make it productive.
This is where the problem of inequality in South Africa becomes inevitable. The argument is not that capitalism is inherently incapable of producing prosperity, nor is it that corporations should not make a profit. The argument is more uncomfortable: it is not just the volume of value created that matters, but how that value is distributed. South Africa produces significant wealth, but the distribution of this wealth is extremely uneven. The OECD describes South Africa as a country with one of the highest registered levels of wealth and income inequality in the world. Its registered Gini coefficient is significantly above the OECD average.
This is not just a story about poor people having too little money; it is a question of economic structure. Who owns the means of production? Who controls the capital? Who has access to quality education? And who remains dependent on wages? These questions take us beyond ordinary debates about whether the tax rate should be 26%, 27%, or 28%.
South Africa's fiscal system does redistribute income, and this must be acknowledged. However, there is a limit to redistribution after the economic structure has already generated enormous inequality in income and opportunity. The government cannot permanently fix an unequal production system simply by taxing certain incomes and transferring money to others. At some point, the structure of production itself must change. Workers need higher wages. Young people need access to productive employment. Poor households need access to quality education. Communities need functioning public transport, healthcare, schools, electricity, and water. And South Africa needs a much broader coverage of productive assets.
Otherwise, the state falls into a cycle: capital produces concentrated wealth; the state taxes part of it; the state redistributes part of that wealth; inequality persists; and the same economic structure reproduces the problem. The balance sheet hides the worker, but society should not. There is something profoundly revealing in corporate accounting. Machines, buildings, patents, and investments—these are all assets. But the worker who makes all this productive is an expense. The worker is the producer. They generate the revenue from which salaries, suppliers, interest, taxes, dividends, and profit are ultimately paid. Without labor, there is no 'final result.' There is only an idle factory, an empty mine, an unused computer system, and a balance sheet full of assets that produce nothing. Therefore, the worker deserves to be returned to the center of economic history. Not as a beneficiary, not as a cost, not as a statistic, but as a value creator and a participant in the public treasury.
The real tax discussion that South Africa should have is this: we must stop asking only, 'How many taxpayers are there?' Instead, we should ask: 'Who creates the taxable income?' We must stop asking only, 'How much does business pay in CIT?' Instead, we should ask: 'What volume of value does labor create before the corporation...'
3.
