Osman Şenkul
Society in Ancient Rome consisted of patricians (the nobility), plebeians (free citizens) and slaves. The patricians also held the right to rule. The plebeians, whilst not being as deprived of their rights as slaves, formed the section of society that carried out all economic activities and paid taxes to the state, despite having no say in governance.
In the early 490s BC, a major uprising spread amongst the plebeians. Prior to this, there had been no organised movement apart from the patricians, who were organised through state channels. The plebeians could not even secure a single office-holder in the Centuria (the Assembly) that governed Rome. Consequently, they first established ‘neighbourhood organisations’ (tribus). Following this, they formed their own assemblies (Concillia Plebis Tributa) to bring the tribus together.
By 494 BC, the ‘Struggle between the Patricians and the Plebeians’ had intensified considerably, and the first ‘organised strike’ in history emerged. Initially, these strikes—in which the neighbourhood organisations, the tribes, were organised separately—were carried out through methods such as closing shops and refusing to bake bread.
Towards the end of 494 BC, the first general strike in history also took place. The Concilia Plebis Tributa (Assembly of the Plebeians) passed a resolution for a general strike, and all the plebeians gathered and marched out of Rome. When the plebeians withdrew to the Sacred Mountain, a few kilometres outside Rome, the patricians immediately requested negotiations with them. After lengthy discussions, the patricians agreed to the plebeians’ three demands. The most important of these was that all the plebeians’ debts to the state would be forgiven and that a fairer approach would be adopted in the taxation of the plebeians.
Furthermore, the tax debts of plebeians would be completely written off; in addition, those who had lost their plebeian status and been reduced to slavery due to their debts would be reinstated as plebeians. This economic victory for the plebeians was underpinned by two political conditions.
Accordingly, a general amnesty for the plebeians was to be declared. Furthermore, from that time onwards, two individuals who would defend the rights of the plebeians and represent them would be recognised by the Centuria.
The plebeians subsequently demanded the distribution of state-owned land. The desperate patricians accepted this too, and the distribution of all state lands began. However, although the land distribution agreement had been approved on the condition that the distribution be carried out equally between the patricians and the plebeians, a new dispute arose when the patricians attempted to claim more and more fertile land for themselves, and the plebeians once again resorted to strike action. Consequently, the patricians were forced to be ‘fair’ in the land distribution as well.
Thus, history’s first organised strike had ended in resounding success, and those who held economic power had taken a significant step towards gaining a say in social life. This experience enabled the plebeians to become far more effective within the state apparatus in the years that followed. The uprising against ‘excessive taxation’—which had shaken the Roman Empire to its core some 25 centuries ago—had ended in great success, and the injustices inherent in this practice, regarded as a traditional form of taxation, had been resolved through the taxpayers’ resistance by organising the first general strike in history.
Approximately 25 centuries after this historic uprising against tax injustice, events unfolding in Turkey today bring to mind similar causes. In Turkey, partly due to the increasing impoverishment seen particularly in recent years, the total amount of overdue unpaid taxes and penalties has reached 1 trillion 507 billion TL. Records show that, during this period, Turkey is collecting the highest tax revenues in its history, with a total of 15.6 trillion TL in tax due to be collected from citizens in 2026. This indicates that tax revenues account for almost 88.4 per cent of budget revenues.
Although the tax burden on Turkish citizens appears low on paper compared to international averages, it is felt to be quite heavy in daily life relative to income levels, particularly due to increasing poverty. More than 60 per cent of the taxes collected in the country consist of indirect taxes (such as VAT and excise duty paid on purchases), which are paid by everyone regardless of whether they are rich or poor. Due to this structure, low-income citizens end up paying a much larger proportion of their earnings in tax.
As is well known, the state collects tax through two channels: ‘indirect’ and ‘direct’. Direct taxes are levied directly on income and profits; these include income tax deducted from salaries and corporation tax paid by companies. Indirect taxes, on the other hand, are taxes embedded within the prices of goods and services, such as VAT paid when buying bread or excise duty paid when buying petrol. Income tax deducted from employees’ wages is based on a progressive (bracketed) system; as wages rise, the tax rate increases from 15 per cent to 27 per cent and up to 35 per cent. In particular, due to the current high inflation, pay rises increase citizens’ nominal (numerical) income, thereby pushing employees into higher tax brackets sooner. Whilst in developed OECD countries approximately two-thirds of total tax revenue is collected from income (direct taxes), the situation in Turkey is exactly the opposite. Citizens on fixed and low incomes are taxed at a much higher rate on their expenditure.
Despite calls from trade unions and numerous civil society organisations for Turkey’s tax system – which relies on millions of people bearing the brunt of indirect taxes – to be made fairer, no regulations based on tax justice have yet been brought to the table.
However, a statement made last Sunday (12 July) by CHP Zonguldak MP Deniz Yavuzyılmaz has brought the issue of tax injustice back into the spotlight.
In a statement posted on his social media account, Yavuzyılmaz announced that the case brought before the Paris Court of Appeal seeking the annulment of the international arbitration ruling concerning the Iraq-Turkey crude oil pipeline had been lost. Yavuzyılmaz claimed that the application to overturn the International Arbitration Court’s ruling imposing a fine of 1 billion 471 million dollars against Turkey had been unsuccessful. When calculated at today’s dollar exchange rate (47 TL), this amount equates to a total of 69 billion 137 million lira. In other words, if the information presented by Yavuzyılmaz is accurate, a significant payment will have to be made from Turkey’s tax-funded assets; however, more importantly, due to tax injustice in Turkey, a large portion of this tax would have to be diverted from the same source that funds VAT and excise duties levied on items such as meat, milk, school bags, socks, and crockery.
For this reason, it would be appropriate to look at the successes of the ‘Tax the Rich’ movement, which has emerged as a prominent and highly effective initiative worldwide in the pursuit of tax justice.
This is because the ‘Tax the Rich’ movement is a global campaign advocating for progressive taxation with the aim of reducing severe wealth inequality and financing public services. This movement targets excessive wealth, such as that held by billionaires, through new wealth taxes, capital gains taxes and corporation tax, in order to prevent the super-rich from paying less tax than the average worker. Active in dozens of countries, including many major nations such as the US, the movement’s core belief is that current tax legislation disproportionately favours the wealthiest individuals and companies.
The ‘Tax the Rich’ movement – a global socio-political campaign calling for higher taxes on billionaires and the ultra-wealthy to reduce extreme economic inequality – is supported by a coalition of trade unions, economists and even wealthy individuals. Its advocates propose the introduction of new wealth taxes to fund public services such as healthcare, education and climate initiatives.The world’s wealthiest individuals typically hold their wealth in assets such as shares, rather than in active income, which is easily taxable. As capital gains are not taxed until the assets are sold, billionaires pay very little income tax on their active earnings. The wealth of the ultra-rich continues to grow at unprecedented rates. The movement’s reports and research notes highlight that whilst the top 0.01 per cent are amassing immense fortunes, low- and middle-income families are facing rising poverty and crumbling public services.
Described as a global wave of political and social advocacy targeting rising global economic inequality, dwindling public resources and the perception that the super-rich do not pay their fair share of tax, the ‘Tax the Rich’ movement advocates for an increased tax burden on ‘ultra-high-net-worth individuals’ (UHNWIs) and corporations. To this end, the movement proposes new mechanisms that, unlike traditional income tax, target the illiquid or unrealised gains of the wealthy; it advocates for the taxation not only of individuals’ annual income but also of their total wealth, including property, shares and luxury assets. It calls for tax to be levied on the growing value of the wealthy’s assets, even if the shares are not sold.
Although active in many countries, the ‘Tax the Rich’ movement—which has gained significant prominence particularly in the US—continues to be debated in Congress at federal level, spearheaded by figures such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Pramila Jayapal through the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act (a 2 per cent tax on wealth exceeding 50 million dollars); however, the main action is taking place at local government level. In particular, the ‘Billionaire Tax Act’, which is set to be put to a vote in the November 2026 elections, aims to impose a one-off 5 per cent tax on the net wealth of billionaires residing in the state. The revenue generated is planned to be channelled into healthcare and food aid.
The state of Washington has enacted legislation imposing a 9.9 per cent tax on annual incomes exceeding $1 million, whilst Maine has introduced a 2 per cent supplementary income tax. In New York, too, measures such as the ‘Pied-à-Terre’ tax, which targets luxury second homes, are on the agenda. Within the European Union and the United Kingdom, organisations such as Oxfam GB and Tax Justice UK are also running intensive campaigns to introduce a 2 per cent wealth tax on assets exceeding 10 million pounds. Norway, Spain and Switzerland are also among the countries in Europe that actively apply a net wealth tax. The departure of some billionaires from Norway following an increase in the country’s wealth tax has fuelled debates about “capital flight”. Belgium has extended its capital gains tax on financial assets with effect from 1 January 2026; furthermore, under Brazil’s G20 presidency and spearheaded by a report prepared by economist Gabriel Zucman, the idea of imposing a minimum annual wealth tax of 2 per cent on global billionaires has gained international support. It is estimated that this plan could generate between 200 and 250 billion dollars annually from the world’s 3,000 billionaires. The United Nations (UN) is also continuing its negotiations to establish an international tax cooperation framework in 2026.
Returning to Turkey, according to data from the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, in the first six months of 2026, 43.76 per cent of total tax revenue came from VAT and excise duty, whilst indirect taxes accounted for 59.30 per cent of total tax revenue and direct taxes for 40.70 per cent.
This table once again highlights that the primary source of funding for Turkey’s tax system remains indirect taxes levied on consumption.
Meanwhile, 91.52 per cent of the income tax collected during the January–June period was collected via withholding tax, whilst only 6.36 per cent was collected on the basis of tax returns. Although approximately 5.5 million taxpayers submit annual income tax returns, the backbone of income tax collection is still formed by taxes deducted at source. In other words, the financing of the income tax system continues to be provided largely through wage earners and taxpayers whose income is subject to withholding tax. Whilst the share of corporation tax in total tax revenue stood at 12.58 per cent during the January–June period, this proportion is expected to decline further as other tax revenues increase in the coming months.
In short, it is clear that a significant portion of the taxes—which constitute a major part of workers’ increasingly meagre incomes—is being used to pay the interest on high-cost loans taken out from international markets. More importantly, the fact that interest on this debt, which has risen to such high levels, is also rising at the same rate indicates that it is being channelled from indirect taxes deducted from the purchases of wage earners, the vast majority of whom live below the poverty line.
Consequently, whilst we are currently facing far more severe problems than those resolved by the uprising against ‘excessive taxation’—which largely shook the Roman Empire some 25 centuries ago and led to the organisation of history’s first general strike—it is also evident that we are moving further away from a solution. However, expectations are also rising that the ‘Tax the Rich’ movement—which is gaining momentum in the world’s largest economies, particularly the US—will bring similar solutions as it increasingly extends its reach to Turkey and the surrounding region.