The family member’s question is very good, and I’d like to offer some humble opinions.

The wealthier you are, the more taxes you pay — this is the principle behind the tax system in any country.
Wealthy people want to pay less tax — anyone who is making money will have this idea.

The two sides are in a “dynamic game.” (Teacher Qiang has etched this phrase deeply in my mind — you win.)

I encourage family members to consider taxes not just from the “grand narrative” perspective, interpreting it as the state unilaterally auctioning off individuals, even though our education has conditioned us to see it that way. But we also need to add the “micro” layer.

Anyone who has made money in crypto feels it was earned through “ability,” “cognition,” and “taking on risks that others can’t bear.” The state didn’t provide help in this process — not to mention sometimes being an obstacle.

This way of thinking can be directly applied to anyone making money, especially the wealthy.

The wealthy also feel the state didn’t bring substantial convenience to their business, or at least they have to weigh whether the convenience matches the tax burden.

There’s no clear quantitative model between the two, but everyone has their own internal scale.

In addition, some industries would not be profitable at all if they paid “full taxes” according to current rates.

If these industries want to survive, they can only “pay less tax,” or even “not pay tax,” and even then rely on subsidies.

The state does have explicit industrial policies and subsidies for certain industries. But for most industries, there are no such transparent rules, and they can only rely on “tacit understanding.”

This situation is especially common among the vast number of small and medium-sized enterprises and non-cutting-edge technology industries.
These companies provide the most jobs in China.

Therefore, some say “Chinese companies commonly evade taxes,” and this isn’t just a moral issue — it’s a structural reality.
The A-share market is another typical example. Making money by trading stocks only incurs stamp duty (similar to a contract fee), and profits from buying low and selling high are not taxed.

The reason is simple: the main function of the Chinese stock market is to finance enterprises.
So, the stock market needs liquidity, needs retail investors trading.
For this greater good, the state can accept a small portion of people making money from stock trading without paying taxes, thereby attracting more retail investors to enter.

The US stock market, meanwhile, also serves a financing function, but it is more of a long-term investment market and rises over the long term.
Whether it’s Chinese in China or Americans in the US, making money from US stocks is taxed. (Even Eileen Gu’s double-standard might not work here.)

Making money from A-shares and US stocks is essentially the same behavior.
The former is untaxed, the latter is taxed — not because one is “noble” and the other “despicable,” but because the former serves another purpose.
If you extend this logic to the entire business world:
If the state has “other purposes,” then even under legal requirements, some industries may experience “widespread tax evasion.”
It’s not a conspiracy, but a choice of interests.

Many industries in China as a whole are loss-making; even with widespread tax evasion, most companies still don’t make money.
Only a few companies can make a profit through excellent management, supply chains, or government resources.
In this structure, the government can’t just tax the profitable ones —
It would undermine the confidence of the entire industry and drag down the most competitive leaders.
So they just let it go altogether.
A-shares are the same — the majority of retail investors lose money, a minority make money, but the state doesn’t tax just those people.

But “letting you off the hook” is usually only temporary.
When an industry matures to the point where only 3–5 leaders remain with monopoly power, these companies also lose their room to evade taxes.

So, “the rich pay more taxes” is a principle, but actual implementation is much more complicated than imagined.
If you zoom out to the perspective of nations:

France and the UK have raised taxes on the rich in recent years, directly causing a mass exodus of wealthy people, along with the loss of jobs, savings, and consumption.
The rich aren’t just “wealthy people” — they are entrepreneurs, investors, senior executives, and also consumers.
Tax cuts (like Trump’s) are meant to attract the wealthy to invest more in the country and create jobs.

So, do the wealthy have to pay more taxes?
It depends on many factors, and in many cases, the answer is no.
From the perspective of national interests, allowing some wealthy people to pay less or even no tax can be entirely reasonable.

However, in China, the approach is often not subsidies or transparent rules (which only exist in a few industries), but “tacit non-enforcement.”

It’s not just taxes — labor regulations and other rules may also be tacitly ignored.
For example, a certain electric vehicle company pays wages just at the minimum standard, but working hours far exceed the legal limit.
(Most companies have working hours that exceed the legal limits—let’s not pretend otherwise.)
This is also a result the state tacitly accepts: “tacit non-enforcement.”

Even in areas with clear rules, there are cases where promises are not honored afterward.
Some local governments promise tax breaks to attract investment, but a few years later, the tax authorities demand back taxes.

Therefore, even if the wealthy don’t pay taxes, they live in constant fear because they could be caught at any time.
Even if they make money, it may not be truly satisfying.

This is also why, in China, once someone makes money, the instinctive reaction of the wealthy is often to emigrate or transfer assets.

Why can’t there be clear rules and irrevocable promises?
The reason is too deepstate — I’ll just describe the objective reality here.

Additionally, there’s a special situation in China:
China taxes “people who make money,” not “people who have money.”

A lot of the wealth of the rich is tied up in real estate — this is why the net worth of locals in Beijing and Shanghai has ballooned over the past twenty years — housing prices have gone up tenfold.

But capital gains on real estate are not taxed.
Most home sales are tax-exempt (or taxed at a very low rate; for example, luxury homes owned for more than two years are taxed at 1% of the transaction amount).
If a worker makes 10 million in ten years, they have to pay about 30% in taxes;
But if someone makes 10 million from real estate appreciation, they basically don’t pay taxes.
If you believe “the richer you are, the more taxes you should pay,” you must first acknowledge:
Large numbers of people in China holding real estate have not borne the corresponding tax burden.

In reality, the highest tax burden may fall on the middle class, and I believe most family members are in this category.
You earn a “fixed salary,” paid monthly, with automatic tax deductions;
You didn’t benefit from wealth accumulation through rising home prices, and may even see your assets shrink due to later price drops.

Many people in our generation (born in the 80s and 90s) face this reality. I believe this is also why family members come to the crypto space, hoping to improve their lives.

Finally, back to the family member’s question:
Is “the richer you are, the more taxes you pay” wrong?

In principle, it’s correct.
But the way it’s implemented in the real world is far from this.