The fuzzy math of the “Billionaire Tax”

So far all the Democrats who have declared their candidacy for the 2020 nomination, as well old hats like Bernie Sanders and young Party members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all agree on is we need to tax billionaires (some saying to point of nonexistence) and use that money to fund all the trillions of dollars of additional spending they want, notably Medicare-for-All.

The problem that no one wants to talk about is that for all their wealth, the billionaires simply don’t have that much money, not on the order of what these Democrats want to spend.  So here’s some math:

Medicare-for-All is estimated to cost 32 trillion dollars over 10 years, that averages to 3.2 trillion per year (it would actually be higher in the first few years as the program ramps up, but 3.2 trillion is fine for our purposes) Every billionaire in the country, when combined, have a total net worth of about 2.8 trillion dollars. That’s not all liquid assets, or even liquidable, so there’s no way you could get the full 2.8 trillion out of them, ever, but again 2,8 trillion is fine for our purposes

So we need 3.2 trillion per year, and we can get as much as 2,8 trillion but putting every billionaire in the poor house. That doesn’t even get us to December of the first year of Medicare-for-All, let alone all the other programs

Obviously we can go after the rest of the so-called “1%” (anyone with a net worth over about 10 million dollars) to keep the train rolling a little more. Now its much harder to find figures for a total net worth of the top 1% but its estimated to be about 40% of the total wealth of the country, that total is just under 100 trillion for all households and nonprofit organizations. So 40% of 100 trillion, minus the 2.8 trillion we already spent, leaves 37.2 trillion. Again these are not all liquidable assets, but we can still use this figure. It will at least get us over the next 10 years of Medicare-for-All, with about 8 trillion left, so liberally 3 more years of Medicare for a total of 13 years,

Similarly by going after the rest of the millionaires (the top 10%) we can collect about another 20 trillion, which we are going to need because we’ve only funded Medicare for the last 13 years, not any other government program. But at current spending levels 20 trillion will only last 5 years, not 13. Sure we also collect income taxes from people with less than 1 million net worth, but the portion is much smaller (the bottom 90% pays about 30% of the total income tax)

Basically the only conclusion is that if we want Medicare-for-All we need to not only raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy, but also the regular wealthy, the middle class, and maybe even the working class. Effective tax rates will need to be at least doubled across the board. If you don’t believe me look at the European states that we want to emulate with universal healthcare, their middle and working classes are taxed at about double what we pay here

All that just to fund Medicare, a program that no one who is forced to use even likes, and anyone with an option immediately abandons. Maybe we should force government employees to use Medicare first, then see if they want that everyone

5 thoughts on “The fuzzy math of the “Billionaire Tax””

  1. Direct primary care is the future of healthcare, lowers costs, increases both patient care and profits. But that’s a logical answer, and nothing a communist does is logical. This election year billionaire tax nonsense is just more class warfare politics from the left just in time for the primaries. They could steal every dime from everyone and they still wouldn’t fix anything they’d make it worse, and with healthcare priced at 3.2 trillion a year, how will they ever afford the Green New Deal with an approximate price tag of 32 trillion?

    1. The “Green New Deal” would cost a lot more than 32 trillion

      Renewable energy: 400 billion/year
      Energy-efficient retrofits of homes: 1.4 trillion/year
      Energy-efficient retrofits of businesses: 300 billion/year
      Universal income: 3.8 trillion/year
      Free college: 50 billion/year

      Total: 6 trillion/year, or 60 trillion over a decade, plus another 32 trillion for Medicare for a grand total of 92 trillion dollars over the next 10 years

      For comparison, the government currently spends about 4 trillion per year, with 1 trillion of that being deficit spending

      1. Too bad we don’t know the details of the Green Deal, Cortez’s staff pulled the report off her website after it was catching flack, and then she later did some media rounds and called the details like the 32 trillion price tag a right wing conspiracy. Math isn’t a conspiracy lady. Check out her co-author the Law/Finance, lol guess that was some concurrent PhD, professor from Cornell, he looks like a grown up meth head version of the Bob’s Big Boy mascot Dr. Evil flew around in.

          1. I never looked at what she posted before it was pulled or posted ‘in error’ like her office said. That is a great phrase, I need to start using that in my daily life. There’s just bullet points in that link, only thing resembling math are the ridiculous poll numbers she uses as evidence of support and this 6 dollars back for every 1 nonsense. If government truly had a guaranteed 6 to 1 return on investment, they’d be the hottest commodity on the international market! Who needs investment banks, stock markets, and hedge fund managers when this magical box called government creates money from nothing. 10 year plans: commie plans times 2. FYI: estimated cost of world war 2 for the U.S. in modern dollars was 4 trillion, so I think she needs a new analogy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *