The “green new deal” tax plan would fund less than 2% of cost of proposed new programs

quote:

---

LINK

By Riedl's math, an AOC-style tax hike would raise $22 billion annually. The Washington Post, which also factored in higher investment taxes, pegged the number at more than $70 billion. Let's approximately split the difference, for the sake of argument, and say that the new rates could squeeze 50 billion more dollars out of the rich (setting aside the incentives and adjustments that would likely drive that figure lower). What sort of impact would that increased revenue make? "$50 billion a year would fund one percent of the Democratic Socialist agenda," Riedl told me on Benson & Harf last night. What would happen if AOC and her allies focused exclusively on single-payer healthcare? That massive and disruptive program would cost taxpayers at least $3.2 trillion, and almost certainly more, in new funding every single year. If they applied every cent of the $50 billion in (questionable) revenues from these hypothetical tax increases to the single-payer tab, it would cover less than two percent of the annual bill. This yet again underscores the undeniable mathematical reality:

---