I'm not DSA and I'm not really in favor of a single payer healthcare plan at this juncture. However, the math for this isn't actually that complicated and a lot of people are just being willfully stupid.
Taxes would absolutely to have to go up on basically everyone. However:
*Employers would no longer be paying for healthcare at the same rates. That can be replaced with a tax or with higher salaries for employees.
*People on employer health plans would no longer have private premiums, that goes to either a tax or premiums for your public plan
The idea is that most people would pay less in increased taxes than they'd save in premiums and healthcare expenditures. That likely would not be true for some well off people (likely to include myself) because having progressive income tax increases is an easy lever to pull.
Please do not move the goalposts and ask about how good of an idea this is or isn't, or if I think it's fair to the ScotchTigers of the world. I asked the question that was asked.
For the record I agree that the strongest advocates for this aren't being serious in describing how it'd precisely be paid for. Elizabeth Warren tried and was punished for it. But let's not pretend that hand waiving away details is unique to the DSA. I've yet to see a GOP tax cut paid for either on paper or in reality.
Taxes go up on everyone? How does that make things more affordable for those who cannot afford the things they want now? 32 hour work weeks? How are people going to afford to get the things they want AND pay more taxes if they are working less? This is MUCH larger than just health care. We spend almost $5T on social programs today....that number will have to go up a lot. I suspect the number would be closer to $7-8T to keep what we have today and enable these other programs.
I asked AI how much money the government would raise by raising taxes of people making over $50K (eliminates the $20/hr workers) and Corporate rates to 50%. Still wouldn't get there.
**Still no — not even close.**
Here’s the updated arithmetic with the broader base you suggested.
### 1. Higher taxes on everyone making over $50,000
This group is much larger — roughly **70–80 million** tax returns (a big chunk of the working and middle class, not just high earners).
CBO-style scoring shows that a broad surtax or rate increase starting at this level raises substantially more money than one starting at $100k:
- A **1-percentage-point** surtax on AGI above roughly $20k–$40k (married) is scored at about **$1.5 trillion over 10 years** (~$150 billion per year).
- Starting the surtax higher (around $50k–$100k) still produces large sums. Aggressive multi-point rate hikes across this broad base could realistically raise **$400–800+ billion per year** under optimistic static assumptions.
This is real money, but it hits tens of millions of ordinary dual-income households, teachers, nurses, skilled tradespeople, small business owners, etc.
### 2. Corporate tax rate to 50%
Current rate is 21%. Raising it all the way to 50% is extreme by modern standards (most developed countries are in the 15–30% range).
- Raising the rate from 21% to 35% is typically scored at roughly **$200–250 billion per year**.
- Going further to 50% would raise more on paper, but the incremental revenue diminishes sharply because of strong behavioral responses (less investment, profit shifting, reduced economic activity). Realistic dynamic estimates put the total new revenue from a jump to 50% in the **$300–450 billion per year** range at best — and quite possibly less once the economy shrinks.
### Combined optimistic revenue
Even stacking the most favorable static numbers:
- Broad individual tax increases on >$50k: ~$500–800 billion/year
- Corporate rate to 50%: ~$350–450 billion/year
**Total new revenue: roughly $850 billion – $1.25 trillion per year.**
### Cost of the programs
Medicare for All alone is still estimated in the **$2.5–4+ trillion per year** range in new federal spending. Adding large-scale affordable housing, expanded child care, free college, and other DSA priorities pushes the total well higher.
**$850 billion – $1.25 trillion in new taxes does not cover a $3 trillion (or larger) annual spending increase.**
### Key realities
- These tax changes would be extremely broad and economically damaging. A 50% corporate rate would be among the highest in the developed world and would strongly discourage investment and hiring in the United States.
- Dynamic effects (people and companies changing behavior) would reduce the actual revenue collected below the static estimates.
- Even under the most generous assumptions, you are still short by **$1.5–3 trillion per year** for the core Medicare for All agenda alone.
The gap remains very large. Closing it would require either much steeper and broader tax increases (hitting lower into the middle class) or accepting permanently higher deficits on top of the already large existing social spending.
