individuals who earn more than $1 million a year or couples that earn more than $2 million a year. right? it s a surtax, right? so if you re currently paying 37%, you would be paying 47%. one of the important features of this proposal is that we re not just covering income generated by work but we re generating income by asking people who make money off of money to also contribute. so you d have a 10% surtax on that investment income. right now, very wealthy people make a lot of money off their money and we don t see any reason why people who earn a paycheck should be penalized relative to them. so that s why this proposal has a 10% surtax on millionaires. on their additional income, including income from investment sources. senator, good to talk to you. thank you for joining me. senator chris van hollen of maryland who is a member of the budget and appropriations
we need to don t stumble. that s what i like. we all wish each other the best here. yes. we are hardly good about it. senator warren says she can pay for that or care for all. her plan to cover everyone is about 20 and a half trillion dollars. the goal here is just to keep overall health care spending, whatever you want to say, including existing monies to around $52 trillion over ten years. but she socks it to a lot of people, $8.8 trillion, rich folks $6 trillion, lifting it up from 3% to 6% surtax on the billionaires, beyond just the
have artie taken the giving pledge to give over half a million to good causes while i am alive. i believe in a much more progressive tax code and introduced a wealth act a year ago. i do not believe that we should stop the free enterprise system. i don t believe that we can have a prosperous growing innovative competitive economy without a private sector. i m somebody who understands that if we are going to grow, we have to rely on the innovation of the private sector. and we have to change some things. i would invest much more in americans that we are doing. neil: are you afraid of the language that is coming out of the far progressive part of your party. i m not saying any progressive shrinking violet, but if you were to listen to bernie sanders or elizabeth warren, the wealth tax, the wall street tax, the surtax on couples to pay for higher social security payments. are you in the camp that says
voters in l.a. voted to raise property and sales taxes, spend the money on reducing homelessness but continue to oppose building new shelters. again, not in my back yard. in 2004, voter as proved a sur tax on millionaires to fundamental health treatment. $2 billion over a decade. totally wasted. you let people out of jail, stop incarcerated to reduce prison spending. it doubled. it s a waste of resources and people that don t really want to fix the problem. so i think it s fascinating when the president gets involved in something like this, inserts himself, then suddenly it s no longer just local tv. it s no longer that local issue. it s a health issue. seems to be a trend that major cities that we know are democrat strong holds, new york, los angeles, others, have
threshold will be 900,000. 700,000. guess what, you may be lucky enough to be part of the surtax. they are insidious. they have got to figure out different ways to run these things. sandra: hitting the middle class. bill: 11 years? the expanse it is the longest since the 1850s. bill: man. people need to understand, though, we have gone from survivor mode to just prosperity mode. the average gdp, one of the lowest in history. so we have always to go. bill: room to run. sandra: this is happening this is why we love it. we are kind of contrarian, i think. sandra: on here last week boasting about those gdp numbers. all right, charles payne.