It’s a good thing that Vermont’s left-leaning advocacy organizations are so inured to disappointment, because it’s about to happen again.
On Thursday, a coalition of groups announced they are banding together to promote a surtax on the wealthiest Vermonters. The Public Assets Institute estimates that a 3% surcharge on incomes over $500,000 would raise about $100 million to help meet Vermont’s needs, a substantial boost to the bottom line at a moment when we need serious public investment across a number of fronts.
Nice thought, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Gov. Phil Scott is against it. The Democratic Legislature has a long and storied history of aversion to broad-based tax increases for one or more of the following reasons: They’re afraid of being labeled as tax-and-spenders, which is a laugh because Republicans beat that drum constantly anyway; the fat cats who’d usually support Republicans are open to the Democrats because the VTGOP is so batshit; and/or their bloated caucuses include a substantial number of centrists who wouldn’t back a wealth tax.
This proposal might get a polite hearing in 2024, but that’s about all.
Scott argues that Vermont’s taxation system is “pretty progressive…already.” It is, compared to most other states. But that’s an awfully low bar. Our income tax is definitely progressive, but when you add in property and sales taxes, the rich aren’t paying their share.
Scott claims that if we taxed the rich, they would move away. That’s a popular old chestnut, but there’s no actual evidence to support it. People don’t relocate simply to gain a slight advantage on taxes. If they did, Vermont would have lost its upper class a long time ago. And as for those who would actually move away rather than pay another 3% on income over $500,000, well, I say good riddance. Those people belong in Florida anyway.
Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, chair of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, expressed interest in the concept but took no position on this specific plan. Kornheiser is a pretty strong progressive voice, and House leadership might be willing to let her hold hearings and such, but I’d be surprised if a wealth tax bill makes it out of committee, let alone get anywhere on the House floor.
As for her Senate counterpart, you can almost hear Finance Committee Ann Cummings fluffing her smotherin’ pillow: “I’m sure that the people being taxed might have a different definition of [fairness],” she told VTDigger. It’s not getting out of her committee if it even gets there.
And if it somehow passed both chambers, there’s a gubernatorial veto a-waiting. And there’s no way in hell there’d be enough votes to override a veto. Too many potential defectors in both caucuses.
It’s a shame, because we could use some modest income redistribution. The rich already hold an obscene proportion of our total wealth, and our national tax system has been thoroughly rewritten to favor those who could most afford to pay for a fairer, more equitable society.
If they could look beyond their wallets, they’d realize that they benefit as much as anyone from a fair, equitable society because there would be no threat of unrest to interfere with their lifestyles. But here I go again, making sensible arguments that won’t change the depressing calculus of Vermont’s allegedly progressive politics. Wealth tax, we hardly knew ya.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
Yes, your analysis of how it will get bottled up by Cummings et al is on point. I would like to expand the concept to include the percentage of income per time spent living in Vermont for those who claim residency elsewhere.
They certainly ain’t leaving as Vermont is considered one of the safer places to live in the climate crisis future (except in flood plains.
“The rich already hold an obscene proportion of our total wealth, and our national tax system has been thoroughly rewritten to favor those who could most afford to pay for a fairer, more equitable society.”
I can’t remember where I read it now, but I read that the aim of the American tax policies since the Reagan days has deliberately been to make those who have the least pay the most in taxes and those who have the most pay the least taxes per capita. We’ve done that nicely, both federally and in the states. America is a land of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich and we the people pay for it, get relatively little or nothing in return, and be damned.
You notice who hasn’t said shit about this proposal? In public at least , Bernie sanders. How many homes does the millionaire socialst own?
As for the leadership of the Vermont Democrats and the Republicans, they want to be in the +$500,000 club so these jerks aren’t going to tax their group more.
I have been back in Vermont for 3 years now (Champlain Valley raised) and I haven’t seen a damn thing done to improve the situation of the working class. No new housing at all “We can’t get workers somewhere to live so lets kick the old folks out”…A hospital is saying this…
Already stressing a housing change in September 2024 because the ecomics and housing here sucks. Vermont may lose another trained native because nothing is getting done…
Members of the Congressional delegation don’t usually comment on proposed state legislation. I wouldn’t expect Bernie to weigh in.
Except he is the most known Vermont political personality and income inequality is kinda his thing. Also didn’t hear much when Vermont was trying to go single payer. I understand and acknowledge the difference between federal and state, but Vermont has been on a decline for education, the blue collar middle class for almost two decades now and he was all about these issues in 2016 and 2020. Now nothing…
Comment stands. Members of the Congressional delegation rarely comment on state legislation. In this case, it isn’t even legislation yet.
P. said “No new housing at all.” Actually, thanks to Burlington’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, there are hundreds of new affordable units. Two major projects include the old Catholic Diocese property on North Ave. and the ongoing work downtown at the site of the old mall. All such projects are required to have a percentage of affordable units.