Bernie Sanders’ billionaire wealth tax proposal would impose a 5% annual levy on qualifying fortunes and use the proceeds for health care, housing and household assistance. Its supporters estimate $4.4 trillion in revenue over a decade, but that figure is a forecast, and the legislation is not law.
Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, announced the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act in March. The Senate version was introduced March 2, 2026, and the House counterpart followed March 3. It should not be described as a newly introduced October bill.
The plan links a tax on extreme wealth to a broad expansion of public benefits. The central questions are how the tax would work, whether it could collect the projected money and what Congress would authorize that money to support.
How the billionaire wealth tax would work
The introduced Senate bill applies the 5% rate to net assets held by qualifying individuals and trusts whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. Net wealth means the value of assets after subtracting debts; it is different from annual income.
An important detail is that the tax would apply to the entire qualifying fortune once the threshold is crossed, rather than only the portion above $1 billion. Married taxpayers would generally be treated as one taxpayer, and the threshold would be adjusted for inflation after 2026.
People below the threshold would not owe this new tax. That does not mean the proposal would replace their existing federal income taxes or other taxes.
The billionaire wealth tax would also require reporting and enforcement. Valuing privately held companies and other assets without readily available market prices would be a practical challenge, alongside preventing wealth from being concealed or shifted.
Where the $4.4 trillion estimate comes from
Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman prepared the revenue estimate cited by Sanders. Their March 2 analysis used Forbes data showing 938 American billionaires with approximately $8.189 trillion in combined wealth as of January 1, 2026.
Those numbers are a dated snapshot, not an updated October count. Applying 5% to that wealth, then allowing for 10% tax evasion or avoidance, produces approximately $368.5 billion in initial revenue.
The economists project roughly $4.4 trillion over a decade under assumptions about enforcement and future wealth growth. Their published revenue analysis explains those assumptions. The estimate does not establish that the government would actually collect that amount.
Health coverage, housing and direct payments
The sponsors say the bill would reverse approximately $1.1 trillion in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act reductions associated with President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax-and-spending law. That amount is their description of the health-care changes the proposal seeks to undo.
Other proposed uses include adding dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare and increasing support for Medicaid home-care services. The sponsors also propose building, rehabilitating or preserving more than 7 million affordable homes and limiting families’ child-care costs to 7% of income.
The plan includes a first-year payment of $3,000 per eligible person in households earning $150,000 or less. Under the sponsors’ example, a qualifying household of four would receive $12,000: four payments of $3,000.
These are proposed benefits, not payments or coverage expansions already available. Readers can find additional background in Hourly Times’ earlier coverage of the Sanders-Khanna proposal.
Why the revenue forecast is disputed
Supporters argue that a billionaire wealth tax could finance public services while reducing the concentration of economic power. Critics question whether its design would produce the promised revenue.
The Tax Foundation’s analysis argues that higher avoidance and administrative complexity could reduce collections. Using a roughly 33% avoidance assumption, it estimates about $3.3 trillion over ten years, rather than $4.4 trillion. That is also a projection, not an observed result.
The Senate proposal was referred to the Finance Committee, while the House bill was sent to several committees, including Ways and Means. Introducing legislation does not authorize a tax or release money to households.
The policy debate therefore concerns both priorities and implementation: who should contribute more, which benefits should be funded and whether the projected revenue can support them.
