Elections

Janoo proposes recouping Trump tax cuts from wealthy Vermonters to pay for health care

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Gov. Phil Scott responds to question by Vermont Public debate moderator Mikaela Lefrak as Democrat candidate Amanda Janoo looks on in the October 31 debate.

By Guy Page

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amanda Janoo says she would raise state income taxes on wealthy Vermonters to recoup the federal tax cuts they received under President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, using the revenue to help pay for universal primary and preventive health care.

During an October 21 Vermont Public gubernatorial debate with Republican Gov. Phil Scott, Janoo said the proposal could raise an estimated $260 million annually.

Janoo has previously proposed an 8% income tax surcharge on earnings above $500,000 and a 2% surcharge on earnings above $250,000.

She said she has asked wealthy Vermonters whether they would be willing to give up their federal tax savings to support health care.

“Would you be willing to contribute the equivalent of the amount you just got back from the big beautiful bill in terms of tax cuts, in order to ensure that everybody, not only in your community but in the state, could have access to a good local doctor and mental health provider?” Janoo said.

“And thus far, everybody I’ve spoken to would be happy to contribute that.”

Janoo also seemed to promise she would not support raising income taxes on middle-class taxpayers: “It’s really important to just make clear that with all of my proposals, I’m not going to increase taxes for working and middle class Vermonters. In fact, I’m going to help to reduce the property tax burden for residential Vermonters.”

Janoo did not say she would veto, or strongly oppose, legislation raising taxes on the middle class – just that as governor she would not be proposing them. 

Janoo said preliminary estimates developed by Public Assets, a Vermont economic policy organization, indicate that recouping the federal tax cuts through state taxation could generate about $260 million.

She said the money would help finance a universal primary and preventive health care system, which she has previously estimated would cost about $320 million annually.

Janoo also claimed that providing universal primary care could eventually save Vermont as much as $300 million, although the debate did not establish how those savings would be calculated or realized.

Under her proposal, participating doctors, nurses and mental health providers would receive salaries rather than bill patients and insurers for each service. Janoo said the program could begin with pilot projects in rural communities, where the lack of access to health care is most pressing.

Scott questioned whether taxing wealthy residents could generate enough money to pay for Janoo’s proposal. He said Vermont has about 16,000 tax filers earning more than $250,000 and about 1,300 earning more than $1 million.

He also warned that some high-income taxpayers could leave Vermont if their taxes increase.

“We don’t have that many rich people in Vermont. And I’m not sure how many we want to lose over the next few years,” Scott said.

Scott pointed to former Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin’s unsuccessful effort to establish a statewide single-payer health care system, saying Vermont could not afford another such experiment.

Janoo acknowledged that Vermont cannot immediately afford a full universal health care system but argued that publicly funded primary care would be a practical first step.

The debate left unanswered whether the proposed $260 million in additional tax revenue would cover the estimated $320 million annual cost, particularly if mental health services and other benefits increase the price.

Scott favors using existing provisions of the federal Affordable Care Act to reduce insurance premiums rather than creating a new publicly funded system.

Disagreement on nuclear power

Gov. Phil Scott said Vermont should keep the door open to nuclear power, particularly small-scale nuclear reactors being discussed by New England governors. Scott said nuclear power produces electricity without carbon emissions and provides reliable baseload power. Democratic challenger Amanda Janoo opposes nuclear power, citing unresolved nuclear waste concerns and radioactive waste stored at the former Vermont Yankee plant. Scott disputed Janoo’s claim that Vermonters had decided to close Vermont Yankee, saying the plant’s owner made that decision.

Buying more electricity from Canada

Scott said Vermont already purchases hydroelectric power from Hydro-Québec and is exploring opportunities to purchase electricity from another Canadian province, which he did not identify. Scott said Vermont would need to improve transmission infrastructure, including replacing the Highgate converter station, to expand electricity imports.

Scott Proposes Changing Vermont Senate Representation

Scott said he would favor a constitutional change giving each of Vermont’s 14 counties two state senators, similar to the U.S. Senate’s equal representation of states. He argued that population-based representation gives Chittenden County too much influence while rural areas, including the Northeast Kingdom and southern Vermont, lack adequate representation.

“We don’t have enough representation in the rural areas of our state,” Scott said.

Scott acknowledged the proposal was unlikely to happen, calling it something he would do if he had a “magic wand.” The change would replace Vermont’s current 30-member Senate with a 28-member body and face constitutional obstacles because of federal requirements for population-based legislative representation.

Scott challenges Janoo on ‘degrowth’

Gov. Phil Scott challenged Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amanda Janoo on her previously expressed support for degrowth, an economic philosophy that calls for reducing production and consumption in some sectors. Scott quoted Janoo as saying, “We need to stop growing and actually decline in a lot of areas.” Scott said that sounded like a recession, recalling his 35 years in the construction business and the hardship caused by economic downturns. “People lose their homes, they lose their jobs,” Scott said. He asked Janoo to explain how her approach would avoid those consequences.

Janoo responded that she identifies more with a “wellbeing economy perspective than necessarily a de-growth one.” She said economic success should not be measured solely by gross domestic product or stock market performance, especially when many people cannot afford basic needs. Janoo said Vermont needs growth in food production, energy, housing, transportation and primary care services. However, she argued that economic growth should be directed toward meeting people’s needs while protecting the environment. “Any discussion of growth should make clear growth of what and why,” Janoo said.

The two candidates face voters in the November 3 general election.


Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Elections

6 replies »

  1. And they agreed that CO2 emissions are a factor in Climate Change, which needs to be addressed.

  2. Who will she propose to tax when the so-called wealthy Vermonters leave for other states that won’t tax them. The wealthy can afford to leave leaving us all behind in poverty.

  3. So $250k is considered wealthy? Give it a couple of years, those families will move, and the label “wealthy “ will be down to $150k.

  4. I read the following in a recent post on Stephanie Mack’s campaign website, Vermont’s Universal Healthcare Promise: Who Pays the Bill? She’s a business-planning expert with over 25 years of experience in auditing and helping businesses control their finances. She wants to do the same in Montpelier.

    “The estimated tax revenue depends on future taxable income and the compliance of a relatively small group of high-earning taxpayers whose income can fluctuate substantially. Higher tax rates would immediately begin to shape decisions about investment, income attribution, and residency status.

    The program’s complete costs are speculative. Vermont would need to recruit more primary-care professionals to serve additional patients, and officials would have to determine how the new public financing would interact with payments already made by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

    Better primary care might improve health and prevent some expensive medical treatment, but research has yet to show that increased primary-care reduces total healthcare spending. Even when savings occur, they may benefit federal programs or private insurers rather than Vermont’s state budget.

    Taxing higher incomes could generate a burst of substantial revenue, but there is no guarantee that it will remain sustainable, much less increase over time to cover the escalating costs of medical treatment and hospital services, insurance premiums, or the total cost of Vermont’s healthcare system.”

  5. Vermont’s greatest export…it’s self made citizenry, pursuing the American dream… driven away by a crazed, out of control, tax and spend, embedded, left.

    VOTE GOP!

    VOTE THE LEFTISTS OUT!

  6. When will those who propose—and those who support those proposals—surcharge taxes based on a person’s income, realize that what is so wrong with it has nothing to with numbers, either the magic $income amount triggering the surcharge, or the amount of supposed revenue it will raise, but that it treats earning more income than the next person as inherently wrong or evil? And that the idea behind it is fundamentally socialist. Who is Amanda Janoo, or anyone else for that matter, to presume she can arbitrarily invent a metric which penalizes and disincentivizes those who are creative and industrious enough to earn more income than someone else? I hate how this ethos has so permeated our thinking and culture that people actually think it’s a good, noble, and equitable idea.