by Terry Lucas

I am struck by the push for an 8% income tax surcharge on Vermonters earning more than $500,000 a year—an idea championed by Vermont’s Democratic Socialists and Progressives and, increasingly, by what I used to consider middle-of-the-road Democrats, a group that now seems endangered, if not extinct.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Amanda Janoo offers a glimpse of what lies ahead, and it is arriving faster than expected. Her plan doesn’t stop at $500,000. It also adds a 2% surcharge on income over $250,000, with the 8% surcharge applying above $500,000—nearly doubling Vermont’s current top marginal rate. These measures may be sold as targeting the few, but their costs will ultimately be felt by every working Vermonter.

The target keeps moving. First it was billionaires—but Vermont has exactly one. Then millionaires—but fewer than 1,500 Vermont filers reported $1 million or more in 2024. The line was $500,000, which hits just over 3,000 taxpayers in the $500,000-$999,999 bracket. Now Janoo’s thinks wealth starts at $250,000. When will $100,000 be the new wealthy? Soon!

We’re seeing the same pattern in other Democratic-led states. A Wall Street Journal editorial on Oct. 16, 2026, “Washington State’s ‘Millionaire’ Tax Trick,” described a legislative debate in which Rep. Cindy Ryu (D., 32nd District) called $100,000 middle class and anything over $250,000 wealthy. Similar efforts have played out in Minnesota and New York, and the approach is championed by Bernie Sanders, who has endorsed Janoo. Make no mistake: tax-and-spend agendas rarely stay confined to high earners for long.

Nor will this new money reduce a single Vermonter’s existing income or property taxes. The goal is to raise even more tax, which is already the third-highest tax burden in America¹ to increase spending. New Hampshire, with more than twice our population, runs a budget of just over $8 billion a year; Vermont’s is over $9 billion.

Consider the unintended consequences of a wealth tax on health care. Recruiting physicians and specialists is an ongoing challenge for Vermont, and especially for the Northeast Kingdom. The biggest hurdle is competing with the pay offered in urban areas—a pressure underscored when residents and early-career doctors at UVM recently rallied for better pay.

Family physicians here earn roughly $250,000 a year and internists around $290,000, with bonuses often adding $60,000 or so. High-demand specialists such as cardiologists and orthopedic surgeons can earn more than $500,000 plus incentives. Yet Vermont still ranks near the bottom nationally for physician pay. Under Janoo’s plan, a typical family doctor would owe the new surcharge, and many specialists would pay both tiers. Compensation is already our biggest obstacle to recruiting health care talent. A tax that lands squarely on the doctors we are trying to attract will make recruitment harder and could push some to leave—turning our current crisis into a catastrophe.

The irony is that Janoo would use this revenue to fund universal primary care. If you think government-run health care is the answer to a doctor shortage, look north. The Fraser Institute estimates that more than 105,000 Canadians left the country for medical treatment in 2025, driven largely by long wait times^.2 And Canadians pay for that system: the typical Canadian pays about 70% more in income tax than the typical American.³

High earners are also the most mobile taxpayers we have, and New Hampshire—with no income tax on wages—is right next door. Even a tax analyst at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has said an extra 8% on income above $500,000 would be the last straw for some people. Instead of welcoming the doctors and specialists we desperately need, this plan treats high earners as adversaries. Expecting to recruit physicians while offering lower pay and higher taxes is a recipe for failure.
The excessive tax load in Vermont harms our prosperity and deepens reliance on state programs, while persistent spending increases do nothing to resolve core issues. It is crucial that we return to fiscal prudence and sensible strategies.

Reelecting Governor Phil Scott and Lieutenant Governor John Rogers offers the most viable path toward achieving this goal. We must also restore balance to an overwhelmingly left-leaning legislature by voting more Republicans into Vermont’s house and senate.

________________

¹ Tax Foundation’s 2022 study
² Fraser Institute, Leaving Canada for Medical Care, 2025; see also https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/significant-number-canadians-travel-abroad-pay-health-care
3 Business Council of Alberta, https://businesscouncilab.com/insights-category/economic-insights/the-typical-canadian-pays-70-more-income-tax-than-the-typical-american/