Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 3, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to fund a broad expansion of social welfare programs and public services by imposing a new annual wealth tax on the wealthiest individuals and trusts.
What it actually does
H.R. 7767, the "Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act," proposes a 5% annual tax on the net value of assets exceeding $1 billion for individuals and trusts, with specific rules for valuation, deceased individuals, trusts, nonresidents, and expatriates. The bill then allocates the projected revenue to fund significant expansions of social programs, including affordability rebates of $3,000 per individual and dependent, increased Medicare coverage for dental, hearing, and vision services, authorization for a Housing Trust Fund, a new birth-through-five child care and early learning entitlement program, a $60,000 minimum salary for public school teachers, and investments in home and community-based long-term care services.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill addresses wealth inequality by ensuring the wealthiest Americans contribute their fair share to society, thereby generating substantial revenue to fund critical investments in health care, child care, housing, education, and long-term care. They contend that these investments will improve the quality of life for millions of Americans, reduce poverty, and strengthen the economy by making essential services more accessible and affordable.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that a wealth tax is unconstitutional, difficult to implement, and could lead to capital flight and economic disincentives. They argue that the valuation of illiquid assets is inherently problematic and that such a tax could be a disincentive for investment and wealth creation. Critics may also raise concerns about the broad expansion of government programs and the potential for increased federal spending and bureaucracy.
The bill is 38 pages long and covers highly complex and diverse policy areas, making it challenging for a casual reader to fully grasp its implications within a short timeframe.
Sec. 101-102
Imposition of Tax on Net Value of Assets
This title establishes a new Subtitle B-1 in the Internal Revenue Code, imposing an annual 5% tax on the net value of assets held by individuals or trusts exceeding $1 billion. It includes rules for inflation adjustment, treatment of married individuals, inclusion of property of related children, and special valuation rules for assets not readily ascertainable. It also mandates a wealth registry and information reporting requirements.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this tax ensures the wealthiest individuals contribute to public services, addressing wealth inequality and generating necessary revenue for social investments. They believe it's a fair way to fund critical programs.
Critics contend
Opponents argue the tax is unconstitutional, difficult to administer due to asset valuation challenges, and could lead to capital flight, disincentivizing investment and economic growth.
Tradeoffs
Balances the goal of wealth redistribution and revenue generation against concerns about economic impact, administrative feasibility, and potential constitutional challenges.
Sec. 102
Enforcement and Funding for Wealth Tax
This section mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury audit not less than 50% of taxpayers subject to the wealth tax annually. It also appropriates 1% of the revenues from the wealth tax for IRS enforcement activities to determine and collect these taxes.
Sec. 201
Establishment of Affordability Rebates
This title amends the Internal Revenue Code to establish "affordability rebates" for 2026, providing $3,000 per individual ($6,000 for joint filers) plus $3,000 per dependent. These rebates are phased out for higher-income individuals, similar to previous recovery rebates.
Sec. 301-302
Repeal of Reconciliation Health Provisions and Increase in Premium Tax Credit Eligibility
This title repeals certain health provisions from a prior reconciliation act (Public Law 119-21) with specific exceptions. It also significantly expands eligibility for the premium tax credit under the Affordable Care Act by removing the 400% of poverty line income cap and adjusting the applicable percentages for calculating premium contributions, making health insurance more affordable for a wider range of incomes.
Sec. 401-405
Expansion of Medicare Coverage for Dental, Hearing, and Vision Services
This title, cited as the "Medicare Dental, Hearing, and Vision Expansion Act of 2026," adds comprehensive dental, oral health, audiology, hearing aid, and vision services (including routine eye exams and conventional eyeglasses) to Medicare Part B coverage. It establishes payment rules, fee schedules, limitations (e.g., frequency of services), and includes provisions for rural providers and implementation funding.
Sec. 501
Authorization of Appropriations for Housing Trust Fund
This title authorizes an appropriation of $85,647,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2035 to the Housing Trust Fund, which provides grants to states to build, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing for extremely low-income and very low-income households.
Sec. 601
Birth Through Five Child Care and Early Learning Entitlement
This title establishes a new federal entitlement program for child care and early learning for children under six (not yet in kindergarten) whose family income does not exceed 250% of the State median income. States receive federal payments (90% for direct services, FMAP for quality/supply, 50% for administration) to provide direct child care services through grants, contracts, or certificates. It mandates payment rates sufficient to meet costs and ensure adequate wages for staff (living wage, equivalent to elementary educators), a tiered quality system for providers, and a sliding fee scale for copayments (0% for incomes up to 85% SMI).
Sec. 701-704
Establishing a $60,000 a Year Minimum Salary for Public School Teachers
This title authorizes appropriations to states to ensure all public elementary and secondary school teachers earn a livable and competitive salary, with a starting annual base salary of not less than $60,000 (adjusted for inflation after FY2031) that increases with experience. States must submit plans detailing how they will meet these requirements, including increasing per-pupil expenditures and addressing equitable distribution of teachers. Funds are allocated to states via a formula and distributed to local educational agencies.
Sec. 801-806
Investments in Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) and Long-Term Care
This title provides funding for HCBS improvement planning grants to states, establishes an HCBS Improvement Program with increased FMAP (8-10 percentage points) for states that meet specific requirements (e.g., nonsupplantation, maintenance of effort, improved access, workforce strengthening, self-directed care models). It also permanently extends Medicaid protections against spousal impoverishment for HCBS recipients and permanently extends the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing demonstration.
This provision states that a taxpayer cannot elect to use the "most recent readily ascertainable value increased by an average rate of appreciation" method for valuing non-readily ascertainable property for two consecutive calendar years.
Sec. 2902(c)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail common in tax legislation, likely intended to prevent continuous under-valuation or manipulation by taxpayers, but it adds complexity.
Case for: Proponents would argue this prevents abuse of the valuation election, ensuring a more accurate and regular assessment of wealth for tax purposes.
Case against: Opponents might argue this creates an undue burden on taxpayers with illiquid assets, forcing them to undergo expensive and complex revaluations annually, rather than allowing a simpler, consistent method.
Estimated impact: Prevents potential long-term tax avoidance or deferral for taxpayers with hard-to-value assets.
The State plan for the child care entitlement program must certify that child care providers receiving federal assistance will not charge families more than the sum of the financial assistance provided and any applicable copayment.
Sec. 601(f)(3)(F)
Why it matters:This is a critical consumer protection and cost control measure, ensuring that the federal subsidy truly makes child care affordable without providers simply raising prices to capture the subsidy. It's a standard anti-gouging provision but could be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is essential to ensure the program's affordability goals are met and that federal funds directly benefit families by reducing their out-of-pocket costs, rather than inflating provider prices.
Case against: Some providers might argue this limits their ability to set market rates or invest in additional quality improvements beyond what the tiered system or payment rates cover, potentially stifling innovation or higher-end services.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the federal child care subsidies directly translate into lower costs for families, rather than being absorbed by providers through price increases.
Allows states to award facilities grants for construction, permanent improvement, or major renovation of child care facilities, with specific rules: federal interest provisions will not apply to renovation/rebuilding of privately owned family child care homes, funds cannot be used for sectarian instruction/religious worship, Secretary to develop parameters for family child care homes, and federal interest will not be retained after 10 years for any facility built/renovated/repaired.
Sec. 601(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III)(bb)
Why it matters:This is a significant departure from standard federal grant rules, particularly the waiver of federal interest for family child care homes and the 10-year limit for other facilities. This makes it easier for private entities to use federal funds for capital improvements without long-term federal strings.
Case for: Proponents would argue these waivers are crucial to incentivize investment in child care infrastructure, especially for family child care providers who might be deterred by complex federal property rules, thereby expanding supply.
Case against: Critics might argue that waiving federal interest could lead to misuse of public funds or that the 10-year limit is too short to ensure public benefit from federally funded assets. The prohibition on sectarian use could also be contentious.
Estimated impact: Facilitates significant capital investment in child care facilities, particularly for family child care homes, by reducing long-term federal oversight.