← We The People Platform Download .docx

DOES THIS RAISE TAXES?

An honest answer to the most important question.

The full picture of what households pay,

what they get, and what changes for whom.

A Tax Impact Analysis Document

Jason Robertson

v1.9 · Created April 2026 · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.20 ($125K worked example revisions) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.26.3 (OPEN-2: graduated income surcharge replaces simplified 2% formulation; three-mechanisms clarification added) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.27.5 (WORKED-EX-DOLLAR: high-earner worked example dollar amounts updated to canonical graduated 5/10/15) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.30.2 ($200B wealth tax architecture line refined to $225B per item 81 v2.30)

Ohio · 2026

The Honest Answer

The platform increases what citizens pay through the federal government and decreases what citizens pay overall. Both are true. Anyone who tells you only one half is being selective with the truth.

This is the most important question the platform faces, and it deserves a careful answer rather than a slogan. The answer depends on what you count as a 'tax.' If you mean only the dollars sent to federal and state governments through payroll deductions and tax filings, the platform increases that number. If you mean the total amount households spend on the things the platform addresses — healthcare, childcare, retirement, education — the platform decreases that number, often substantially.

The shift is not from low payments to high payments. The shift is from many separate payments scattered across private insurers, healthcare providers, childcare facilities, and educational institutions, to fewer payments through the federal contribution system. The total dollars going out the door of an American household decrease. The dollars going to government as opposed to private institutions increase. Whether you call this a tax increase or a tax decrease depends on which framing you find more honest.

“The platform replaces private fragmented payments with public pooled contributions. Total household costs decrease for most families. Tax revenue technically increases. Both statements are true.”

The Numbers for a Median Household

The most concrete way to answer the tax question is to walk through what changes for an actual American household. The example here uses a median household earning $75,000 per year with one child needing childcare. The numbers shift for households at different income levels, with different family compositions, but the structural pattern holds across most households.

Current System

Under the current system, the median household pays the following annually. Federal income tax of approximately $5,016 (married filing jointly at $75,000 with the standard deduction of $29,200, taxed at 10% on the first $23,200 of taxable income and 12% on the remainder). State income tax averaging around $3,750 (representative 5% effective state income tax). FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) payroll tax (employee side, 7.65%) of $5,738. Health insurance premium contributions averaging $6,575 according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Out-of-pocket medical expenses averaging $4,500. Childcare costs averaging $13,710 per child for households with children under five (assume one child needing care, taken at half-cost since not all parents need full-year care): $6,855. Broadband subscription averaging $900 per year. Tax preparation expected value (about half of households use professional preparation at ~$300): $150. Identity theft and fraud expected loss across the population: approximately $100. Combined burden under the current system: approximately $33,584 per year, or about 45% of household income.

Under the Platform

Under the platform, the same household pays the following annually. Federal income tax of approximately $1,500 (the wage floor exemption replaces the standard deduction; for representative two-earner middle-income occupations, the combined wage floor exemption is approximately $60,000, leaving $15,000 of taxable income at the 10% bracket). State income tax remains $3,750 (state tax is not addressed by the federal platform). FICA-equivalent contribution remains 7.65% on the employee side at $5,738 during the transition (the structure shifts to the Community Contribution Plan in steady state, designed to be revenue-neutral relative to current FICA). Healthcare contribution: employee share 2% ($1,500) + employer share 4% ($3,000) = 6% combined ($4,500). Childcare contribution: employee share 0.5% ($375) + employer share 0.8% ($600) = 1.3% combined ($975). Mental health contribution: employee share 0.3% ($225) + employer share 0.5% ($375) = 0.8% combined ($600). Education fund: no individual contribution required. Health insurance premium: $0 (replaced by universal healthcare). Out-of-pocket medical: reduced to $1,500 (copays only, no deductibles). Childcare costs: reduced to $1, Quebec model $10/day adapted, half-weighted as before. Broadband subscription: $0 (universal broadband). Tax preparation: $0 (Direct File handles MFJ (Married Filing Jointly) + wage floor calculation). Identity theft expected loss: reduced to $15 (Federal Identity Infrastructure). One-time Founding Stake contribution: $2.

Combined burden under the platform: approximately $17,355 per year, or about 23% of household income.

The Difference

Net annual savings for the median household: approximately $12,700. About 15% of household income returned. Over a decade, this equals roughly $115,000 in cumulative savings for one household.

Even though the dollars going through the federal contribution system increased by approximately $3,600 per year (the new healthcare, childcare, and mental health contributions), the household eliminated approximately $15,000 per year in private payments for healthcare premiums, out-of-pocket medical costs, and childcare costs, plus another approximately $1,150 per year in broadband, tax preparation, and identity theft costs that the platform's Civic Infrastructure addresses. The wage floor architecture additionally reduces federal income tax by approximately $3,500 per year by replacing the standard deduction with the occupation-specific wage floor exemption. The net effect on household finances is substantially positive: approximately $16,229 per year in savings, of which $3,516 comes from the wage floor (a core platform mechanism), $11,580 from the three adjacent pillars (healthcare, childcare, mental health), and $1,133 from Civic Infrastructure benefits.

Side-by-Side: What a Median Household Pays

This table compares current household costs to platform household costs for the same family. The point is not that every line item changes — some don't. The point is the total at the bottom and how the composition shifts.

Cost category | Current ($/yr) | Platform ($/yr)
Federal income tax | $5,016 | $1,500
State income tax | $3,750 | $3,750
FICA / payroll (employee) | $5,738 | $5,738
Healthcare contribution (new) | — | $3,000
Childcare contribution (new) | — | $375
Mental health contribution (new) | — | $225
Health insurance premium | $6,575 | $0
Out-of-pocket medical | $4,500 | $1,500
Childcare costs (1 child, half-weighted) | $6,855 | $1,250
Broadband subscription | $900 | $0
Tax preparation (avg, half of households) | $150 | $0
Identity theft / fraud expected loss | $100 | $15
Founding Stake (one-time) | — | $2
TOTAL ANNUAL | $33,584 | $17,355
As % of $75K income | 44.8% | 23.1%
NET ANNUAL CHANGE |  | −$16,229

Federal/state revenue increases by approximately $3,600 per year for this household. Total household costs decrease by approximately $12,700 per year. The platform redirects $12,700 in private payments into $3,600 in public contributions — households save the difference.

How This Varies by Income Level

The pattern above is for a median household. The platform produces different effects at different income levels. Understanding the variation matters because it shapes which households benefit most and which households face the biggest changes.

Lower-Income Households (under $50K)

Lower-income households see the largest proportional benefit. Healthcare contributions (2% employee + 4% employer = 6% combined) are smaller in absolute dollars than current health insurance premiums (including both employee and employer shares) for the same coverage. Childcare contributions are far smaller than current childcare costs. Mental health access becomes available at no cost where it was previously unaffordable. The platform substantially expands what these households can afford while only modestly increasing what they pay through federal contributions.

Middle-Income Households ($50K-$150K)

Middle-income households see substantial savings, especially those with children in childcare or with significant medical expenses. The percentage savings vary based on family composition — households with multiple children in care save the most because childcare cost reductions are particularly large. Households without children in care still save through healthcare cost reductions. The pattern across this income range is consistently positive on net household finances.

Upper-Income Households ($150K-$250K)

Upper-income households see modest savings or break roughly even depending on their specific circumstances. Healthcare contributions at 6% combined (2% employee + 4% employer) on higher salaries produce larger absolute dollar amounts that more closely match what these households currently pay in premiums. The childcare savings remain substantial for families with young children. Households without children may see roughly neutral effects — they pay similar amounts but receive better security and broader coverage.

High-Income Households ($250K+)

High-income households face the canonical graduated income surcharge of 5% above $250,000, 10% above $500,000, and 15% above $1 million (single filer thresholds; doubled for married filing jointly per the Wage Floors As Tax Architecture document), which produces additional contributions. The graduated income surcharge alone produces zero dollars at exactly $250K (single filer threshold), $2,500 at $300K (5% of $50K above threshold), $7,500 at $400K (5% of $150K above threshold), $12,500 at $500K (top of the 5% bracket), $32,500 at $700K (5% of $250K plus 10% of $200K), and $62,500 at $1M (top of the 10% bracket). MFJ filers pay surcharge starting at $500K with thresholds doubled. This is the trade-off that funds universal access for lower-income households. The platform is honest about this rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

The platform's high-earner architecture is three distinct mechanisms, not three formulations of one. The graduated income surcharge described above (5/10/15%) is one mechanism — additional marginal income tax brackets stacked above the existing 37% top federal bracket. The second mechanism is a small wealth surcharge above the $10 million threshold, which applies to households whose net worth exceeds $10 million; this is documented in the Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis. The third mechanism is the wealth tax targeted at households with net worth above $50 million (rate approximately 2-3% annually), which funds the Sovereign Investment Fund's initial corpus accumulation; this is documented in the Coalition Walkthrough and Per Citizen Benefits and Costs documents. Together these three mechanisms generate approximately $225 billion per year in new federal revenue at mature steady state (refined from $200 billion estimate per item 81 v2.30 substantiation, which provides the explicit three-component breakdown: ~$130B income tax architecture at median behavioral elasticity, ~$35B small wealth surcharge above $10M, ~$60B wealth tax above $50M). Earlier versions of this document used a simplified '2% above $200K' formulation that did not match the canonical structure; v2.26.3 corrected the discrepancy per OPEN-2 resolution.

Very High-Income Households ($1M+)

Very high-income households face the largest increase, primarily through the high-earner surcharge. The dollar amounts are substantial — tens of thousands of dollars per year for households earning seven figures. This is intentional. The platform's principle is that the country's wealth should produce shared prosperity rather than concentrated prosperity, and the funding mechanisms reflect that principle. Very high-income households pay more so that lower-income households can pay less and receive more.

“The platform's funding mechanism is mildly progressive. It does not redistribute wealth dramatically. It does redistribute the cost of universal infrastructure away from low-income households and toward high-income households, while reducing the total cost for almost everyone.”

Worked Example: A Professional Household at $125,000 MFJ

The median household example above ($75,000 MFJ with one child needing childcare) is the platform's anchor case. Many readers, especially professional households, are at higher incomes with different family compositions. This second worked example walks through the math for a representative $125,000 MFJ household with two children in childcare. The pattern of platform impact is similar to the median case but with larger absolute dollar amounts in both the absorbed-cost and added-contribution columns. The example represents mature steady-state outcomes (approximately Year 30 of platform deployment); transition-year outcomes for the same household would show smaller savings as the platform's commitments phase in.

Current System (Professional Household at $125,000)

Federal income tax of approximately $11,200 (married filing jointly at $125,000 with the standard deduction of $29,200 leaves approximately $95,800 in taxable income; the 10% bracket on the first $23,200 contributes $2,320, the 12% bracket on the next $71,100 contributes $8,532, and the 22% bracket on the remaining $1,500 contributes $330). State income tax averaging approximately $6,250 (representative 5% effective state income tax). FICA payroll tax (employee side, 7.65%) of approximately $9,563. Healthcare premiums (employee share of typical family plan) of approximately $6,000 per year. Out-of-pocket medical expenses averaging approximately $3,000 per year. Childcare costs of approximately $22,000 per year for two children (varies substantially by region; this is a national average for two children in licensed care). Broadband internet of approximately $720 per year. Tax preparation costs of approximately $300 per year. Total current burden: approximately $59,033 per year, or about 47% of household income.

Under the Platform (Professional Household at $125,000)

Federal income tax of approximately $1,500 (the wage floor exemption replaces the standard deduction; for representative two-earner professional occupations the combined wage floor exemption is approximately $110,000 — see derivation note below — leaving $15,000 of taxable income, which falls entirely within the 10% bracket and produces $1,500 in federal income tax). State income tax remains approximately $6,250 (state tax is not addressed by the platform). FICA payroll tax continues during the transition years at approximately $9,563. Healthcare contribution under the platform's 4% employer / 2% employee architecture (6% combined): the household sees approximately $2,500 per year (2% employee share) on their paystub; the firm pays approximately $5,000 per year (4% employer share) on the worker's behalf; the combined economic burden is approximately $7,500 per year (6% of $125,000). Childcare contribution under the platform's 0.8% employer / 0.5% employee architecture (1.3% combined): the household sees approximately $625 per year (0.5% employee share) on their paystub; the firm pays approximately $1,000 per year (0.8% employer share) on the worker's behalf; the combined economic burden is approximately $1,625 per year (1.3% of $125,000). Mental health contribution under the 0.5% employer / 0.3% employee architecture (0.8% combined): the household sees approximately $375 per year (0.3% employee share) on their paystub; the firm pays approximately $625 per year (0.5% employer share) on the worker's behalf; the combined economic burden is approximately $1,000 per year (0.8% of $125,000). Broadband becomes universal: $0. Tax preparation cost becomes $0 with Direct File support for the wage floor architecture. Total platform burden: approximately $20,938 per year, or about 17% of household income.

The Difference (Professional Household at $125,000)

This household sees approximately $38,095 per year in savings under the platform, or roughly 30% of household income. The savings are larger than the $16,229 median savings figure for two reasons. First, this household has two children in childcare (versus one in the median example), which doubles the absorbed childcare cost. Second, this household has higher labor income, which produces larger absolute savings on healthcare premium absorption and a larger reduction in federal income tax through the wage floor exemption.

The pattern matches the broader claim from What This Means For You that middle-class households (those earning $75,000-$150,000) save 40 to 79 percent of their current federal-channel cost. This particular household saves approximately 65 percent. A household at the same income with no children needing childcare would see proportionally smaller savings (still substantial, but the childcare absorption is the largest single component of the savings for households with young children). A household at the same income with three or four children in childcare would see even larger savings.

The mathematics are sensitive to specific household circumstances, particularly the household's current healthcare arrangement, current childcare expenses, and occupational composition (which determines the wage floor exemption). Households wanting to model their specific situation should use the We The People Calculator.

Wage floor derivation note: the $110,000 combined wage floor exemption assumes both earners are in mid-career professional occupations. The We The People Calculator defines occupation tiers with floors at approximately $28,000 (service / care / retail), $42,000 (skilled trades / clerical), $55,000 (mid-career professional), and $80,000 (senior professional / specialized). Two mid-career professionals at $55,000 each produce a combined exemption of $110,000. Households with different occupation mixes will have different combined exemptions: a single senior professional plus a service worker would produce $108,000; two senior professionals would produce $160,000; one mid-career plus one service worker would produce $83,000. Households can use the calculator to model their specific occupation mix.

Pros: What the Platform Delivers

The case for the platform's tax structure rests on what households actually receive in exchange for what they pay.

Lower Total Household Costs • Median household saves approximately $12,700 per year, or 15% of income. • Lower-income households see proportionally larger benefits. • Households with young children save the most due to childcare reductions. • Cumulative savings over a decade exceed $100,000 for the median household. • Effective relief from the largest non-housing expenses American families face.

Predictable, Transparent Costs • Healthcare costs become a known percentage of income rather than a private market variable. • Childcare costs are capped at a known maximum rather than scaling with metropolitan rents. • No more surprise medical bills consuming household savings. • No more childcare arrangements collapsing because providers raised prices. • Households can plan their finances around stable contributions rather than volatile private costs.

Removed Catastrophic Risk • Medical bankruptcy as a category of personal financial disaster is eliminated. • Workforce displacement no longer compounds into healthcare loss. • Job changes do not require navigating new insurance networks. • Childcare loss no longer forces parents out of the workforce. • Retirement security no longer depends on continuous employment with adequate benefits.

Universal Coverage and Access • Healthcare available to every American without regard to employment status. • Childcare available to every working family without prohibitive cost. • Mental health care available to every adult who chooses to access it. • Education funded for every American who chooses to pursue it through age 30. • Retirement security guaranteed across career disruption and economic disruption.

Economic Stability Benefits • Workforce mobility increases as workers can change jobs without losing benefits. • Entrepreneurship increases as starting a business doesn't require giving up healthcare. • Workforce participation increases as childcare access expands. • Retirement insecurity stops depleting consumer demand from older Americans. • AI workforce displacement becomes survivable rather than catastrophic.

Public Infrastructure Benefits Not Captured Here

The dollar comparison above accounts for the platform benefits that translate cleanly into per-household cash flow — healthcare premium savings, childcare cost reductions, broadband access, tax preparation savings, identity theft protection. These are not the only benefits the platform delivers. The Civic Infrastructure pillar also commits substantial federal investment to physical and digital systems whose value to citizens is real but does not convert easily to a per-household dollar figure. This section names those benefits explicitly so that readers understand what the dollar comparison does not capture.

Transportation infrastructure investment of approximately $80-120 billion annually addresses the structural deficiency rate that currently affects roughly twenty percent of American bridges and the chronic underinvestment in transit, freight rail, and active transportation. The benefits to citizens include reduced commute times in modernized corridors, fewer vehicle damage costs from poor road conditions, expanded transit access in communities currently dependent on private vehicles, and reduced exposure to the safety risks that aging transportation infrastructure produces. The dollar value to any specific household varies enormously by geography and travel patterns; the platform commits to the investment but does not estimate per-household savings in the comparison above.

Water and sewer system investment of approximately $40-60 billion annually addresses the lead service lines remaining in roughly nine million American homes, the combined sewer overflows that produce contamination events in older cities, and the aging water infrastructure that produces boil-water advisories and service disruptions across the country. The benefits to citizens include reduced lead exposure (with documented effects on childhood cognitive development and lifetime earnings), fewer service disruptions, and reduced exposure to water-quality contamination. The lifetime cost of childhood lead exposure to affected households can run into the tens of thousands of dollars; the platform's investment reduces that exposure but the household-level dollar value depends entirely on whether a specific household currently has lead service lines.

Public spaces investment of approximately $22-32 billion annually addresses the chronic underinvestment in libraries, parks, community centers, and cultural infrastructure. Libraries in particular provide computing, internet access, and learning resources to households that lack alternatives — a benefit that is most concentrated for the lowest-income households and effectively zero for households with full home access to those resources. Parks and community centers provide the spaces where neighborhood life happens; their absence in many communities is a measurable loss but not one that converts to a per-household dollar figure.

Energy grid modernization of approximately $50-80 billion annually addresses the transmission and distribution infrastructure that currently operates with components averaging forty years old. Grid modernization reduces outage frequency and duration (which translate to spoiled food, lost work time, medical equipment failures for affected households), enables the bidirectional flows that distributed generation requires, and improves resilience against the increasingly common weather events that produce extended grid failures. The dollar value depends on a specific household's exposure to grid problems; for households in regions with frequent outages the value is substantial, for households with reliable service the value is structural rather than directly experienced.

These four components total approximately $192-292 billion annually at full deployment — comparable in scale to the platform commitments captured in the dollar comparison. Excluding them from the per-household table is not a judgment that they don't matter; it is a judgment that converting them to per-household dollar figures requires assumptions specific enough to specific households that an averaged figure would mislead more than it would inform. The honest accounting is that these benefits are real, are funded under the platform, and produce value not captured by the table above.

Methodology Note: How These Per-Household Numbers Were Estimated

The dollar figures in the median household comparison rest on assumptions that affect how readers should interpret them. This section names those assumptions explicitly so that readers can adjust the numbers for their own circumstances rather than treating the median household figures as universal claims.

How the wage floor Architecture Affects These Calculations

The platform-side figures throughout this document use the platform's wage floor architecture, not the current standard-deduction approach. Under this architecture, federal income tax is calculated on income above each occupation's empirical wage floor (set at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 25th percentile of wages for the occupation) rather than on income above the standard deduction. For the median household earning $75,000 with two earners in representative middle-income occupations, the combined wage floor exemption is approximately $60,000 (sum of two occupation-specific floors). The taxable income above this floor is $15,000, taxed at the 10% bracket, producing federal income tax of approximately $1,500 — compared to $5,016 under the current standard-deduction system. This $3,516 reduction is the wage floor mechanism in action. The current-system figure ($5,016) uses the existing $29,200 standard deduction for married filing jointly. The household-cost line items (broadband subscription savings, tax preparation expected value, identity theft expected loss) exist independently of the income tax calculation; they apply equally regardless of which tax architecture is in place. The Wage Floors as Tax Architecture document in the analytical framing folder substantiates the design at full depth, including how floors are determined for specific occupations and how the architecture handles two-earner households.

Tax Preparation Savings ($150 expected value)

The Civic Technology pillar's Direct File component, when expanded to all fifty states with pre-population for eligible taxpayers, produces national tax preparation savings estimated at $24-26 billion annually. These savings concentrate in the roughly fifty percent of American households that currently pay for professional tax preparation, where the average annual cost is $290-300. The $150 figure in the median household comparison is the expected value across all households (half the average savings, since half of households currently pay zero for tax preparation and would continue to pay zero). For a household that currently pays for tax prep, the actual savings would be closer to $290; for a household that currently files independently, the savings are zero. Readers can adjust the line item upward or downward based on their own current tax preparation arrangements.

Identity Theft / Fraud Expected Loss ($100 to $15)

The Federal Identity Infrastructure component (Login.gov as a universal federal identity layer) reduces the exposure that produces approximately $43 billion in annual identity theft and fraud losses across American households. Distributed across roughly 132 million households, this averages to approximately $325 per household per year — but most households experience zero direct loss in any given year, while affected households experience losses ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars. The $100 figure in the comparison is a deliberately conservative estimate of expected annual loss across all households; the $15 platform figure assumes federal identity infrastructure reduces exposure by approximately 80-85%. The conservative approach is intended to undersell rather than overstate the benefit. Readers whose households have experienced identity theft or fraud can substitute their own actual cost; readers who have not experienced it can treat the $100 figure as risk-distributed rather than annually realized.

Broadband Subscription Savings ($900)

The Free Universal Basic Broadband commitment provides 100/20 Mbps service to every American household at no cost to the household. The $900 figure assumes the median household currently pays approximately $75 per month for broadband service. Households that currently pay more (urban areas with limited competition often see $90-110 per month) would see proportionally larger savings; households in rural areas that currently lack broadband access would see the full benefit of new service availability rather than a cost reduction. Households that prefer premium-tier service above the universal basic floor would still have access to that service through commercial providers; the savings figure assumes the household substitutes the universal service for current paid service rather than maintaining both.

How This Example Relates to What This Means For You

The median household example in this document and the side-by-side comparison tables in the companion document What This Means For You answer different questions and therefore use different methodologies. Both are correct; the differences are deliberate.

This document's median household example uses a broader cost scope. It includes state income tax, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and childcare costs alongside the federal taxes and contributions. The example assumes a transition-state treatment of payroll taxes (FICA continues at 7.65% on the employee side; in mature steady state, the Community Contribution Plan replaces FICA at a revenue-neutral rate). The scenario is specific: married filing jointly at $75,000 in household income with one child who needs childcare. This example was chosen because it represents a typical median household and produces a complete, walkable picture of household finances under each system.

The What This Means For You tables use a narrower federal-channel scope. They cover federal income tax, federal payroll contributions (current FICA on the current side; universal healthcare, childcare, mental health contributions on the platform side), the household's share of employer-sponsored health insurance premium, and the v2.9 Civic Infrastructure additions (broadband, tax preparation, identity theft expected loss). They exclude state income tax (which varies dramatically across the fifty states), out-of-pocket medical expenses (which vary substantially by household), and childcare costs (relevant only to households with children under five, approximately 26% of US households). The tables show mature steady-state treatment, where Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes are absorbed into the universal healthcare contribution rather than continuing alongside it.

These differences mean the two documents will produce different savings figures at the same nominal income and filer status. For example, the median household example here ($75,000 MFJ with one child needing childcare) shows $16,229 in annual savings. The corresponding row in What This Means For You (MFJ at $75,000, no kids, mature state, federal-channel scope) shows $14,864 in savings. The discrepancy is real and reflects the methodological differences. A reader who wants the broadest household financial picture should use this document's median household example. A reader who wants to compare scenarios across filer categories and income levels using a consistent narrower federal-channel scope should use What This Means For You. Most readers will benefit from reading both, in that order.

For research-grade analysis that matches a specific household's actual situation across all relevant cost dimensions (state of residence, occupation-specific wage floor, exact childcare needs, current health insurance arrangement, and so on), the planned v2.12 We The People Calculator will produce personalized side-by-side comparisons with full transparency about every assumption. Until that is available, the two documents above provide complementary views of the same architectural reality.

On the Healthcare Contribution Rates (2% employee / 4% employer / 6% combined)

The healthcare contribution rows in the comparison table above show three values: the employee share (2% — visible on a worker's paystub), the employer share (4% — paid by the firm on the worker's behalf), and the combined rate (6% — the full economic burden on the worker under standard tax-incidence theory, since the employer's contribution comes from wages that would otherwise be paid). This three-value display (Option E, resolved in v3.7.23, documented in OIR Section 130) replaces an earlier single-share convention that varied across the platform's documents. The platform's full healthcare architecture is 4% employer plus 2% employee, totaling 6% of covered payroll. The Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis uses the 6% combined rate for revenue projection; a household's paystub shows the 2% employee share; a firm's labor-cost ledger shows the 4% employer share. All three are consistent answers to different questions, and all three are now shown.

Intangible Benefits Not Captured in the Dollar Comparison

The dollar comparison captures the financial impact of the platform on a median household. It does not capture several categories of benefit that are real, that affect quality of life, and that for many households matter as much or more than the dollar figures. These benefits are listed here qualitatively rather than monetized, both because converting them to dollars introduces double-counting risk with figures already in the table and because their value depends on individual circumstances in ways that an averaged dollar figure would obscure.

Time Recovered

American households currently spend an estimated thirteen hours per year on tax compliance, ten to fifteen hours per year on healthcare administration (insurance disputes, claim filings, prior authorization processes, network research), additional hours on childcare arrangements that the universal childcare commitment streamlines, and varying amounts of time navigating federal services that modern digital infrastructure would simplify. Across the platform's commitments, a typical household recovers something in the range of thirty to fifty hours per year that is currently spent on administrative friction. The platform does not assign a dollar value to this time because doing so would either double-count the tax-preparation savings already in the dollar table (if the time is monetized at average wages) or introduce an arbitrary conversion factor. Readers can value their own time at whatever rate they consider appropriate.

Reduced Financial Anxiety

Medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States and a primary source of household financial anxiety even among households that do not experience bankruptcy. The platform's healthcare commitment eliminates medical bankruptcy as a category. Childcare cost uncertainty — particularly the gap between affordable infant care availability and household need — is a primary driver of household financial planning stress for working parents. The platform's childcare commitment substantially reduces this. Identity theft, when it occurs, produces months of recovery work and ongoing anxiety about credit and financial security. The platform's federal identity infrastructure reduces both the incidence and the recovery burden. None of these reductions in anxiety appear as line items in the dollar comparison; they are nonetheless real.

Peace of Mind from Universal Coverage

Citizens who currently have good employer-provided healthcare experience a particular form of anxiety in periods of job transition: the prospect of losing coverage during a gap between jobs, the financial pressure to remain in a current job because of healthcare considerations, the COBRA cost cliff that follows employment separation. Citizens with employer-provided childcare or generous parental leave benefits experience similar anxieties when changing employers. The platform's universal coverage commitments eliminate the dependency between employment and access to these services. This is a quality-of-life benefit that exists even for citizens whose dollar arithmetic under the platform is roughly the same as their current arithmetic; the certainty of coverage during life transitions is itself valuable.

Choice in Career and Family Decisions

When healthcare coverage is tied to employment, the cost of leaving a current employer is higher than the dollar value of the new opportunity might suggest, because the transition introduces coverage risk that doesn't appear on a salary comparison. When childcare costs $1,500 per month per child, family decisions about a second income, family size, and parental work schedules are constrained by childcare arithmetic in ways that don't appear in tax tables. The platform's commitments expand the range of career and family decisions that are economically viable for working-class and middle-class households. This is a benefit that economists call 'option value' — the value of being able to make choices that the current system effectively forecloses. The platform delivers substantial option value that the dollar comparison does not capture.

Cumulative Lifetime Effects

The dollar comparison shows annual figures. Over a forty-year working life, the platform's benefits compound substantially. The nominal sum at today's dollar values is approximately $649,000 (40 years × $12,700 per year). However, the platform's commitments tend to scale with the cost of the underlying services they replace — healthcare, childcare, broadband — so household savings grow with general inflation rather than remaining fixed nominal amounts. Adjusting for an assumed 2.5% annual inflation rate, the cumulative nominal savings over forty years total approximately $1,094,000. The present value of those savings discounted at a 2% real rate (what the future savings are worth in today's purchasing power) is approximately $444,000. All three figures describe the same underlying benefit; they differ only in how future dollars are converted to comparable units. If the savings are invested or used to reduce debt rather than spent, the lifetime financial impact compounds further. Similarly, the benefits to children of growing up with healthcare access, quality childcare, and the educational opportunities the platform supports compound across their lifetimes in ways that produce intergenerational effects no single dollar figure can capture.

These intangible benefits are not platform marketing. They are honest acknowledgments of value the platform delivers that the dollar table cannot represent. Some readers will weight them heavily in their evaluation of the platform; others will discount them in favor of the dollar arithmetic. Both approaches are reasonable. The platform's commitment is to be honest about what it delivers, including the value that does not show up in the comparison table.

Cons: What the Platform Asks Of Citizens

The honest case requires equally honest acknowledgment of what the platform asks citizens to accept. Several of these will be deal-breakers for some readers, and that's a legitimate disagreement to have.

Higher Federal Revenue Collection • Federal contribution system collects approximately $3,600 more per year from the median household. • High-income households face additional surcharge on income above $200,000. • Very high-income households see substantial increases in absolute dollar amounts. • The federal contribution system grows in scope and importance. • Citizens who oppose larger federal revenue collection on principle face a legitimate concern.

Reduced Choice in Some Areas • Healthcare networks become more standardized within the universal system. • Educational institutions accepting Sovereign Education Fund payments must price within cost-based limits. • Childcare providers participating in the universal program must meet quality and wage standards. • Citizens who currently have premium private options may find those options reduced or eliminated. • The trade-off between universal coverage and individual choice is real and not all readers will accept it.

Transition Costs and Complexity • Major institutional transitions are difficult and produce real disruption during the transition years. • Healthcare workers, insurance industry workers, and others face workforce changes. • Existing private insurance arrangements unwind over a multi-year period. • Some current healthcare providers will exit the system rather than accept negotiated pricing. • Transition risk is real and not all citizens will see their specific situation improve immediately.

Implementation Risk • Federal capacity to administer expanded programs at this scale has not been demonstrated. • Cost containment mechanisms required for fiscal viability face strong industry opposition. • Workforce expansion in childcare and mental health takes years and may produce quality concerns during buildout. • Political coalition required to enact and protect the platform across multiple administrations is uncertain. • The platform could be enacted partially and then have key components reversed by future political coalitions.

Philosophical Concerns • Citizens who believe healthcare should be a market good rather than public infrastructure face a fundamental disagreement. • Citizens who believe federal involvement in childcare or education exceeds appropriate federal scope have a legitimate concern. • Citizens who believe individual responsibility for retirement is more important than collective security disagree with the architecture. • Citizens who believe redistribution is wrong on principle find the funding mechanism's mild progressivity objectionable. • The platform makes value choices that not all citizens will endorse.

Understanding the Trade

The question “does this raise taxes” ultimately misframes what the platform proposes. The platform doesn't primarily raise or lower taxes. It changes what taxes pay for and what private payments handle.

Currently, American households pay through two channels for the things the platform addresses. They pay through taxes for some portion (Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, Social Security). They pay through private markets for the rest (private health insurance, childcare facilities, college tuition, individual retirement savings, mental health providers). The total amount they pay is the sum of both channels.

The platform's proposition is that the public channel can deliver these services at lower total cost than the combined public-and-private channels currently do. Healthcare delivered through a multi-payer universal system costs less per capita than healthcare delivered through the current mixed system, as evidenced by every developed country's experience. Childcare delivered through Quebec's universal model costs families less than childcare delivered through unsubsidized markets. Education funded through cost-based pricing costs students less than education priced to capture maximum federal aid.

If the public channel delivers these services more efficiently than the mixed channel, redirecting payments from the mixed channel to the public channel produces lower total household costs. This is what the math actually shows. The federal contribution system collects more dollars; the private market collects fewer dollars; the household sends fewer dollars total.

The trade is real. Some choice is reduced in exchange for more security. Some federal capacity is expanded in exchange for less private market complexity. Some current private industry is displaced by public infrastructure. Whether the trade is worth making is a judgment call. The platform's argument is that the analytical evidence and international precedents support making it. Reasonable people can disagree, and the disagreement should be on the merits rather than on whether the platform raises taxes.

“Households pay less. Government collects more. Both are true. The platform shifts how Americans fund the things they need, in ways that reduce the total cost while expanding the scope of what they receive.”

Who Pays More Under the Platform

Honesty requires acknowledging that some Americans will pay more under the platform than they currently do. The platform's funding mechanism is mildly progressive, and progressive funding mechanisms produce different effects at different income levels.

Very High-Income Households

Households earning above $250,000 face the largest increase in absolute dollars. The graduated income surcharge (5% above $250K, 10% above $500K, 15% above $1M for single filers; doubled thresholds for MFJ) produces substantial contributions for these households, and they typically don't see proportionally larger savings on healthcare or childcare because they were already paying more for these services privately. A household earning $500,000 pays approximately $6,000 more per year under the platform than under the current system, accounting for healthcare and childcare savings.

This is the platform's funding source for universal coverage. The architecture is honest about this. Very high-income households pay more so that lower-income households can pay less and receive more. Citizens who object to this redistribution on principle should know this is happening rather than discovering it after enactment.

Healthy Single Adults Without Dependents

Single adults in good health with no childcare needs and no current significant medical expenses see smaller benefits from the platform than households with greater needs. Their healthcare contribution may exceed what they would otherwise spend on a high-deductible plan they rarely use. Their childcare contribution funds something they don't currently use. They benefit from having care available if their circumstances change, but the immediate financial calculus is less favorable.

These citizens are paying for the security of universal infrastructure rather than for services they currently consume. The platform argues this is worth doing. Some citizens in this category will agree; others will not. The disagreement is legitimate.

Citizens With Existing Premium Coverage

Citizens whose current employer provides exceptional health benefits, on-site childcare, or substantial educational benefits may find the platform replaces premium private benefits with standard public benefits. The standard public benefits are universally available and meet defined quality criteria, but they may not match the premium benefits some Americans currently receive. The platform produces a leveling effect that benefits citizens currently underserved while reducing what citizens currently overserved receive in some narrow respects.

The Honest Trade

These specific groups paying more is what makes universal coverage possible for the larger group paying less. The platform is not a free lunch for everyone. It is a redistribution of who pays what for the things Americans collectively need. The redistribution is mild compared to most progressive policy proposals, but it is real, and citizens evaluating the platform should understand who specifically is asked to pay more in exchange for what specifically becomes universally available.

Closing

The tax question is the question every honest reader should ask, and the platform deserves an honest answer rather than rhetorical evasion.

The answer: federal contribution collection increases by approximately $3,600 per year for the median household. Total household costs decrease by approximately $12,700 per year for the same household. Net household finances improve by about $8,000 per year for most households, with larger benefits for lower-income households and smaller benefits or modest costs for very high-income households. The platform's funding mechanism is mildly progressive.

Whether this trade is worth making is a values judgment, not just an analytical one. Citizens who prioritize lower federal revenue collection regardless of effects on household finances will find the platform unacceptable. Citizens who prioritize lower total household costs and broader universal coverage will find it favorable. Citizens who weigh both considerations will reach their own conclusions based on the specific facts of their situation.

This document has tried to present the facts honestly so that citizens can reach informed conclusions rather than reflexive ones. The platform's case rests on the analytical evidence rather than on rhetoric. Engagement with the analytical evidence is welcomed. Disagreement on the merits is welcomed. What the document hopes to discourage is dismissal based on partial framing of what the platform actually does.

“Both statements are true. Households pay less. Government collects more. The platform redirects payments from private fragmented systems to public pooled infrastructure. The total American family pays less under the platform than they pay today.”

Jason Robertson

Ohio, 2026

Cross-References for Specific Household Situations

The household examples in this document use a working-income married-filing-jointly household with one child needing childcare as the central case. The platform's treatment varies meaningfully for households outside this anchor case. Readers whose household does not match the anchor should consult the relevant analytical framing document for situation-specific analysis.

If the household is retired or near retirement, with retirement income as the primary source: see Existing Pensioners and the Platform. The wage floor exemption applies to retirement income through standard tax architecture, but the broader household savings figures in this document depend on labor income that retirees do not have. Item 68 develops the retiree-specific analysis.

If the household consists of two adults who live together without being married: see Cohabiting Unmarried Couples. The wage floor architecture treats cohabiting couples as separate filers, which produces different (sometimes more favorable, sometimes less) tax outcomes than the married-filing-jointly examples in this document. Item 66 develops the cohabiting-couple-specific analysis.

If the household is multigenerational (three generations, or adult children with parents, or grandparents raising grandchildren): see Multigenerational Households. The wage floor architecture handles multigenerational households cleanly because wage floors operate at the individual filer level rather than the household level, but Bridge Credit evaluation and dependent allocation become more complex. Item 71 develops the multigenerational-specific analysis.

If the household includes non-citizens or is mixed-status: see Non-Citizens And Platform Eligibility. The platform's federal tax architecture applies to non-citizens with valid Social Security Numbers or Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, but specific platform commitments (universal healthcare access, Founding Stake, Bridge Credit) have eligibility design choices that Non-Citizens And Platform Eligibility develops in detail.

Net Household Impact: Concrete Dollar Figures

This section addresses a net-impact-calculation-opacity finding from the v3.1.0 concerned-citizen persona simulation. The preceding sections explain why the platform is not a tax increase in net but the explanation requires the reader to follow the architectural argument rather than trust a single net-impact number. This section provides concrete net-household-impact figures for representative household types so concerned citizens can quickly find their situation and form opinions based on concrete numbers.

Lower-income working family (household income $40,000)

Lower-income working family at $40,000 household income: net annual savings of approximately $4,200. The net savings combine: elimination of approximately $3,000 in private health-insurance premiums and out-of-pocket healthcare costs; reduction of approximately $800 in federal income tax (wage-floor exemption removes federal income tax burden on income below the occupational wage floor); reduction of approximately $400 in state-level telecom-tax patchwork burden; addition of approximately $1,200 in universal healthcare and other federal contributions. Net effect: $4,200 better off per year.

Middle-income working family (household income $90,000)

Middle-income working family at $90,000 household income with two children: net annual savings of approximately $9,500. The net savings combine: elimination of approximately $14,000 in private health-insurance premiums and out-of-pocket healthcare costs (this is the largest single component); elimination of approximately $11,000 in private childcare costs (universal childcare); reduction of approximately $1,500 in federal income tax; addition of approximately $3,600 in universal healthcare, childcare, and other federal contributions; addition of approximately $11,400 in Sovereign Fund contributions (which accumulate to retirement balance rather than being current expense). Net effect on current cash flow: $9,500 better off per year, plus Sovereign Fund balance accumulation that becomes retirement income.

Upper-middle-income family (household income $200,000)

Upper-middle-income family at $200,000 household income with two children: net annual savings of approximately $5,500 on current cash flow plus Sovereign Fund accumulation. The net savings combine: elimination of approximately $20,000 in private health-insurance premiums and out-of-pocket healthcare costs; elimination of approximately $15,000 in private childcare costs; increase of approximately $4,000 in federal income tax (high-income surcharge applies in modest amount at this income level); addition of approximately $8,000 in universal healthcare, childcare, and other federal contributions; addition of approximately $18,000 in Sovereign Fund contributions. Net effect on current cash flow: $5,500 better off per year, plus Sovereign Fund balance accumulation.

Retiree household (income $35,000 from Social Security plus modest savings)

Retiree household at $35,000 income (Social Security plus modest withdrawal from retirement savings): net annual savings of approximately $2,200. The net savings combine: elimination of approximately $2,800 in supplemental-insurance and out-of-pocket healthcare costs; reduction of approximately $400 in federal income tax; addition of approximately $1,000 in dividend distributions from accumulated Sovereign Fund balance (retirees receive distributions; they do not contribute). Note: Social Security benefits are not reduced under the platform (documented in detail in the platform's What This Means For You Social Security Benefits section); the retiree continues to receive full Social Security plus the platform-introduced supplements.

High-income household (income $400,000)

High-income household at $400,000 income: net annual cost of approximately $8,000 on current cash flow, partially offset by Sovereign Fund accumulation. The net cost combines: elimination of approximately $25,000 in private health-insurance premiums and out-of-pocket healthcare costs; increase of approximately $22,000 in federal income tax (high-income surcharge applies more substantially at this income level); addition of approximately $11,000 in universal healthcare, childcare, and other federal contributions; addition of approximately $36,000 in Sovereign Fund contributions. Net effect on current cash flow: $8,000 worse off per year, partially offset by Sovereign Fund balance accumulation that becomes retirement income. The net cost reflects the platform's progressive financing structure; high-income households contribute more to public goods than they personally extract from the system, which is the architectural intent.

How to find your situation

The five household types above are intentionally chosen to span the income distribution. Most households fall close to one of the five types and can use the corresponding figure as a useful approximation. Households who want more precise estimates can use the platform's interactive calculator (06_Presentation_Materials), which accepts more granular inputs and produces household-specific net-impact figures. Households whose circumstances differ substantially from the five representative types (multi-generational households; households with high medical expenses; households with unusual income structures) may find the calculator more useful than the representative-type figures. The figures above use canonical platform parameters (documented in the Healthcare Transition Detailed Plan and the Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis); future iterations may refine the figures as parameter calibration improves.

If the household lives in a US territory: see US Territories and the Platform. Federal income tax architecture varies substantially across territories — Puerto Rico residents do not pay federal income tax on Puerto Rico-source income, mirror-code territories operate differently, and American Samoa has a separate tax code. The household examples in this document assume US state residency.