“Reintroduced the Millionaires Surtax Act, committing to add a 10-percent tax on incomes above $1 million (individuals) / $2 million (married couples) to make the wealthiest pay more and fund investments for working families.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Rating upheld as CHAMPIONED. Van Hollen reintroduced the Millionaires Surtax Act as lead Senate sponsor (S.2028, 117th Congress) on the promise date 2021-06-10, and the bill's substance matches the promise exactly — an additional 10-percentage-point tax on income above $2M (married) / $1M (individuals). He did more than file it: he issued official statements championing the measure and applauding its inclusion in the Build Back Better Framework (Oct 2021). CHAMPIONED is appropriately measured — it captures that he led the effort without claiming enactment (the surtax was never enacted, which the rating states honestly). Two of the three primary sources were fetched directly and their verbatim quotes confirmed (the June 10, 2021 reintroduction press release with the exact 10-percentage-point language, and the Oct 28, 2021 BBB Framework applaud press release headline). The Congress.gov S.2028 page returned HTTP 403 to WebFetch (anti-bot block, not a dead link), but WebSearch surfaced the same congress.gov page and corroborated every cited fact: sponsor Sen. Van Hollen, introduced 06/10/2021, referred to the Committee on Finance, and the CRS summary imposing an additional 10% tax on income exceeding $2 million ($1 million for non-joint filers). All quotes appear as cited; no fabrication found; the outcome does not overstate the evidence.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.