Sanders Endorses Small Tax Hike On All To Fund Family Leave
Source: CNN 4:00 PM ET, Sun October 18, 2015 |
Bernie Sanders says it's not just Wall Street and corporate America that would pay more if he's elected president: All workers would face a slight payroll tax hike.
The Vermont senator who's seeking the Democratic presidential nomination said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that the across the board increase would come as part of his push to guarantee paid family leave.
He acknowledged that tax would apply to everyone.
"Yes, it would," he said. "But it would mean that we would join the rest of the industrialized world and make sure that when a mom has a baby, she can, in fact, stay home with that baby for three months rather than go back to work at the end of one week."
Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who has been elected to the Senate as an independent, has advocated for several other new taxes to pay for his potentially pricey policy proposals.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/bernie-sanders-payroll-tax-hike-family-leave/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)can afford to pay for it, certainly we can.
We already pay for it in lost income for mothers who do stay home and costs of infant care for mothers who work.
The minimum wage is $7.25 going up to $15 in Los Angeles in a few years.
The cost of a full time baby-sitter for one week for one baby at $8 per hour is going to be at least $320 per week. That for 12 weeks would be $3,840.
The mother would probably be paid not her full salary but a stipend that was standard. Employers could also be required to pay the cost of the leave. There are two possibilities right there, probably more.
Perhaps the amount paid to the mother during her leave would be reduced to a standard rate that Congress would agree upon.
My guesses based on my experience living in countries in which this leave is routine. I did not, by the way, live in Hungary. But I know they at least used to have it. So do countries like Sweden, and most of the countries that are democracies.
More on this issue:
When Australia passed a parental leave law in 2010, it left the U.S. as the only industrialized nation not to mandate paid leave for mothers of newborns. Most of the rest of the world has paid maternity leave policies, too; Lesotho, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea are the only other countries that do not. Many countries give new fathers paid time off as well or allow parents to share paid leave.
. . . .
The U.S. joins Lesotho, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea as the only countries that do not mandate paid maternity leave. Most countries insure at least three months of paid leave for new mothers, and many give fathers benefits too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html
There is a chart at that website. In Brazil (a poorer country than the US), new mothers get 100% of their pay for 120 days of leave.
In China, new moms get 90 days at 100% of pay.
Nasty, mean old Russia gives 140 days at 100% of pay.
Even Saudi Arabia gives 50% of your pay for this kind of leave.
It's a disgrace that we do not have this leave. The cost is bound to be something we can afford.
Good Heavens. How penny wise and pound foolish can we be.
The relationship between mother and baby that is established in the first days and weeks of life after birth is utterly essential. It's value in human terms cannot be measured in money.
The baby has lived for about 9 months within the body of the mother. It knows the mothers smell, the gait of her walk, her voice. And then suddenly it is torn into a world that is new. New mothers should have time with their babies so that the babies can cross over into our world from the protected haven of the womb. This precious, irreplaceable time is probably even more important to adoptive mothers than to natural birth mothers.
I just can't believe that we in the supposedly richest country in the world do not already provide this leave to new parents.
I am appalled at the materialistic values in our country.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)There has to be an amount in order to raise the taxes in order to pay for these programs. I need to know how much my taxes will be raised before I vote.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Multiply the number of babies born per year times 3 months of the average (just arbitrary choice) woman's pay per year or any sum you want that you think would be a reasonable amount to offer a woman to live on for 3 months. (Australia gives a set sum; we could do that.)
Then, remembering that Bernie wants to raise the cap on the income subject to payroll taxes. (remember the employer pays close to 1/2 of the payroll tax sum) divide the total amount needed to pay all new mothers in one year by the numbers of people, employers and working people (all income not just the first $113,000 or so) and you have the amount on average that each working person would pay.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)they match FICA and Medicare. Proposing increasing higher income tax is placing a larger burden on the very low income. A really big help, huh taking more away from those who are not getting basic needs. It will not sell.
Igel
(35,274 posts)The payroll tax is legally part of the income tax but refers precisely to FICA and Medi.... Most of the time "income tax" is contrasted with "payroll tax" in exactly this way.
Employers currently match the worker payroll tax. That doesn't need to be the case for any new tax, of course.
Currently those in the bottom 40% of households pay zero or close to zero federal income tax and raising the bottom rates wouldn't affect those in the bottom 35% or so much at all, between deductions, exemptions, tax credits, etc. They do, however, pay payroll tax.
If you want the smallest tax increase possible, include everybody. If you want to dedicate the tax to something in particular, the payroll tax method is the way to do it--it's dedicated to certain entitlement programs and doesn't muddy the semantic waters.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Federal income tax withheld from wages, tips and other compensation.
There is not a box as in 5a through 5d where there are two columns. These columns has the FICA and Medicare, one is from the employee and the other column is from the employer.
Again Federal Income Tax is not matched by the employer. The matching is FICA and Medicare of which is collected to fund the SS and Medicare.
Wanting to increase income tax is not going to hit those who has capital gains and dividends such as Warren Buffet and hedge funders. Yes a way to hit those of us who works or even draws a pension.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)of new mothers. I'm not advocating for any particular form of family leave. I just think we need to have some form of it.
I watched my daughter carrying around suction cups, etc. (quite a complex bag full of stuff) and washing all the paraphernalia for saving breast milk when she had her babies. At least for the first three months, a mother should be paid to care for her newborn.
With a lot of social programs, the amounts of money and the loss in terms of physical and psychological stress as well as financial loss to our society is nearly as great as the cost of paying for the program to avoid that stress would be.
Remember. No one would be required to take the benefit. But everyone should be required to help pay for it.
There are things we should just do for each other.
I wonder who took care of Chelsea Clinton's baby when it was new-born.
Wealthy people often take for granted the little things like being able to and affording to spend a few weeks at home with a newborn baby. They just don't think about the fact that other women still have to go work at McDonalds or the local grocery store and come home exhausted at night to stay up with a crying baby.
Paid leave for the mothers of newborn babies who are breast-feeding or feeding every 4-5 hours or so and not sleeping through the night seems really basic to me.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)he did characterize it as a "small increase in payroll tax." he doesn't seem the type to speak in platitudes. I would expect a hard number soon.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)my guess would be that it is graduated. the people struggling the most might not end up paying anything. bernie has fought his whole life for the 99%. do you really think now, while,running for president, that he is going to pick NOW to screw the people he has worked his life for?
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)just like you pay for sick pay already out of people coming in early after the flu, contaminating everyone and lowering productivity
just like you pay for vaccinations already by having to take care of people who get the disease due to spread from anti-vax
just like you pay for ...
Largely most scandinavians know they get what they pay for in taxes, however they are upset about spending more on refugees/immigrants than own elders that have contributed to the system
(side issue and when America offers the same perks the Nordic countries do to immigrants and refugees, i'll discuss it with an American)
but i digress 
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)people choose to have kids (mostly: the republicans are working hard to fix that).
this law penalizes those of us who are not family-oriented, or who have chosen unselfishly not to foist my offspring upon the rest of society.
there are many good social programs we should be spending money on, but subsidizing people to reproduce is not one of them.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)did ya notice that?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I already pay way way more taxes than my buddy that's married with three kids. Now I should subsidize it further?
I mean it doesn't change my mind, I'm still voting for Bernie in the primaries...but there are people who this will drive away.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)probably question my sanity if I agreed with everything Bernie Sanders (or any other candidate) said/wanted to implement.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)A lot of us already feel like we pick up enough of the slack for the breeders. I have had to pick up workload for people out on maternity leave. I certainly don't want to take a hit in my paycheck as well so that they can have an incentive to stay out even longer (if they are paid for 3 months, that will give them incentive to take additional time unpaid).
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)get the funds to pay for these plan, where is the plan to pay for these plans?
Yupster
(14,308 posts)That's how you end up owing $ 19 trillion.
You can even reach into the air to pay for a war.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and found the money necessary to bail out the banks.
It can be done -- quite easily actually. 
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)be a lot. Still no information on how this will get paid, I know about the unpaid war and don't want another big bill not paid.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)is the amount we currently owe. I have no idea what any new programs would cost.
If we pay 3 % interest on the $ 19 trillion, the annual interest cost would be $ 570 billion. In my opinion this is the biggest reason why interest rates are so low. Once they go up how in the world will the US government pay the interest costs on our debt.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)
TBF
(32,004 posts)corporations and high-earners.
Sorry. (not really)
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)What the hell is he thinking? Everyone??? Folks living check to check for basic necessities can't afford more taxes...and they vote.
Yeah, he wants to raise the minimum wage to $15, but that amount doesn't take anyone out of working-poor status in urban Democrat strongholds like NYC/LA/Chicago/SF/etc. Some of poorest people in those areas already make $20/hr, and they are still suffering economically! Now Bernie proposes more taxes on them?!
He needs to backtrack from this statement and suggest a better way to pay for this valuable program or he's done.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)I am 65 on Social Security and a good pension. My wife is 68 and also on S.S. with a tiny pension? What am I missing?
dflprincess
(28,072 posts)If not, then it doesn't sound like this will cost you anything.
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)I thought I may have misunderstood based on some of the posts. Still, as much as I support Bernie, I don't care much for the idea of some young family pulling in $40K a year paying more payroll taxes. Let The Donald and the Bushes pay for it.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)more as well, matching the employee contribution. I would prefer to see it done this way rather than mandating that employers pay for the leave themselves. Women get discriminated against in the workplace too much as it is.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)not income tax. FICA is Social Security + Medicare taxes, and it is matched by the employer.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)the employer.
On Form 941 which is filed by employer contains the following information about payroll tax, it is income tax:
Line 3 Federal income tax withheld from wages, tips and other compensation.
On this line the amount of money withheld from the employees check and it is not matched by the employer.
There is not a box as in 5a through 5d where there are two columns. These columns has the FICA and Medicare, one is from the employee and the other column is from the employer.
Federal income tax is one part of payroll tax and FICA and Medicare is also a part of payroll income taxes.
If Sanders said it would be a .2% increase in payroll tax then it will be included on line 3 of the Form 941 and not on lines 5a to 5d. This will be an increase on everyone who receives a paycheck, those who have capital gains and dividends will not be paying these taxes, capital gains and dividends are not classified as income. If Sanders is indicating this .2% is matched by the employer he is wrong.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)perhaps they will change the form, add some boxes and require an employer match of that whopping one fifth of one percent. You sound like you do 941s for a living. So do I! In fact I did some last just last week . Laws change, taxes change, forms change .
7962
(11,841 posts)Thats the one thing no one seems to get. Do the math and you'll see. There arent enough rich people to hit hard enough. Look at the income numbers and how many make what.
PSPS
(13,579 posts)The contention that "there aren't enough rich people" isn't true or even necessary. First, the wealth of the top 100 families in the country is impossible to fathom. These are people who have at least 8-figure incomes daily. If everything over, say, $2 million/year were taxed at 90%, that would provide an enormous amount of money.
But it's true that "normal" people would have to increase their participation too. The fact is that most "normal" people pay very little income tax. The biggest hit they take is the FICA tax, which funds social security. Most countries have a higher income tax but people are happy to pay it because of the societal benefits they get in return.
7962
(11,841 posts)last year, according to CNBC. And if you start taxing asset growth, we're in for a world of shit. And even if the 100 families were making that much income, its still not enough to fund all these new programs.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Igel
(35,274 posts)But if you start taxing assets, then you are.
Capital gains is still income. It's just "unearned income" instead of "earned income," and is usually from investment.
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)say, $60K could be burdensome. Like Obama, I feel those making in excess of $250K AGI could afford it. And there are lots of those folks out there.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)"Sanders touted a measure sponsored in the Senate by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand of New York that would impose a new 0.2% payroll tax to finance family leave payments. The proposal would allow workers to get up to 66% of their salaries as paid family leave for up to 12 weeks."
I am in that $40K and under group. I make $480 per week. I would have to pay an extra 96 cents per week. A person making $800 per week would have to pay an extra $1.60 per week, less than a Big Gulp at 7 Eleven. Yes, I think it's worth it, even for families in the lower middle class, in fact ESPECIALLY for the families in the lower middle class. The benefits would be huge.
I'd also like to see some flexibility ie. they shouldn't have to take all 12 weeks at once. Maybe they take off 8 weeks and then have the other 20 days for caring for the baby when it's sick or has to go to the doctor.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Every country in the world has leave of this sort except us, Lesotho, Swazeiland and Papua New Guinea.
China, Russia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia -- countries rich and poor provide new mothes with paid leave to be with their children.
How poor are we?
How cheap are we?
How cruel are we?
How materialistic are we?
I lived in Europe for years. It is embarrassing to me that Russia provides 140 days of leave for new mothers at 100% of their pay, and we do not require it at all.
What kind of nation are we?
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)You said "it goes to you and me." I asked how it goes to me in my situation. I don't have a problem with family leave, in fact, I agree we as a nation are way behind the curve. That said, hitting lower income people with more payroll taxes is not a good idea. It could turn those folks who believe Bernie is for them against him.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)they would still have more money in their pocket.
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)I'm thinking of the folks who make more than minimum. Like the people who make $18-20 an hour. It would still be noticeable in their take home pay.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)Never did, never will (too old). But I did have to take 2 months of from work to care for my mother when she was dying of breast cancer. I would still be happy to pay an extra 20 cents per hour to support parental and family leave. I just look at familial leave as something most of us will all have to take some day, and should be able to, so all of us should pay for it.
George II
(67,782 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)If the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour, that would be an extra $1.20 per week.
LynnTTT
(362 posts)Just like you pay for school after your kids are grown, you pay for roads even if don't have a car, air traffic controllers even if you don't drive, etc. It's the price of living in a civilized society.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Because you know, their children were adults. Why should they pay taxes for schools?
So I turned around and said "so who payed for *your* kids schools? I did not see you saying this back then? It shut what was an irrational conversation right down.
If people want to worry about their taxes then they should stop blaming reasonable societal contributions and start going after the tax money waste where it really is. You could fund these kinds of programs 10 times over simply with a portion of the wasted money that we use in our bloated military and corporate welfare programs.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)but I gave no issue with paying taxes for schools. We all benefit from an educated populace. Like the saying goes, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and I certainly won't hold that against the kids, who had no stake in the decision and certainly deserve a quality education, but let's not subsidize childbirth for god's sake. last time I check we had a significant global warming problem.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Education is highly linked to fewer children.
I totally agree. I know someone who brags about having 8 kids and not having to pay taxes. This is one of the things about our tax system that is political and needs to be fixed.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)for more children, EIC, SNAP , and housing subsidies that go almost exclusively to families with children and you will hear cries of genocide and eugenics. Plenty of people think that having children is their inalienable right, regardless if their ability to support them. Plenty of people belong to churches that forbid birth control, and I'm not talking only about Catholics. Procreation is a biological drive and it's not altruistic.
Stargazer99
(2,575 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)they're total hypocrites
maxsolomon
(33,244 posts)THAT'S how it goes to you.
Are you serious?
George II
(67,782 posts)...Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, etc., etc., etc.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Read my posts #s 6 and 12. It is utterly embarrassing that the only countries in the world that provide no paid leave for new mothers (and in some countries fathers) are Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea. Isn't that a nice list to be on:
Countries that are too cheap and mean to provide paid leave for new mothers are Swaziland, Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and AMERICA.
Wow! What a list to be on. Aren't we proud?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html
There is a great chart at that website showing how much leave new mothers get in various countries including poor countries like India and Indonesia.
I am ashamed of my country on this issue.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When I was self-employed, I paid my own Social Security taxes.
We could require people who receive dividends and capital gains income to pay payroll taxes on it. It's a matter of revising the tax code, and Bernie is suggesting we do that to impose higher taxes on precisely those who live on dividends and capital gains and other income not now adequately taxed.
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)be subject to the full 15.3% social security/medicare tax? If so I assume you would be giving those taxpayers SS/medicare credits for those payments (thus higher benefits as well)?
I am not necessarily disagreeing with this approach but it could have unintended consequences.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)should also come from capital gains and dividends whether the tax is called a payroll tax or something else.
If we have programs like family leave and we take the money from payroll taxes, then those programs should be paid for somehow out of all the wealth that is earned in the country because those programs benefit our whole society.
In addition, programs that benefit people who receive SSI -- for disabilities and other similar programs such as the programs that pay benefits to elderly people who are not eligible ofr the retirement benefits based on their contributions to Social Security should come from taxes imposed on all income received and earned in the US and not just from payroll taxes.
What is Supplemental Security Income?
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):
It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and
It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.
https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/
There are various ways to find the income for family leave. And which would be appropriate would depend on who is included. Payroll taxes would be a good fit if the program is limited to working people, but maybe it should include in the tax base the contributors who benefit from the fact that women, including young mothers, work outside the home and contribute to the growth and stability of our wealth. If you view the program (and other social programs) as benefiting employers as well as employees, then those who earn income from the work of women should perhaps all contribute to the fund tha pays for paid family leave for new mothers.
In some countries, dads get this pay too. In some countries, the pay is based on the individual's pay scale. In Russia, for example, mothers get 100% of their pay for 140 days. In Australia, they get a flat rate for 126 days.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)should have to pay a certain minimum amount into SS and Medicare , even if all their income is from investments. There is no reason that a trust fund kid or an executive that got a golden parachute should nt contribute to the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance federal program that we call Social Security. It is not for a person's own retirement or disability and never has been. In a civilized society, we don't let the disabled, the elderly or widows and orphans live on the street. PERIOD. Why should a person who has the luxury of living on their investments not have some responsibility to pay into the OASDI?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He wants to make sure that the oligarchs cannot hide their money in tax havens and that their money is taxed at a higher rate than it is today.
Bernie wants to lift the cap on income and make all of it subject to payroll taxes. There would be enough to fund paid leave for working mothers of new babies. After all, those mothers either pay a babysitter to take care of their child, have famly who takes care of the baby or stay home and lose money taking care of their baby.
We pay for these necessities like infant care for a new-born baby, healthcare and college education and the things Bernie wants to pay for by pooling our money.
The overall costs for these things that we pay for now would rise because many more people would be covered, people who are really struggling to pay for these necessities now.
The additional cost would be spread across society and in particular imposed on those who earn or receive the greatest part of our national income.
Remember, over the past 30 years, the people who receive high incomes, the so-called 1%, the very wealthy have been taking a larger and larger portion of the overall wealth.
We are very out of balance in terms of the distribution of wealth.
Programs like paid leave for moms (and maybe dads) with new babies is one of several ways to try to return to an equilibrium that will keep our society in balance. Another way is to raise the minimum wage and then tie that minimum wage to the consumer price index or some other fair index that measures inflation.
The issue is how do we rebalance our economy so that we maintain a consumer base and hae a healthy society economically, socially and politically.
How would you get our economy and society back into balance so that the extremes of rich and poor are not so great and so that we have a strong and healthy middle class again?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
red dog 1
(27,771 posts)This was all I could find on the subject....there has to be more..
Do you have a link to him saying he would only raise taxes on the top 1 percent?
George II
(67,782 posts)What happened to the "revolution"?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and make the rich pay it too.
George II
(67,782 posts)Company owners and the rich have only nominal pay - their income consists primarily of bonuses and dividends on shares of stock they own.
A payroll tax will not apply to bonuses and dividends, just "salary". Those who will pay the bulk of any payroll tax are the lower and middle class.
Payroll taxes were a ploy by the Reagan administration and republican congresses - lower "income taxes" (benefiting mostly the rich) and increase payroll taxes (penalizing mostly lower and middle class workers) They bragged about how they "lowered taxes" but in reality they only lowered taxes on the rich and increased the effective taxes on lower and middle class workers.
Payroll taxes are only paid for by workers, not the elite.
Its unbelievable that a "man of the people" would propose such a regressive tax.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)or require that someone who gets the bulk of their income from stock options and long term capital gains should still have to pay a certain minimum into Social Security and Medicare. Why should someone who has the good fortune to live on investment income get a free pass when it comes to caring for our elderly, our disabled and the surviving children who have lost one or both parents?
If we want to be "great again" we should not let those who cannot work, whether from age or disability, to live in poverty . It's barbaric.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)and I'm getting 0.70 % interest a year and I'm only having to pay income tax on it. I'm getting away without paying payroll tax on it.
Igel
(35,274 posts)And deferred compensation.
The limits on the salary that the taxes apply to still hold, though. Most of the wealthy that aren't just working off of unearned income earn more than enough to exceed the FICA cap.
And run into that third payroll tax, from the HCRA/ACA.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)the upper 10% vs. the 1%.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Ahem,
ram2008
(1,238 posts)Unfortunately, advocating any form of tax increase for the middle class, even if its minuscule and for good cause, is a no go with the electorate.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)for new mothers are Lesotho, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html
It is utterly embarrassing that other countries like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia -- 140 days at 100% of pay -- and all but Lesotho, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea pay this leave.
How materialistic are we.
The only reason we don't pay this is that we are ignorant about how the rest of the world lives. We think we are so rich and so great but we don't take care of our children. We don't take care of our children at all.
red dog 1
(27,771 posts)You mean, "No, it's not going to hurt him to advocate a tax increase on the middle class"??
I disagree.....that WILL hurt him.
As ram2008, (the person you replied to) said:
"advocating any form of tax increase for the middle class, even if it's minuscule and for good cause is a no-go with the electorate."
It's not about the U.S. being the only developed nation in the world that doesn't provide paid sick leave; it's about who should pay more in taxes to pay for paid sick leave.
Bernie also wants college tuition to be free, for those who can't afford it
I think he said on the debate the other night that a tax on the wealthy would pay for that.
Why can't a tax on the wealthy pay for sick leave as well?
Bernie should make it simple:.."I would increase taxes only on millionaires & billionaires.
Bernie should say clearly: "No new taxes on the middle class or the poor."
I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter myself; and I want him to win the presidency.
But, IMO, to advocate a tax hike for ALL in order to fund paid leave or anything else will lose him millions of votes.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I think even Clinton supports it but she won't be as forthright as Sanders on the issue, and she differs to states on the issue. It's only a buck or two a week from your paycheck. It's not a big deal.
Among Democrats it won't hurt him.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Payroll taxes are regressive and disproportionately burden those with the lowest incomes.
I understand Americans pay low federal income taxes, both in comparison to other countries and our own historic rates. What we need, however, is a progressive system of taxation, not more flat taxes.
His transaction tax applies also to retirement funds, and those non-profit investors like TIAA-Cref and funds for state and municipal employees will be taxed to pay for college (yet the numbers aren't close to meeting the costs of running our current post-secondary educational systems). However, he has no plan that I've seen (and I've looked on his website) to prepare the poor to be able to get into college. Therefore those most benefited are those who don't currently receive financial aid, the upper middle class.
So he has proposed two new taxes, both of which benefit the upper middle class. I suppose it makes sense given that is his support base, but it flies in the face of the notion that he is a champion for the rest of us.
George II
(67,782 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean I guess it's a nice break from sounding like the John Birch Society, but really, not a lot of room to talk about conservatives when you're the ones whining about taxes.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)people to just trust in Bernie like you do while you call them names.
That will not fly in a general election
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But I'm starting to expect it from people with ^H next to their names.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)liberal progressivism
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Why the hell aren't employers paying for family leave?
7962
(11,841 posts)I'm sure other companies have some paid, some unpaid leave.
Igel
(35,274 posts)Typically those are making median or above median income.
It's the low-wage earners that don't get this kind of leave.
It's also the low-wage earners who have, statistically speaking, higher fertility rates.
(The connector here is probably education level, primarily for the women, but let's leave this at "correlation" and not fuss with causation.)
zentrum
(9,865 posts)….but Americans aren't nuanced enough to understand this and it's a risky move.
I thought it was going to be paid for by a small tax on all wall street trades. A tax like that can generate millions every year.
George II
(67,782 posts).....like a Reagan Democrat.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Get past Congress. Remember those people who say they will stay at him and not vote, the Republicans will control Congress and it will fail.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Did you know that the only other countries that do not pay for leave for new mothers are Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guniea?
And we claim to be so rich?
We an afford all of these things.
I point out in Posts 6 1n 12 what leave other countries provide and how much mothers who leave their babies with sitters may be paying -- approximately.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html
Russia pays new mothers 100% of their pay for 140 days. India, Indonesia, Brazil -- all pay for leave for new mothers.
It's disgusting that we don't do this.
How greedy and cheap are we?
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Like an actual modern, industrialized country.
I'm just worried that a tax raise on the middle class will be the end of his chances. Of course we can afford it as a country and should and must but it will be in all the Repub ads as what happens when you have a, gasp, socialist.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If a poor mother has a baby, she will probably get government assistance. If a middle class woman has a baby, she either forgoes her income during the first weeks, or hires a babysitter. A babysitter is supposed to be paid at least $7.25 per hour, in many cities now, much more.
If we give each mother a few months of family leave with a new baby during which time she receives money if she pays at home, we have healthier, happier babies and the cost evens out over time. We could possibly even it out by giving stay-at-home mothers a small tax deduction instead of the pay.
But we should all pay the cost of mothers, our mothers, our wives, ourselves staying home with our babies during the first say three months over the course of our lives. It won't cost much. People don't have babies all that often.
The statistics.
2014 US population: 318,857,056
minus 37.6% of people under 18 and over 65
Equals about 190,000,000 working people to share the cost of either a set-rate amount or a percentage or the total pay for about 3,932,181 (maximum) moms of new babies.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Employers would pay half the payroll tax amount and the working people would pay the other half.
Number of births: 3,932,181
Birth rate: 12.4 per 1,000 population
Remember, Bernie wants to raise the cap on the income amounts from which Social Security, i.e., payroll taxes are deducted.
That would make it a lot fairer.
If other countries can do this, we can too.
It's such an important program. But maybe we really don't care about our mothers and babies as much as they do in India or Russia or Germany. What do you think?
zentrum
(9,865 posts)….it all out just as you say. Because just the sound bite "Sanders wants to raise taxes on the middle class" is lethal. When it would actually be a program with such untold positive effects on our kids, families, GNP, health, sense of unity. Sometimes Bernie leaves out the connecting links in his statements.
Really nice post. Send it to BS's campaign because it's so succinct.
7962
(11,841 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)The tax of 50cents for every 100 traded would raise billions.
But as I've been reminded that's not for family leave.
The thing about paid family leave is that it would probably save money in many ways. Less stress-related illness. Less employee turn over. Healthier families. Better outcomes for kids on lots of metrics. It really strengthens the whole society. Which saves money in ways that are never included in the narrow calculations.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)The horror!
LynnTTT
(362 posts)Increasing the taxes on the top "whatever"% is fine with me. I think the top 10% starts at about $ 300,000 family income now.
red dog 1
(27,771 posts)A tax hike on the top 2 or 3 percent alone could bring in hundreds of billions of dollars.
A tax hike on the top 5 percent would bring in even more.
From last May:
"Bernie Sanders Would Tax The Income Of The Wealthiest At 90 Percent"
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/
Warpy
(111,141 posts)I suggest you enact a per transaction tax on Wall Street. You might find that one pays for a lot of your policies.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)Other countries have financial transaction . They are generally less than 1% and some countries charge or lower taxes on things like derivatives, credit default swaps and high frequency trading. Some have a maximum amount per transaction. The FTT serves a dual purpose. It raises funds and it reduces market volatility and speculation.
The thing is, the amount of financial transactions in the US is $3Quadrillion per year. That's a 3 followed by 15 zeroes.
$3,000,000,000,000,000 X .001 (1/10 of one percent) = $3,000,000,000,000
THREE (FUCKING) TRILLION DOLLARS!
so that's enough to pay for state supported college tuition for every student who wants to go , plus plenty left over for other critical needs - building and repair of our infrastructure, green energy development, funding for K-12 education, and even increase Social Security, etc.
BTW, 11 countries in Europe, as well as a few in South , Africa and Asia have some form of FTT.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)
PatrickforO
(14,559 posts)have good, single payer healthcare and paid family leave. You bet. I already pay out the nose for shitty rationed healthcare, only the 'taxes' I pay now are called premiums and they go to health insurance companies. I'd rather pay a tax and have a decent national system that is NOT geared for profit.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)I am not for regressive taxes.
Yavin4
(35,421 posts)well, see Walter Mondale in 1984.
red dog 1
(27,771 posts)..with this quote.
I think Bernie is shooting himself in the foot here.
I just can't believe that he would advocate new taxes on everyone...rich and poor!
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)There is no need to tax the lowest wage earners for something like this, when there is more than enough money that can be obtained from other sources.
Please rethink this, Bernie!
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)But I'll grant it could be an issue in the general. Clinton will have the same problem with her stated support for the FAMILY Act.
But I'm not too concerned because 1) it's early and 2) it can easily be re-framed.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)A big stinker of a fight at that. Just ask Walter Mondale who told the truth about raising taxes and lost in a near-sweep.
Bernie is correct about potentially needing to raise taxes across the board to fund this ... but Americans will hear that their taxes will be raised and revolt. Americans aren't Canadians or Europeans. They don't take too kindly to their taxes going up. They seem to be okay, though, with billionaire taxes going up, tho.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)having kids is mostly a choice
you should be able to go on leave without getting fired. I'm not sure why you should get paid for it tho.
I resent paying higher taxes for people who choose to reproduce.
ALSO: the payroll tax is incredibly stupid and is basically a huge disincentive for employers to pay higher wages. it should be abolished, a wealth tax put in its place.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)As a democrat, either you support progressive policies or you are a hypocrite.
Nitram
(22,765 posts)Stargazer99
(2,575 posts)Nitram
(22,765 posts)...I'm not sure what you're problem is.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Is $18 B / year. $1500 per month for 3 months for 4,000,000 births in US each year.
Cut the OCO (Overseas Contingency) spending from the DOD budget by 20% and you got it.
Or cut our aid to Israel, the 16th richest country in the world on a per Capita basis, and you have paid for a third of it.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Many of them don't work and wouldn't qualify in the first place.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)We are supposed to be the party that cares about family values, but to some of you .02% tax is too much to ask to help your fellow neighbor.
This tax is about having healthier babies and families so that our nation can be a better place. People need to think of the bigger picture, it's not only about you. It's about the health of our society as a whole.
Yavin4
(35,421 posts)Don't take it lightly. Also, should we be rewarding people to have more babies? Given the impact on the planet, it's a worthwhile question.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Not wanting to be taxed. Enough, already. We are all in this together. These are all our children.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,142 posts)to fund schools, even if you don't have children or your children don't attend public schools. Everyone benefits from an educated populace.
Everyone benefits when mother's are allowed to stay with their babies for a few months. They are more able to bond with their mother. The mother can breast feed without the hassle of pumping and bottling. My guess us that there might be fewer babies with failure to thrive issues. It could conceivably reduce the need for abortion. Some women get abortions because they cannot afford to take time off from their jobs.
azmom
(5,208 posts)One I do have is almost done with college, but yet, I understand how crucial access to paid family leave, medical care and education is to society as a whole. Yes, I may not benefit directly, but we all will indirectly.
I am furious at the short sightedness of some individuals. Selfishness and greed are what has gotten us to where we are today. Nothing will get better until there is a realization that we are all in this all together.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)
MBS
(9,688 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)yellowcanine
(35,693 posts)That would be fairer than taxing everyone more.
maxsolomon
(33,244 posts)But the GOP would burn this country to the ground before they'd allow the cap to go up.
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)No, thank you.
Why can't millionaires pay for it?