The Great Clinton-Sanders Tax Divide
On Thursday Hillary Clinton released the much-anticipated details of her paid family-leave plan, and those details are further evidence of a stark divide between her and Bernie Sanders on the topic of taxes. The candidates agree on a lot of things, but on taxes Clinton’s and Sanders’s positions represent markedly different visions of society.
The gulf between the two Democrats on taxes is perhaps most evident in the debate over paid family leave. Sanders supports the FAMILY Act, which would require employees and employers to each contribute just 0.2 percent of wages, an average of roughly $2 per person, per week. Only wages up to $113,700 would be taxed, meaning the maximum contribution possible—even for the highest earners—would be $227.40 per year. Clinton, on the other hand, would rely on increased taxes on only the wealthiest Americans to fund paid leave. According to her campaign website, “American families need paid leave, and to get there, Hillary will ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. She’ll ensure that the plan is fully paid for by a combination of tax reforms impacting the most fortunate.”
Clinton has pledged not to raise taxes on middle-class families, which she defines as those making $250,000 or less annually. As Clinton explained at the last debate, “I don’t think we should be imposing new big programs that are going to raise middle-class families’ taxes. We just heard that most families haven’t had a wage increase since 2001, since the end of the last Clinton administration.”
Sanders’s response was revealing:
When Secretary Clinton says “I’m not going to raise taxes on the middle class,” let me tell you what she is saying. She is disagreeing with FDR on social security, LBJ on Medicare, and with the vast majority of progressive Democrats in the House and the Senate who today are fighting to end the disgrace of the United States being the only major country on earth that doesn’t provide paid family and medical leave.
(snip)
The United States has a long history of programs that are universally funded and accessible, motivated by a belief that all families deserve some basic standard of living (granted, many families are nevertheless living far below that standard). As Matt Yglesias wrote in response to Clinton’s tax pledge, “The best and most effective American (and, for that matter, foreign) social programs are used—and paid for—by everyone, creating a virtuous cycle that keeps them reasonably effective and reasonably popular.” Clinton’s promise suggests that paid family leave—and other important programs—can and should be sustained exclusively with contributions from our highest income earners.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/the-great-clinton-sanders-tax-divide/423318/
= new reply since forum marked as read
All inclusive plan is most appropriate with this being a "Red Herring" so that HillBill/Clinton Inc. is somehow going after the wealthy. Here position is... 
in general i support us collectively paying for safety net programs together but the way ss is structured (letting everything after a certain amount go untaxed) makes any current raises in the rate affect the lowest wage earners first
the self employed pay both the employer portion and the worker portion so for them it is a .4 raise in rate not .2
a self employed person that made 15 grand last year would be paying $2119 as is, and $2174 at the proposed rate
not a huge raise but still a raise while the guy that makes millions is only affected up to 117 grand
i want to start by taxing the millionaire/billionaires more ,not the lowest wage earners
i call my idea tax and skip
leave the current rates for ss where they are but add luxury tax to pay for any new programs needed (when these luxury tax peops retire the luxury tax part would not be included in figuring their benefit)
i feel bernie has made a mistake in his zeal for supporting democratic bills in congress by supporting this and taking his eye off the message of making the 1% pay more
btw while hc is hinting at something like this(vaguely) i would not trust her to do it
