Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speak during the Democratic presidential debate at the Fox Theatre July 30, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Nov 03, 2019
Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that his plan to finance Medicare for All is "much more progressive" than the pay-for released last week by his 2020 Democratic presidential rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who called for a head tax on employers and new levies on the wealthy as key parts of her proposal to fund a comprehensive single-payer system.
In an interview with ABC News, Sanders warned Warren's proposed head tax--which she terms an "employer Medicare contribution"--could harm workers' wages and suppress job growth.
"I think the approach that [I] have, in fact, will be much more progressive in terms of protecting the financial well-being of middle income families."
--Sen. Bernie Sanders
"I think that that would probably have a very negative impact on creating those jobs, or providing wages, increased wages and benefits for those workers," Sanders said. "So I think we have a better way, which is a 7.5% payroll tax, which is far more I think progressive, because it'll not impact employers of low-wage workers but hit significantly employers of upper-income people."
"The function of healthcare is to provide healthcare to all people, not to make $100 billion in profits for the insurance companies and the drug companies," said the Vermont senator. "So, Elizabeth Warren and I agree on that. We do disagree on how you fund it. I think the approach that [I] have, in fact, will be much more progressive in terms of protecting the financial well-being of middle income families."
In a white paper (pdf) released in April after the introduction of the Medicare for All Act of 2019 in the Senate, Sanders proposed a 7.5% payroll tax on employers that would exempt the first $2 million in payroll "to protect small businesses."
On Friday, Matt Bruenig of the left-wing People's Policy Project think tank similarly argued that a payroll tax would be significantly more progressive than Warren's proposed head tax.
"Bernie may have a different vision of how to pay for it, but let's be really clear: Bernie and I are headed in exactly the same direction."
--Sen. Elizabeth Warren
"Under the 8 percent employer-side payroll tax, the employer taxes paid for a worker earning $15,000 per year is $1,200, while the employer taxes paid for a worker earning $200,000 per year is $16,000," Bruenig wrote. "Under the $9,500 employer-side head tax, the employer taxes paid is $9,500 for both workers."
Sanders' remarks to ABC were his first public comments on Warren's 9,000-word proposal. The Vermont senator said he spoke to Warren on the phone after she released her plan last Friday.
Asked about Sanders' criticism of her plan, Warren said Sunday that "Bernie may have a different vision of how to pay for it, but let's be really clear: Bernie and I are headed in exactly the same direction."
"And that is the $11 trillion that families are going to pay over the next 10 years in out-of-pocket medical costs will go away," said the Massachusetts senator. "Bernie and I, we're out there for strengthening America's middle class. I love it."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that his plan to finance Medicare for All is "much more progressive" than the pay-for released last week by his 2020 Democratic presidential rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who called for a head tax on employers and new levies on the wealthy as key parts of her proposal to fund a comprehensive single-payer system.
In an interview with ABC News, Sanders warned Warren's proposed head tax--which she terms an "employer Medicare contribution"--could harm workers' wages and suppress job growth.
"I think the approach that [I] have, in fact, will be much more progressive in terms of protecting the financial well-being of middle income families."
--Sen. Bernie Sanders
"I think that that would probably have a very negative impact on creating those jobs, or providing wages, increased wages and benefits for those workers," Sanders said. "So I think we have a better way, which is a 7.5% payroll tax, which is far more I think progressive, because it'll not impact employers of low-wage workers but hit significantly employers of upper-income people."
"The function of healthcare is to provide healthcare to all people, not to make $100 billion in profits for the insurance companies and the drug companies," said the Vermont senator. "So, Elizabeth Warren and I agree on that. We do disagree on how you fund it. I think the approach that [I] have, in fact, will be much more progressive in terms of protecting the financial well-being of middle income families."
In a white paper (pdf) released in April after the introduction of the Medicare for All Act of 2019 in the Senate, Sanders proposed a 7.5% payroll tax on employers that would exempt the first $2 million in payroll "to protect small businesses."
On Friday, Matt Bruenig of the left-wing People's Policy Project think tank similarly argued that a payroll tax would be significantly more progressive than Warren's proposed head tax.
"Bernie may have a different vision of how to pay for it, but let's be really clear: Bernie and I are headed in exactly the same direction."
--Sen. Elizabeth Warren
"Under the 8 percent employer-side payroll tax, the employer taxes paid for a worker earning $15,000 per year is $1,200, while the employer taxes paid for a worker earning $200,000 per year is $16,000," Bruenig wrote. "Under the $9,500 employer-side head tax, the employer taxes paid is $9,500 for both workers."
Sanders' remarks to ABC were his first public comments on Warren's 9,000-word proposal. The Vermont senator said he spoke to Warren on the phone after she released her plan last Friday.
Asked about Sanders' criticism of her plan, Warren said Sunday that "Bernie may have a different vision of how to pay for it, but let's be really clear: Bernie and I are headed in exactly the same direction."
"And that is the $11 trillion that families are going to pay over the next 10 years in out-of-pocket medical costs will go away," said the Massachusetts senator. "Bernie and I, we're out there for strengthening America's middle class. I love it."
Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that his plan to finance Medicare for All is "much more progressive" than the pay-for released last week by his 2020 Democratic presidential rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who called for a head tax on employers and new levies on the wealthy as key parts of her proposal to fund a comprehensive single-payer system.
In an interview with ABC News, Sanders warned Warren's proposed head tax--which she terms an "employer Medicare contribution"--could harm workers' wages and suppress job growth.
"I think the approach that [I] have, in fact, will be much more progressive in terms of protecting the financial well-being of middle income families."
--Sen. Bernie Sanders
"I think that that would probably have a very negative impact on creating those jobs, or providing wages, increased wages and benefits for those workers," Sanders said. "So I think we have a better way, which is a 7.5% payroll tax, which is far more I think progressive, because it'll not impact employers of low-wage workers but hit significantly employers of upper-income people."
"The function of healthcare is to provide healthcare to all people, not to make $100 billion in profits for the insurance companies and the drug companies," said the Vermont senator. "So, Elizabeth Warren and I agree on that. We do disagree on how you fund it. I think the approach that [I] have, in fact, will be much more progressive in terms of protecting the financial well-being of middle income families."
In a white paper (pdf) released in April after the introduction of the Medicare for All Act of 2019 in the Senate, Sanders proposed a 7.5% payroll tax on employers that would exempt the first $2 million in payroll "to protect small businesses."
On Friday, Matt Bruenig of the left-wing People's Policy Project think tank similarly argued that a payroll tax would be significantly more progressive than Warren's proposed head tax.
"Bernie may have a different vision of how to pay for it, but let's be really clear: Bernie and I are headed in exactly the same direction."
--Sen. Elizabeth Warren
"Under the 8 percent employer-side payroll tax, the employer taxes paid for a worker earning $15,000 per year is $1,200, while the employer taxes paid for a worker earning $200,000 per year is $16,000," Bruenig wrote. "Under the $9,500 employer-side head tax, the employer taxes paid is $9,500 for both workers."
Sanders' remarks to ABC were his first public comments on Warren's 9,000-word proposal. The Vermont senator said he spoke to Warren on the phone after she released her plan last Friday.
Asked about Sanders' criticism of her plan, Warren said Sunday that "Bernie may have a different vision of how to pay for it, but let's be really clear: Bernie and I are headed in exactly the same direction."
"And that is the $11 trillion that families are going to pay over the next 10 years in out-of-pocket medical costs will go away," said the Massachusetts senator. "Bernie and I, we're out there for strengthening America's middle class. I love it."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.