Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump want to help make child care more affordable for families through changes to the tax code. It’s one of the few, if only, overlaps in their respective tax policies.

But the steps the presidential nominees would take to accomplish their respective plans differ widely.

And in a larger sense, when it comes to taxes in the 2016 election, Clinton and Trump are a study in contrasts, differing on the fundamental goals their tax policies aim to achieve.

For Clinton, much of the focus is on inequality and making sure the highest earners pay their “fair share,” with a new top income bracket of 43.6 percent for those making more than $5 million per year and a version of the so-called Buffett Tax, that would put a floor of 30 percent on the minimum taxes paid by people with incomes over $1 million.

The IRS says there were more than 38,000 individual filers in Texas with incomes more than $1 million in Tax Year 2014. And Texans sent a total of $130 billion in income taxes to Washington that year, the latest for which figures are available.

Along with capping deductions, closing loopholes, changes to how capital gains are taxed and taxing carried interest as ordinary income, Clinton’s plan would generate between $498 billion and $1.1 trillion in new revenue over the next decade, according to analysts. That extra money would help pay for other policy proposals like subsidized college tuition, expanded early childhood education and increased infrastructure investment.

The operative term in Trump’s tax plan is growth, specifically whether his proposal to cut personal and business income taxes across the board will generate enough economic activity to make up for the massive loss in government revenue.

An initial set of tax proposals unveiled by Trump late last year would have led to a nearly $10 trillion drop in federal revenue over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a potential budget-busting deficit that could lead to a spike in debt without spending cuts.

Trump outlined a new version of that plan in September that was estimated to cost $4.4 trillion to $5.6 trillion, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation. The organization said that figure could go as low as $2.6 trillion when accounting for future economic growth generated by lower taxes, a method known as dynamic scoring that draws skepticism from some economists.

Although the numbers in Trump’s tax plan changed, many of the key concepts remain. The tax bracket would be flattened from seven tiers down to three, at 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent. The business tax rate would also be cut, down from the current 35 percent to 15 percent. However, it’s unclear whether that rate would apply to limited liability corporations and limited partnerships favored by many small businesses after Trump’s September revision, a policy detail worth as much as $1 trillion in potential tax breaks.

For the 2015 fiscal year, Texas corporations paid more than $32 billion in federal income tax, according to the IRS.

The net effect of Trump’s plan would mean that all taxpayers see a boost in after-tax income of at least 0.8 percent, but the gains would be heavily concentrated among wealthy individuals, with the top 1 percent of taxpayers taking home as much as 16 percent more income.

Clinton’s plan, by contrast, almost exclusively affects those high earners, with the top 1 percent of taxpayers paying about three quarters of the tax increase, while the bottom 95 percent would see little or no changes in their taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center.

That same split on how to treat wealthy individuals is apparent in the candidates proposals for the estate tax. Trump wants to do away with it entirely, while Clinton has called for adding three new tiers to the tax, topping out at 65 percent for those individuals worth $500 million or more.

As for child care, Trump has pitched a variety of tax tweaks to make it more affordable, including making the cost of child care deductible from income taxes and a tax-protected child care savings account with matching funds of up to $500 for low-income families.

Trump and Clinton have both called for guaranteed maternity leave. Under Trump’s proposal, the six weeks would be paid out of the unemployment insurance system, while Clinton has said the 12-week leave she’s called for would be paid by higher taxes on the wealthy.

Clinton has been less specific on other changes she’d propose to the tax code to make childcare more affordable but has said she wants to make it so that no family pays more than 10 percent of their income on child care through increased investment in child care subsidies and tax relief for working families.

Countdown to the Clinton-Trump debates

A look at key economic issues for Texans in the upcoming presidential election and how the Republican and Democratic candidates have addressed them.

Energy | Jobs | Entrepreneurs | Health care | Trade | Taxes

Test your knowledge: How will Clinton, Trump affect the Texas economy?

Other political considerations

One presidential hopeful with two beneficial policies for Texas isn't in the debates