Currently the tax rate is progressive. In the future it wouldn’t be anymore. But because those progressive taxes only apply to income over a certain threshold, people with lower incomes would profit more.
This system would not replace social security. If you get a pension due to age or sickness or in your first year of unemployment, you would still be covered by your mandatory insurance. Same with your mandatory health insurance. And you’d still have to pay for it on top of your taxes. The employee and the employer pay 20% of the gross income each.
it’s my understanding that the system would replace social security. the savings from slimming down the systems responsible for payout would be part of what made the entire thing possible.
if i specifically were to earn 277k that’s currently taxed 48% in the system we use, and if we got rid of our progressive brackets it would be taxed at 33%. but we’re not talking about specific countries, we’re talking about removing progressive taxation from a hypothetical economy to replace in with… what? flat rates?
progressive taxation is an umbrella term for a bunch of systems all over the world. the only thing in common is that as income goes up, so does the percentage of it you need to pay in taxes.
Flat rates at the maximum tax rate and an UBI that replaces the progressive tax system. Where is that 33% coming from? That clearly isn’t the maximum tax rate in your jurisdiction.
I’m aware that there are different progressive tax systems. But to my knowledge they all have a maximum tax rate. One that’s, by definition, higher than any other possible tax rate
i don’t see why you can’t have ubi and progressive taxation at the same time. you can tailor the curve to work with the extra money. you can even set the maximum rate at 100% for people who earn more than, say, 10M a year.
Currently the tax rate is progressive. In the future it wouldn’t be anymore. But because those progressive taxes only apply to income over a certain threshold, people with lower incomes would profit more.
This system would not replace social security. If you get a pension due to age or sickness or in your first year of unemployment, you would still be covered by your mandatory insurance. Same with your mandatory health insurance. And you’d still have to pay for it on top of your taxes. The employee and the employer pay 20% of the gross income each.
it’s my understanding that the system would replace social security. the savings from slimming down the systems responsible for payout would be part of what made the entire thing possible.
It would replace long term unemployment benefits. And minimum pension. The benefits that are paid directly by the government, not mandatory insurance.
It would be mostly financed through getting rid of progressive taxes.
isn’t a progressive taxation system meant to ramp up as you earn more, not down? that would lose you money by getting rid of it.
What do you mean?
For example if you earn 277k that’s currently taxed 42%. Getting rid of the progressive tax, it would be taxed 45%.
It’s not enough, to finance a sufficiently high UBI but it’s definitely an increase.
if i specifically were to earn 277k that’s currently taxed 48% in the system we use, and if we got rid of our progressive brackets it would be taxed at 33%. but we’re not talking about specific countries, we’re talking about removing progressive taxation from a hypothetical economy to replace in with… what? flat rates?
progressive taxation is an umbrella term for a bunch of systems all over the world. the only thing in common is that as income goes up, so does the percentage of it you need to pay in taxes.
Flat rates at the maximum tax rate and an UBI that replaces the progressive tax system. Where is that 33% coming from? That clearly isn’t the maximum tax rate in your jurisdiction.
I’m aware that there are different progressive tax systems. But to my knowledge they all have a maximum tax rate. One that’s, by definition, higher than any other possible tax rate
no it’s the normal level. the 48% is the maximum.
i don’t see why you can’t have ubi and progressive taxation at the same time. you can tailor the curve to work with the extra money. you can even set the maximum rate at 100% for people who earn more than, say, 10M a year.
It would just be pretty redundant. And a flat tax rate is a lot more transparent