3 ms·
Are you saying that 40% of tax is less than 20% of tax? I don't follow. My point is that the tax should be linear with tax free allowance. That is everyone pays
by varispeed 6y ago
Are you saying that 40% of tax is less than 20% of tax? I don't follow.
My point is that the tax should be linear with tax free allowance. That is everyone pays 20% on income above tax free allowance.
You can call it a progression, but this way anyone can level up if they want to. If you add 40% and more further down the line you are slowing down how people from poor background can improve their living.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y agoBecause this 40% of tax only applies to what you earn above a certain threshold, at which point you are no longer considered to be a poor person.
- wlpu 6y agoI think what you're missing here is the alternative to progressive tax is all income is taxed at or close to the existing highest rates, as that is where by a very large margin most tax is collected. Ultimately this leads to those poorest in society suffering the most.
- kube-system 6y agoFor a government to make the same revenue with a linear tax as they do with a progressive tax, this mathematically implies that a tax increase for poorer people and a tax cut for lower people. Alternatively, you can cut government spending, which normally means cutting services that disproportionately affects the poor. Either way, moving from a progressive tax to a flat tax is a guaranteed net negative for the poor.
- varispeed 6y agoMy original point is that corporation do not pay as much tax as they should. The come down from progression should be gradual - as corporate tax holes are plugged, the higher tax rates could be reduced. So that wouldn't affect the poor. It only slightly changes who pays for it.