it’s not even supposed to be an “extra 1000€ in taxes”, it would just be gradually eaten up by taxes the more you make.
the big problem is, a lot of people on long-term sick pay who are not allowed to work would get less from this system. there needs to be something to deal with that.
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.
it’s not even supposed to be an “extra 1000€ in taxes”, it would just be gradually eaten up by taxes the more you make.
the big problem is, a lot of people on long-term sick pay who are not allowed to work would get less from this system. there needs to be something to deal with that.
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.