• lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

    • Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        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.

        • Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          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.

          • lime!@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            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.