this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
1005 points (98.5% liked)
Anarchism
2735 readers
42 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
it also tends to hit poor people harder.
And a UBI helps poor people more. If you want to help them even more still, just raise the UBI