1201
Society is Limited by Wage Slavery (slrpnk.net)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
197 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 9 months ago (12 children)

Yes, it definitely has to be recalculated frequently. If it doesn't, it will be about as useful as the US minimum wage after some time.

But as I said, most people wouldn't have significantly more or less money than they do today. At least I carefully calculated those numbers so that most people would have pretty much the same, for Germany in 2019. So I don't really expect prices to go up drastically.

It's not that people suddenly have 1000€ extra. Either their unemployment benefits get replaced by that UBI, or they now have to pay an extra 1000€ in taxes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    It would just be pretty redundant. And a flat tax rate is a lot more transparent

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •