this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
1131 points (98.4% liked)
Anarchism
2727 readers
1007 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
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.