• davetortoise@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    It’s inherently progressive because it counteracts the inherently regressive distribution of property in a capitalist economy.

    Taxes are not either flat or progressive. They are flat, proportional, or progressive. This is a proportional tax which targets unequal distribution to achieve progressive results.

    If you mess with the rate, the system will be more easily exploited by the ultra-rich.

    • greygore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Taxes are either regressive, proportional, or progressive; flat and progressive are the same thing. While some (many?) consider proportional to be a separate category, I would argue that it’s inherently regressive, as any fixed percentage is going to come disproportionately from non-disposable income for any lower income individuals. Sales taxes are considered regressive because of this and they are a flat rate for most purchases.

      You can make the argument that people have to buy stuff to exist, but they don’t have to purchase a home, but given the alternative is renting which impacts lower income people even worse, this seems like a specious argument.

      Even with property tax, insurance, repairs, and mortgage, I’m paying less per month than people renting much smaller apartments in my area. Thats neither fair nor right.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      wait wait wait. are you saying a flat tax is like a fee because that is not how its used. a flat tax proposal is for one percentage. Like sales tax is flat. But it still various by amount being taxed. Im not quite getting what you mean by flat proportional and progressive.