The employee’s income after tax remains the same, but his/her pre-tax income increases. Consider a scenario where a highly desirable employee simply shifts the increase in income tax that is levied on the higher income bracket onto the employer (or client). On the other hand, reality is more complicated. They are constructed in such a way that, in theory, simply taking a larger proportion of income from the richer should reduce income inequality. the Gini coefficient (how much actual income distribution differs from absolute equality), the at-risk-of-poverty rate (what proportion of population earn less than 60% of median income), and the quintile ratio (how much the richest fifth earn compared to the poorest fifth). Consider major indicators of income inequality, e.g. But how about reducing income inequality? Do progressive income taxes really reduce income inequality more than flat (proportional) income taxes? After all, is this not the main selling point of progressive taxation? There are many arguments against progressive taxation, from fairness to effectiveness to steering people’s choices. Similar proposals surfaced in Lithuania, but luckily to no effect. ![]() The Czech Republic and Slovakia added an extra income bracket in 20, and Latvia imposed a “solidarity” tax, making their personal income taxation progressive. ![]() Even some countries of Central Eastern Europe, a region that has traditionally prided itself on flat taxes, have faltered. Proponents of higher taxation seized the opportunity to increase taxes. Piketty’s publication has reignited the debate over taxation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |