EDIT:
I just reread OddHunter's post and realised that I misunderstood it. I thought he was disagreeing with Scrabtrapman's terminology. I'm going to keep it here anyway because I think some people could do with an explanation of progressive tax rates.
:
|
They pay a higher numerical value, but it's the same proportion of their income.
I think that's fair, personally - why should the richer people of the world be able to keep a higher percentage of their income? A flat rate seems inherently biased to me.
|
Uhhh... I think you're confused. A flat percentage rate (as scrabtrapman is suggesting) would mean that everyone keeps the same proportion of their income. As far as I know, no major economic power does that.
Most countries have a progressive tax system. For instance, in Australia the current rates are as follows:
- For an income between 0 - $6,000 you pay no tax.
- For every dollar earned between $6,001 - $37,000, you pay 15c.
- For every dollar earned between $37,001 - $80,000, you pay 30c.
- For every dollar earned between $80,001 - $180,000, you pay 37c.
- For every dollar earned above $180,001, you pay 45c.
Bear in mind that those are progressive percentages, not overall. So if you earn $6,000, you pay no tax; if you earn $6,001, you pay a total of 15c tax. And if you earn $200,000, you still get the first $6,000 tax free, the next $31,000 at 15%, the next $43,000 at 30%, etc.