[kube-system]

A linear tax would mean a person trying to move up the income ladder is more encumbered by tax for the same amount of tax revenue on a given population.

Your suggestion above that low income workers are exempt from taxes, is a description of a progressive tax.

I’m not really sure I understand what you’re suggesting should be done.

[varispeed]

Are you saying that 40% of tax is less than 20% of tax? I don't follow. My point is that the tax should be linear with tax free allowance. That is everyone pays 20% on income above tax free allowance. You can call it a progression, but this way anyone can level up if they want to. If you add 40% and more further down the line you are slowing down how people from poor background can improve their living.

[kube-system]

For a government to make the same revenue with a linear tax as they do with a progressive tax, this mathematically implies that a tax increase for poorer people and a tax cut for lower people.

Alternatively, you can cut government spending, which normally means cutting services that disproportionately affects the poor.

Either way, moving from a progressive tax to a flat tax is a guaranteed net negative for the poor.

[varispeed]

My original point is that corporation do not pay as much tax as they should. The come down from progression should be gradual - as corporate tax holes are plugged, the higher tax rates could be reduced. So that wouldn't affect the poor. It only slightly changes who pays for it.

[wlpu]

I think what you're missing here is the alternative to progressive tax is all income is taxed at or close to the existing highest rates, as that is where by a very large margin most tax is collected. Ultimately this leads to those poorest in society suffering the most.

[isbvhodnvemrwvn]

Because this 40% of tax only applies to what you earn above a certain threshold, at which point you are no longer considered to be a poor person.