> How is it regressive that compensation during parental leave depends on salary?
People who make more money for working make more money for not working. That's literally the definition of regressive.
To quote Wikipedia: "In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."
If it's a fixed based on your salary, it would be neither regressive, nor progressive. It would be flat.
And that's assuming the government takes the money from thin air. If the government gets the money via a progressive tax, then distributes it in a flat manner, it's overall a progressive tax.
I think you are misunderstanding what a regressive tax is. A tax can be flat AND regressive (in fact, those are usually the kind that are). It is about the BURDEN of the tax being unequal, not the dollar amount.
For example, a speeding ticket is a regressive system, because a $200 dollar ticket is a lot more damaging to a poor person than a rich person.
By "flat" I mean a fixed percent of your income. A fixed $200 isn't a flat tax, because it's not a fixed percent of your income.
Yes, apparently-flat taxes can sometimes be regressive, for example a flat sales tax can be somewhat regressive because poor people spend a higher percent of their income compared to rich people. But this thread isn't about sales tax, so I don't think the flat tax in this situation is regressive.
People who make more money for working make more money for not working. That's literally the definition of regressive.
To quote Wikipedia: "In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income."