Ok, that makes more sense to me while it is progressive narrowly looked at looking at income from work it can be seen as regressive in that it widens the gap between the taxation on earned and unearned income.

That said feel that there still a strong case both undertaxed

People who do this for a living seem to agree: www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/...

ifs.org.uk/collections/...

Not that there are not considerable other problems with this as an approach

I think because it is not a cliff edge the effect will always be narrowly progressive (in that high earner will always pay a greater share of their salary)

See this simplified example

Is this the case?
It increases the amount that all earners have subject to income tax the higher earner still pays more tax

As we know in tolkien everyone stays where they started no one crosses borders and no one lends aid to those from other nations

I would generally agree (would need to think carefully about how this interacts with time of use tariffs) and set at a level to allow warmth but not punish those in low efficiency housing

Petition to support him.from academics here docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...