Replace tax breaks and subsidies that favor higher earners with a support that pays everyone the same amount
In short
- The government phases out tax deductions and flat price subsidies that give more to people who earn more.
- The money freed up is moved directly into a support that gives everyone the same amount.
- People who earn too little to pay tax get the same amount in cash.
- The new support starts paying out first, and only then are the old deductions and subsidies reduced.
- Before any new subsidy is approved, the government shows how much each income group would gain.
If this comes true
A woman who cleans offices at night and earns too little to pay tax gets the same monthly child-rearing support as the president of the company she works for, and she no longer has to give up on paying for her daughter's cram school.
Perhaps
A two-income couple who bought a house counting on a deduction might be chased by higher monthly payments and have to pull their son out of swimming lessons.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This applies to support that the government gives not by handing out cash but by lowering taxes or prices, where people with more income or more spending receive larger amounts. Examples are income deductions for home loans, retirement savings, supporting children or family members, and school costs, as well as subsidies that cut fuel or electricity prices by the same amount for everyone. The ministry in charge of public finances, together with an independent fiscal expert body, identifies all of these and calculates how much a person in each income group receives. Then the total budget for the same purposes is moved into a refundable tax credit or a fixed allowance that pays everyone the same amount. A tax credit takes a set amount directly off the tax a person owes, and for people who owe too little tax, the difference is paid in cash. The order matters: the new fixed support is paid first for a set period, and once it is confirmed to be reaching people, the old deductions and subsidies are reduced over several years. For contracts already signed, such as home loans, transition measures with fixed time limits are put in place. There are two exceptions. Deductions for costs that cannot be avoided in order to work stay, because they are part of calculating profit. Support for extra costs from disability or illness is set by the size of the need, not by income. From now on, when a new support is created as a deduction or a price cut, the government must show a table of what each income group receives, and if the design gives more to higher groups, it must explain the reason in the legislature.
BenefitsWith the same budget, help reaches the people who need it most
Without collecting any new tax, simply changing the flow of money already being spent greatly increases support for people with low incomes. Because the share that leaned toward the upper groups is divided evenly again, the amount received by the bottom half of earners surely rises even with the same total. Since cash also reaches people who earn too little to pay tax, irregular workers, single parents, and elderly people with small pensions, who were left outside the system until now, are treated the same for the first time. A clear form like the same amount per person also makes it easier to see who gains how much, and makes it harder for a particular industry to quietly add deductions that favor itself. Systems that reward people for consuming more in ways that harm the environment, like fuel subsidies, also shrink, and because heavy users are no longer subsidized, the use of resources calms down. Furthermore, by delivering the new support first and reducing the old ones afterward, the reform is less likely to be seen only as a price rise or tax increase, which raises the chance of carrying through to the end reviews that have until now collapsed under backlash.
DrawbacksHeavier burdens on the middle class and shaken markets and life plans
Because this proposal moves the same budget downward, burdens clearly rise for the middle class and above. For families who took out a home loan counting on a deduction, and for people who have kept up retirement savings, a life plan made in trust of the country changes partway, and even with transition measures it is natural for them to feel betrayed. If the housing deduction disappears, house prices may fall and the assets of people who already own homes may shrink. If encouragement for retirement savings weakens, fewer people may prepare on their own, and the future burden on pensions might grow. Also, from the view that taxes should be paid according to ability to pay, there is a reasoned objection to moving a high-income family with many children and a high-income single person closer to equal treatment. Delivering cash even to people who pay no tax takes effort and cost to check accounts and addresses, and some payments will be missed or wrongly received. And a reform that makes enemies of the loudest groups is easily lost at the polls, and if the government changes partway it could stall in a half-finished form, leaving both the old and new supports half in place.
Learn the background
Governments support people in more ways than handing out money. Easing burdens through tax deductions or lowering fuel and electricity prices with subsidies are also major forms of support. But income deductions save more for people with higher tax rates, and they give nothing to people who earn too little to pay tax. Flat price subsidies also give more to people who live in big houses and use several cars. Support that is said to be for everyone is quietly flowing to the upper groups. The people in need are low-income workers, families raising children, and elderly people with small pensions. There are several reasons this has lasted so long. Deductions do not appear as spending in the budget, so they are hard to review each year. The middle and upper groups who receive them, along with the housing and finance industries, are loud and can oppose together. And ending a deduction gets called a tax increase, which is the hardest phrase for a politician to say. Attempts to end fuel subsidies have been made in many places, but the price rise came first without people believing that replacement support would really arrive, and even low-income people reacted fiercely, so the changes were repeatedly reversed.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes