If the minimum wage, super and benefit increases are tied to inflation

[SueDonim]

wasn't there talk a year or two back about adjusting the tax brackets to match wage inflation? not sure who it was...
I know a couple who declined pay increases for a long while (in favour of perks) because they would end up losing on the deal.  But I think that was more so because they would lose family support payments.

I can't see how you could lose money from the payrise just because you hit a higher tax bracket - you only get taxed at the higher rate for income over the respective tax brackets threshold, everything below that threshold is taxed at the lower rate of the lower tax bracket

Here I copied a link for you to use:

https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/...on-101.htm

A reading comprehension course would be good for all those who doubt the vaccines and don't understand what's going on with the virus. Not sure about its relevance here though.

I know that we used to have a situation where people working could be worse off than those on the benefit but thought that it had been addressed. Is that what WFF was brought in for?

In the current situation, it does look like the increase in the minimum wage has created a mismatch in the tax brackets, and it would be good to have that addressed, along with the overall balance that "average" earners are probably also paying too much tax in our current tax bands. Ideas about taxing "unearned" income are problematic though. How do you define "unearned"? The retiree that busted their gut all their lives and put their savings into shares? Their current income might be unearned, but their lifetime effort surely means that it's earned. Shares and bank interest are about the only truly passive income I can think of. Some "mum and dad" property investors might get away with treating a single rental as passive if they pay tradies to do all their maintenance, and a property manager to manage it, but owners of multiple properties work for their reward, especially if they have the skills to DIY. And those with money sitting in shares of the bank are very vulnerable. How often have we heard the sob story about the pensioner who lost everything in shares? Or had the bank interest go down to nearly nothing as has happened recently? That has hit a lot of retirees who depended on savings. Is it fair to also tax them more on what they have left? I don't think so.

We already have a situation where the highest earners pay a disproportionate percentage of tax. We just need the balance to be right so that low and middle income earners are not penalised to the extent that it becomes pointless to work, or pointless to work harder.