>I don't know if Finland does it as well, but this completely ignores how US tax brackets work. There's never a point where going up a tax bracket means you'd t

>I don't know if Finland does it as well, but this completely ignores how US tax brackets work. There's never a point where going up a tax bracket means you'd take home less money than you would have before your raise. And that's not what the article says. Here, read it again: >the more a person earns, the higher percentage of their wealth will be taken from them It goes on to say: >The work disincentives are therefore still very much present in the tax system." Which is true. In fact, any forcible income redistribution, even with a flat tax, disincentives work. >What a huge leap to make from struggling to struggling because nobody wants to buy their product. They could easily be struggling purely because they left their old job to pursue this and now have no steady income. The article even suggests this initially, so I have no idea how they just ignored it. But you're ignoring the fact that "they have no steady income" because no one (or very few people) want to buy their products. >Not everything needs to be about generating more wealth for yourself. And in a free society, you are free to pursue less economically rewarding endeavors. What you can't do is get the state to force other people to subsidize you. >This is just about generating wealth and screwing over everyone in the process for them They said nothing about "screwing over everyone in the process". Keeping the income you earn is not screwing anyone else over. You do not owe anyone your income and no one owes you income. You're promoting a dysfunctional and incoherent moral system.