Rather than taxing individuals like companies, which would create an even more intangible tax code, I was suggesting a more precise way of determining "fair" ta

Rather than taxing individuals like companies, which would create an even more intangible tax code, I was suggesting a more precise way of determining "fair" tax brackets -- similar to the article. Right now tax brackets seem to be determined more or less arbitrarily with a healthy dose of single sided lobbying. If we set the goal of defining tax brackets such that they affect any given person in any given bracket in a comparable way, it gives them meaning and inherent fairness. The measurement of real disposable income could be determined by aggregating costs across representative demographics. It's similar to the minimum wage. Right now so many things in our law are just magic numbers. Giving them actual meaning would likely not only make the law more fair, but also make it more transparent and difficult for special interests to lobby against. I imagine we're headed inevitably towards a basic income thanks to automation. I just don't see any other way around it from either the consumer or the producer side. Companies need to earn money. Companies earn money from people who generally work to earn money in a very circular system. Take mass employment out of the picture and the whole system starts to break down. But I think that's beyond the scope of this post.