This is a ridiculous article. By ignoring the reality and focusing on only a small aspect of the economy, the author attempts to covey the idea that the curren

This is a ridiculous article. By ignoring the reality and focusing on only a small aspect of the economy, the author attempts to covey the idea that the current tax structure is not only bad for business, but bad for employees. The author suggests that his company pays $74,000 to get $44,000 into his employee's, Sally's, pocket. The tone used implies that the other $30,000 is purely a waste. The key point conveniently ignored, however, is where that $30,000 goes. He mentions the abstract ideas of state and federal taxes, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Medicare, and Social Security. If we assume the author would be happy eliminating all taxes and insurance payments, we're left with a range of possibilities; he wants Sally to have between $44,000 and $74,000. Considering the article's purpose is to suggest he's not hiring because he doesn't believe Sally is worth $74,000 and we can eliminate the high-end (let's take of the top 10% and put Sally's max at about $66,000). Starting from the $44,000 figure. $7,322 of that would have to go toward a supplemental system for Social Security. It's not government backed and Sally has to spend time managing her investments. As we've all recently learned, even without making any mistakes herself, she stands to lose a lot of money if the stock market fails. $1,712 would be spent on supplementing Medicare. The $12,000 in benefits would have to come from somewhere, in this worst-case for Sally, we'll take it out of her pocket. Without paying taxes, Sally must pay however much the privatized school charges her. She must pay the privatized police force to protect her. She must pay the privatized fire station in case there is a fire. She'll pay tolls for every road she uses to get to and from work. I'm sure the author enjoys the ability the company has to lay off workers, so Sally will have to put back some money in case she becomes suddenly unemployed or temporarily disabled. That's $275 for the author today -- but Sally wouldn't have the benefit of a collective pool of funds, so she'd have to build up a buffer very quickly. So far, we're well above $21,309 not counting the costs to which we've failed to attributed any value (police, fire, roads, schools, et cetera). Let's assume those and associated services currently provided by the government are a very reasonable $8,691 per year (many private schools would be beyond Sally's reach). Whereas the author would save $30,000 to put the same $44,000 in Sally's pocket, just to maintain her standard of living today, she would need to easily spend that $30,000 out of her own pocket. Whereas the employer might then be willing to hire someone, Sally wouldn't be willing to work. Well, actually, she wouldn't have any choice but to work or die. What about the magnanimous author who'll now pay Sally $66,000? Well, she'd bring home $66,000 and immediately spend $30,000 to pay for all the gaps that taxation left. Which means she'll effectively receive $36,000. That sucks for Sally and distills the author's argument down to: he wants to place the burden squarely on the shoulders of the workers so he can save money. Obviously any employer will only spend as much on an employee as they make from having hired that employee. So, either Sally creates $74,000 in wealth or more OR she doesn't. That's the bottom line. Stop trying to blame taxation when the reality of the proposed system merely punishes the employee to the additional benefit (beyond the value already created by the employee for the company) of the employer. Also, please note the multitude of public services I failed to mention which are supported with taxation. Research, universities, military, postal services, social services, public health, water, sewage, oversight and regulation... Without these, Sally's standard of living would likely be much worse than it is today.