I fully agree. The whole idea of income tax is flawed. Define richer (poorer) as having more (less) wealth: unit is say dollars. Define net income as the tim

I fully agree. The whole idea of income tax is flawed. Define richer (poorer) as having more (less) wealth: unit is say dollars. Define net income as the time-derivative of wealth: unit is dollars per day. Now conflate income and wealth in school. Justify taxing income as if it was redistribution from rich to poor, while it is in fact redistribution from high incomme to low income: i.e. a rich person with substantial capital, who has lost his job, can apply for income support, even though he still has money in the bank. In order to get out of poverty a poor person has to earn money at a faster rate than average, so will be heavier taxed. Income taxation is not a redistribution from rich to poor, it is a means to slow down changes to the status quo. It is a brake on social mobility. With decentralized ledgers, we can easily tax all wealth equally by printing money. The problem is not that money is being created out of thin air, but that this freshly minted money is not considered property of the group, instead it is property of the central banks, which act like unions for private banks. Taxing by freshly minting is much cheaper to implement, and removes the whole legal loopholes with secret walkthroughs etc. i.e. people can focus on providing a service and earning money (roughly twice as fast since no income taxation) instead of puzzling through all the rules and exemptions in order to be able to do their job.