I enjoyed this. I also agree with the author that it has no chance of adoption. For me it comes down to varying definitions of "fair". The mathematical approac

I enjoyed this. I also agree with the author that it has no chance of adoption. For me it comes down to varying definitions of "fair". The mathematical approach we have here is inherently fair because percentages have the concept of "fairness" encoded within them; all incomes will treated equally.[0] However, when talking about tax reform "fair" tends to be used to mean the opposite - taxing larger incomes more severely[1]. Sure there's a problem there, but it's not being marketed honestly: using separate scales compounds the effect of the usual more scientific scaling. I'm not saying that this isn't sensible - but it's certainly not the same as fairness. [0] Fair is just a word. I'm not talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax but the concept is similar I suppose [1] For example: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2014/04/30/Canadas-wealthy-take-bigger-slice-of-income-pie-OECD.aspx http://www.bnn.ca/News/2014/04/30/Canadas-wealthy-take-bigge... “Therefore, it is all the more important to ensure that top earners contribute their fair share of taxes” is fine in principle, but it doesn't mean that to "increase effective taxation paid by top income recipients" makes it more "fair".