| HN Mirror

It's not about being communicated imo, it's about most people not being numerically literate enough to be able to understand (not saying you aren't, just in general). I'm convinced that more than half of the population simply isn't capable of truly understanding progressive taxation, just like they cannot comprehend time value of money or similar things. When you spell it out on a sheet of paper most people will say 'oh yeah', but they cannot really internalize it, and never will.

Of course this is a problem, because how can you expect people to abide by law they cannot understand? Worse, how can you communicate to people that they're incapable of understanding without being (or even just 'coming across as') condescending? I don't know, I don't have an answer. But when people like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html... show being absolutely oblivious to the mechanism (people who are for the rest presumably quite intelligent, and who - professionally - spend quite a bit of time on a piece like this), how can we expect the average citizen to really understand?

I guess it's a recent problem too - just 50 years ago people just listened to their banker about financial things and their doctor on medical things, and believed whatever they said, but we've long passed that point.