[bk1000]

I'm sorry, but this dog won't hunt. If I keep 100% of my paycheck and pay tax only when I spend the money, then I will consider my purchases more carefully. If my employer gives me my entire check, instead of part to me and part to Uncle Sam, what's the difference? Where does all this 'smaller paycheck' stuff come from? If nothing else, the employer gets a break by not having to match my social security.I think there is some funny math here.

[poobear]

My 2 cents, as an employer I would be more inclined to give my employees a raise not having to send matching SS & Medicare payments to the Treasury each month, not to mention a little more profit. Still have to rethink my purchases though.

[goldstategop]

Agreed. And if people were allowed to save more, the effect would be a larger inheritance for the next generation and greater social capital that would allow people to acquire wealth and live the way they want. Of course that doesn't mesh with the agenda of those who thing people are better dependent on government handouts... along with the high taxes that comes with that dependency. Quite simply, Money Magazine fails to acknowledge that in the real world, there are trade-offs. Under our current income tax system, there is no incentive to succeed because no one must be allowed to be better off than the next person.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)