Why not get rid of email at work? Daniel Pink answered your questions.

Why Not? Is a bi-weekly newsletter from Post Opinions written by columnist Daniel Pink, who will explore bold, surprising ideas to improve our world. Click the “subscribe” button above to make sure you receive every edition of this newsletter.

By Daniel Pink, Contributing Opinion columnist

Dan has previously written about paying teachers $100,000 a year, requiring a civics test for all Americans and selling baseball teams to their fans.

He recently responded to your “Why Not?” ideas. Here’s a look at his responses to some of the questions posed by readers.

Question: Why can't every politician in Congress spend just one hour a year actually doing a minimum wage job?

Answer: I love this idea. Because of the way elections are financed, politicians spend way too much time with donors -- and not nearly enough time with regular people. Don't think we could mandate this, of course. But we could encourage it. And for inspiration, look at the career of one of my favorite politicians, Bob Graham, the Florida governor and Senator who recently passed away. He used to do work days -- for precisely the reason you suggest.

Q: Why not have a flat tax, applicable to everyone, with zero deductions and zero loopholes?

A: The flat tax is surprisingly popular among Post readers. There are some problems with this, of course. For starters, unlike the federal income tax, it's not progressive. That is, today high earners pay a greater percentage of their income than low earners do. But just about everyone agrees the tax code is a mess. Maybe we should have, say, three income brackets -- and, as you say, no deductions or loopholes? I'm convinced radical simplicity will be good for just about everyone (except tax lawyers!)

Q: Why not cap CEO (or all C-level) compensation relative to what their average employee gets paid?

A: This, too, is a popular idea among readers. One person referred to it as a "maximum wage." What's most galling about the high pay is that it's largely untethered from performance. A CEO who improves her company -- increases revenue, profits, jobs, etc -- deserves to make a lot of money. I don't have a problem with that. But right now, even CEOs who do a demonstrably terrible job make a stunning amount of money. (Looking at you, Jeff Immelt.) There have been proposals like this in the past -- but crafty accountants and compensation committees have always found back alleys to take them to the same destination. A happier outcome would be for some enlightened CEO to step up and do this voluntarily. But that could be a long wait.

This is an excerpt of Daniel Pink's "Why Not?" column from Post Opinions. Read Dan’s full chat with readers.

Share your bold, unexpected idea for improving our country, our organizations or our lives. We read every submission and will select the most intriguing ideas to explore in future newsletters.

In case you missed it:

Talent is fleeing the classroom and these quiet departures have debilitating and long-term effects on students. Dan recently responded to readers who reacted to his proposal to pay teachers $100,000 a year.