The thing is, The richest people in america dont pay a higher percentage of income.
We don't know how much tax Trump paid cause he wont release his numbers
we Do know how much the previous Republican candidate paid during the last election, He made Million yet only paid 14%. Which is far less than most people here paid

Illegal immigration has been steadily going down this century. A wall made of billions of taxpayers' money isn't worth it.

Of course you guys skipped over this part. I thought net neutrality had bipartisan support.

I get what you are saying however I dont agree with it.  On a percentage basis everyone should be taxed the same. If you make more you pay more just based on the percentage. Generally people who make more spend more and have higher costs of living, a poor person isnt goping to have a 5k per month mortgage or a $600 month car payment. They will live within their means. Rent or mortgage will be lower and car/transportation will be lower.  Most people live to their means and dont have savings, pay check to pay check is pretty normal unluss you are very rich. 100K a year for a 5 person houshold is not a lot of money. Even if both parents work and make 60K per year or 120K combined, having a house payment and 1 or two car payments would make it hard to save anything unless they ate top ramen every day and didnt have TV or internet. Increasing the tax burden based on income puts the middle class in the worst situation of the three especially if you are at the bottom of the top percentage. You will end up paying the most tax even though you barely met the tax bracket. Keep the tax rate the same for everyone, stop all write off of any kind, stop requiring people to buy insurance of any kind and let people spend their money how they please. It sounds great to have the rich fund the poor until you realize that if you are the rich person you are the one working while the poor person is getting a free ride. It may not be a nice ride but a lot of people in that situatiuon choose to stay their because they dont have to work.

Well, I have to say, I feel exactly the same way about your post as you said about mine with your first sentence!  So we sort of agree on something there, anyway

The way I see it, your post covers three general arguments, summed below.  If you feel I've mischaracterized any of them, or missed a major point, let me know and I'll have to go back to the drawing board on my reply to that particular point.  Please respond to the parts I got right.  If it's a minor difference between my understanding and what you meant, it can probably be covered as part of your response. 

(You)
1.  People with higher income have a higher cost of living and other expenditures, so the argument that their "survival tax" is much less burdensome than what poor people face is much less true than what you (Final-Fan) said, or maybe even completely equal between rich and poor (proportionally speaking). 

2a.  Progressive taxes actually hit middle income people [edit: so much] harder than poor people [edit:  that they are actually worse off]. 
2b.  "You will end up paying the most tax even though you barely met the tax bracket."  This one I am directly quoting because I am not 100% sure that what I think it means is what you actually meant to communicate.  I am going to make a very strong counterargument against what I think it means, so let me know if I am off base. 

3.  Poor people are getting a "free ride".  Perhaps not very nice, and yet nice enough that many people choose to not work so they can stay poor and get the benefits. 

(Me)
1.  I agree that expenses tend to go up as income goes up; however, I would characterize most of this increased spending as "lifestyle choices", and not "survival costs".  You do agree, I hope, that there is actually a MINIMUM level of expenditure for people to survive on?  Shelter, food, clothing, basic transportation since they need a job, etc.  I think in this modern era a phone and/or internet are also basic needs.  About 15 years ago I didn't have a cell phone, until I got a job that made it very clear that a cell phone was strongly recommended as a job tool.  I may be misremembering but I think they might have actually made getting a cell phone a condition of getting the job.  (If so, I'm sure they pointed out that I could claim it as a business expense.)  I think that's more common today than ever. 

"A house" might be a survival need, but "a house that needs a $5,000 a month mortgage" is not.  That is a lifestyle choice.  Cable television and Netflix subscriptions and video games and movies and traveling on vacation and traveling to see relatives are lifestyle choices.  I wouldn't want a lifestyle without most of these things (I only travel once per year) but that is the reality for many low income people. 

The point is, a rich person being taxed on the things they spend $200,000 per year on is not the same as a poor person being taxed on the things they spend $20,000 per year on.  One is a "survival tax", the other is a "lifestyle tax".  That is my position.  Let me know if you disagree. 

I would add to the above that health care costs are sometimes survival costs in the most literal possible way.  And clearly a person with high income is more able to find expenses to give up to shoulder those costs than a low income person who has nothing left to cut. 

I will answer 2B before 2A because I think the post flows better that way. 
2b.  "You will end up paying the most tax even though you barely met the tax bracket."  This sounds to me like you are suffering from a common misperception that goes like this:  If you are at a certain income and get a small raise, you will hit a new tax bracket and suddenly pay much more in taxes and actually go DOWN in income.  This is completely, 100% false.  This goes completely against the way the U.S. tax code is designed and I would be very surprised if anything like this happens to anyone ever.  If it does I can only imagine they are doing some very strange things with their taxes. 

A progressive tax system is designed like this (numbers for example purposes only): 
—You are taxed 0% on the first $10,000 you make. 
—You are taxed 10% on the money you make between $10,000 and $20,000.  If you make $10,001 you get taxed 10% on ONLY the $1 you made over 10K:  the rest is still not taxed. 
—You are taxed 20% on the money you make between $20,000 and $40,000.  You are taxed at 20% ONLY on the money you make above $20K:  you are only taxed 10% for the money between $10K and $20K (i.e. $1,000 in tax) and still nothing on your first $10K. 
—And so on until the top bracket where everything higher is taxed at the highest rate (still not affecting the tax on the lower amounts you made). 

Clearly, it is not possible for your income to ever go down in a system that operates this way.  Was I right about what you were saying?  Either way, let me know what you think of this. 

2a.  Now, we do have a pretty complicated tax system.  I won't sit here and claim that I know for sure how hard taxes hit low-income people compared to lower-middle-income people when you factor in all the current tax breaks, credits, etc.  And we also do have a welfare system (that you want to get rid of).  But here is my basic position counter to what you are proposing.  Your proposal obviously assumes that we can make a radical change to the tax code:  flat percentage tax, no tax breaks, just the percentage.  My counter-proposal would be:  progressive tax (described above), no tax breaks, just the percentage.  This would not hit lower-middle-income people harder than low-income people.  [edit:  in the sense of them being worse off.]  They would still make more money.  If they didn't, they wouldn't have to pay more taxes!  What do you think of that counter-proposal? 

3.  While we do have many tax credits for the "working poor", and a welfare system that does support even people who are currently unemployed or perhaps unable to get a job, I think it's a pretty severe mischaracterization to paint a picture that they have it better than people making much more money.  Some people might talk about how nice it would be to get money and not have to work, but at the end of the day if they were actually given the opportunity to trade their job and their nice house and their car that was manufactured in this century and their high speed internet for the life of a person on welfare, I feel confident they'd go running back to their job every time.  After all, if you think about it that's what they've already done! 

P.S.  Some people even propose to replace the current welfare system with a "negative income tax" bottom tax bracket (instead of paying $0, you get whatever thousand dollars).  It does seem like an interesting system to me—good in theory, but I'm concerned that it would be more susceptible to fraud than the current system, and you know how concerned we are about welfare abuse already!  If you're not against the concept of progressive taxes (described above), I wonder what you think about this "negative tax" bottom bracket concept?  (What some people proposing the idea call a "pre-bate".)  Obviously, everyone would get the "prebate", just like everyone pays 0% in the current bottom bracket.  Not just poor people. 

Ok, I will try and go in order. 

On the first "survival tax" I agree that everyone has a base that is about the same depending on the number of people in their household. Yes that base could be the same for everyone however location plays a role in where that base is because of surrounding costs. In California at least there are programs for housing called Section 8, something Hillary loves. This allows for low income families including those on welfare to live in more affluent neighborhoods and pay little to nothing for rent. An example would be a neighborhood I grew up in that had houses going for upwards of 500K, since section 8 was allowed you had families moving in from the ghetto paying 4-500 a month rent, the rest paid for by the government through the subsidee so the owner gets paid regardless. You have 3 or 4 families living in that one house who have no respect for what it takes to own it or how much work goes into being able to afford it. Needless to say 5 years later you have a huge spike in crime, restaurants closing early or only allowing drive through customers during certain hours due to fights and robberies. This is a little out of scope on the living tax but does have context. Those Section 8 recipients are living in an upper middle class neighborhood for less money than they were paying where they came from, still collecting welfare benefits and driving around with new cars, beat and ridiculous rims. The people paying those inflated taxes on the money they earn over whatever percentage are the ones paying for those items. That story aside, I still believe that I or anyone else should not get penalized for making more money.

For 2b you essentially do lose money. That raise which brought you past your current tax bracket will be taxed at a higher rate. The government is basically getting a raise at that point and making more money on anything you make past that amount. It is essentially a growth tax that prevents you from increasing your wealth past a certain point. They already tax overtime at nearly double standard wages and bonuses are damn near 50%. Why should the government get more tax money because I did well at work or worked more hours? For those people I mentioned in my last paragraph, they don’t even pay taxes for the most part because they don’t make enough. Between Social Security, Disability and all of the aid they get they are making a killing off the working class. 

2a Again I see your logic but don’t agree with it. Fair is fair. Why should I pay more because I make more? Do my groceries cost more because I make more? Gas? Why should my taxes go up as I make more money? Even if it’s only on the money past a certain point, why should I get penalized? The tax breaks are where the rich get their break. They write off a ton so they bring their tax rate down to as low a rate as possible, the middle class don’t get that luxury. Eliminate the write offs and make those millionaires pay the same tax rate as everyone else, on all of the money earned.

I think I covered the last part already but will again just in case. I don’t believe in giving out free money to anyone if the source is tax money. If the Mega Churches want to help the people as they claim then they can step up and start helping the needy. Any money I pay in taxes needs to go to the programs I am paying for, not diverted into social programs. Gas tax to fix roads, income tax to fund the government, military etc. If I want Medical insurance I will buy it, if I can’t afford it then I won’t get it. Making anything mandatory like auto insurance or health insurance will only drive up cost. The companies have an income source for life, why wouldn’t they raise rates. Any and all social programs are being taken advantage of and always will be. Either you work for a living or you are truly disabled, if you are caught collecting disability insurance and not disabled you get to work off your debt in a government program. Social Security is only for retirement and not to be used for anything but.

[edit:  Perhaps I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be.  You are proposing a tax system that taxes the income that a person literally requires in order to survive and not die at the same rate that a person's tenth million dollars of income is taxed.  Despite the extra harm that the first tax rate causes compared to the second tax rate, even though they are the same rate.  I'm not okay with that consequence of that proposal.  If you accept that that is a consequence of your proposal and are willing to accept it in order to have the proposed tax system, then I think we have to just agree to disagree.  Please let me know if that is the case.  In that case, everything below is just a side issue.  If you disagree that the one tax is more harmful than the other, then never mind this paragraph and read below.] 

1 and 2a.  You agree about the "survival cost", with the caveat that there are regional differences in cost.  I agree with this but it doesn't account for most of the variation.  Your story, while sad, is completely irrelevant to this discussion.  You didn't tell me you disagree with "survival tax" vs. "lifestyle tax", so I can only assume you don't disagree. 

Do your groceries cost more?  No, the groceries you need to survive cost less, proportionally, if you are rich compared to if you are poor.  This is why I am against a completely flat tax because it is basically imposing a "survival tax" that falls disproportionately on the poor. 

Why do you think it's reasonable and "fair" to propose comparatively increasing the taxes people pay on what they absolutely need to survive and would literally die if they didn't have, in order to comparatively decrease taxes on money they don't absolutely need to survive? 

2b.  The top bracket is not 100% so you are wrong about being "prevented" from increasing your wealth.  And looking everywhere at corporate America also easily proves that the wealth incentive is alive and well in this country, or at least whatever might be damaging it is NOT simply taxes being too high. 

Why should the government get a higher percentage just because you make more money?  Well, look at it this way.  We are talking about taxes, not spending, in this discussion so assume the government needs a certain amount of money.  If they literally tax poor people to death that is bad both for poor people and for the economy (therefore ultimately rich people).  (To elaborate on this a bit, almost all those "working poor" are ultimately working for rich people one way or another, who make a profit off their labor, and spend money at businesses that aim to make a profit off those transactions.  Poor people with jobs are making rich people richer all the time.  Workers dying is bad for rich people.) 

So anyway, nobody sane wants to tax people to death.  Who doesn't die from extra taxes?  People who don't spend as much of their money on basic survival.  Who is that?  People who make more money.  Who makes more money?  People in higher tax brackets. 

Now, maybe the poor people aren't literally dying at a particular tax rate.  But by the exact same logic by which they die and rich people live, the poor people are being harmed (but not to the point of death) because of those taxes more than the rich people. 

This is the reason for the progressive tax income system.  To "even out the pain".  Higher income people can afford to pay more, so society makes them pay more.  But they do it in such a way that making more money is never actually a negative thing.  The government may take more ... but it doesn't hurt more.  (And please recall that even at the 0% tax bracket they are still paying sales taxes, payroll taxes etc.) 

2a again.  If you want to reform and simplify the tax system so very high income don't have a lower "effective rate" than the middle class, I'm all for it.  But "simplify the tax system" is a totally different discussion from "change the underlying basic structure of the tax system". 

3.  Most of this would just be going off topic, but quick rebuttal to "why wouldn't they jack up rates with guaranteed customers?"  Because of market competition.  Without a monopoly other companies should keep them in line.  Our current system has problems, I understand, partly because the system is so opaque both to individuals and often the companies involved.  It was having problems long before Obamacare and removing Obamacare isn't going to magically fix the pre-Obamacare problems. 

Knowing that Trump is truly a Democrat before I voted, I do not regret my vote one bit. Literally anyone would have been better than Hillary. 

At this point, I think that Trump could literally kill millions of people and voters would still not regret voting him in.