(1)  I don't see how this addresses my question "Are you truly suggesting that a person would have to have more income than he and all his heirs, for all time, could ever want to spend before he had "more than enough"?"  (This was a response to "nor is it even neccisarily an amount the Super Rich currently have... afterall how long will there family persist?")  [edit:  Except, I suppose, so support the theory that the answer is "yes".  Is it?]

(2)  Do you here refer back to your idea of actually physically providing the "basic needs" stuff for people?  How do you envision implementing this?  Mass housing, for instance, didn't work out too well in the '60s, or so I hear. 

(3)  So you're justifying a person having absolute right to indefinite amounts of money beyond what he could ever want for himself or his family on the basis that he (or future heirs) might want to give it away? 

And actually, in the Dog in the Manger story I'm familiar with, the dog is not starving but simply lying in the hay.  I guess you could argue that he's getting something out of lying on hay but it's certainly much less than the cows.  It's true that in your idea the cows would not starve without the hay either, but the point is not letting someone else have something that one cannot use. 

(4)  A.  I would dispute that since it's only recently that the "death tax" terminology became widespread.  And people also seem more resistant to even the progressive income tax itself lately, which to me sort of torpedoes the whole idea of its corrupting influence.  (My evidence is the top bracket's taxation level and the amount of resistance it's getting to go up a few points to 1990s levels.  Just imagine if Congress tried to put them at late 1910s, early '20s, '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s, or early and mid-'80s levels!)  As for other countries ... I don't know as much about them. 

B.  I was actually referring to your comment, "With a "Government knows when you are making too much" mentality who knows what's next."  As I said, the progressive income tax is almost a century old, and as YOU said, the consequences have already manifested.  So I remain confused what you meant here if it wasn't ominous handwaving.

(1)  It's true that the estate tax is specifically aimed at relatively wealthy estates.  Partly this can be viewed as a check on entrenched plutocracy.  Another way to view it is as simple practicality:  wealth taxes are difficult to assess (easier to hide) and it's just not worth it for small estates. 

(2)  While it's true that many "basic needs" items are sales-tax-exempt, it's also true that poorer people spend much higher proportions on their income on consumption.  What is your evidence that sales taxes fall more heavily on the wealthy? 

(3)  But they're NOT relevant to the specific discussion of "progressive vs. flat income tax" unless you want to account for the effects of those other tax burdens on people when deciding.  If we are discussing the income tax as the ONLY tax which would be imposed, then those other taxes are totally irrelevant to the discussion.  Like I said in the quoted text.  You can start a new discussion about that, but I consider our plate relatively full already. 

(4)  I'm not convinced this is true, as I said in my other post.  Anyway, your flat tax idea would exempt the "basic needs" income (or have the gov't provide those basic needs); isn't is reasonable to suppose that there is a basic estate that a family needs to retain through generations?  (Aside from the practical considerations outlined in (1).)

Anyway, why do you think people have that motivation instead of that the rich can simply afford to pay more without equivalent hardship?  You may disagree with that opinion, but it's hardly the "crabs in a bucket pulling each other down" image that you evoke.

1)  It's not what i'm suggesting.  It's actually what your suggesting by broadining "Practical use".  Since the future practical use would superseed luxuary purchases in such an expansion. 

2) Mass housing could work out well... if done correctly by using tract housing and embracing some new lower cost housing techniques.  There are actually some amazing, cheap ways to make housing.  These ways tend to be blocked out however.

The most novel way... http://www.garbagewarrior.com/press.html

There are other ways and building matierals that are actually cheap and work well however, but don't see market use because they don't look pretty and their isn't enough profit in them... and additionally people seem to block them out cause they don't want the neighberhood uglied up or states don't want to be mocked etc.

I learned of some really interesting techiniques that could be used to build housing... including some interesting molding methods.

(not as crazy as the trash houses.  I want one of those though)

Also... we are in a dowturn in the housing market afterall.   There are houses by me that go for anywhere between 2-6K.

3) The Dog in the Dog and the Manager story starves.  So do the cows.  That's the whole point.  The dog sits on the hay... and the cows want to eat it.  The Dog having to sit on the hay to protect it can't leave the hay to eat.  The cows starve... then the weakened dog... lying on the hay dies because he refused to leave.

http://www.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/lestrange/76.htm

Aside from that.  Why shouldn't someone be able to aquire as much wealth as he wants?  I still don't see the difference in someone making as much money as he wants vs someone buying as many TVs as he wants etc.   I could buy an infinite number of TVs in which I can't watch them all... the government doesn't take away my TVs. 

You say there is a difference there... I don't see it. 

There is a difference in why we have the progressive tax now... and why you want a progressive tax.   The reasons we have the progressive tax now is mostly stated as "We need it to pay for the government.  The poor can't pay anymore so the rich have to take one for the team."

Your reasoning seems to indicate you think those who get rich are being immoral.

Do you think those who get rich are immoral?

4) Other countries, as they got more socialist started putting in wealth taxes.  France, Sweeden, Luexenburg... a few others that are more socialist then others.  All seem to have had pretty negative effects... as a lot of money fled the country.

You don't think people are getting more socialist in the US?  Everyone seems to think the "Windfall profit tax" of Obama's is a great idea... despite the fact that Windfall profit taxes never work.

B) This really can be answered largely by your answer to the bolded question.

1) No real comment here.

2) Currently yes.  Under a new system where basic needs are taken care of though... this shouldn't really be so.  Unless people are spending irresponsibly.

3) Except you don't support sole income tax.  So it really seems like an arguement of "Flat tax vs Progressive tax + other taxes.  In your perferred system it seems these taxes would stay.

4) Define basic estate.

People work harder to not work hard.  "Hardship" is really an abstract concept... and really doesn't come in to pay much after you account for needs.  One of the largest causes of hardship is not being able to afford needs.   Once this is taken care of... there ins't that much difference in the well being between a rich person and a poor person.  The rich person is actually under more mental stress and duress... when you remove the "not sure if i can pay my bills effect."  (Aside from those who don't do shit and burn through there money anyway.)

In such a case.... once again it's the middle class person who wins out in this.

(2)  I see.  I didn't realize that you were talking about your system and not the current one. 

(3)  I don't currently have any opposition in principle to an income tax + estate tax system.  When did I say that I thought the current system was ideal?  That's what we're arguing here, right, ideal systems? 

(4)  To be honest it's just an idea I threw out, I hadn't thought about it much.  But there are some people to whom the perpetuation of a certain intact estate is fairly vital.  Farms, for instance.  And for everyone, there are heirlooms and so on that may be quite valuable but it would be pretty awful for the government to take some away.  But the practical considerations limiting the collectibility of estate tax on small estates outlined above would IMO give plenty of protection against this and I am pretty sure that there are exemptions for farms and other similar considerations. 

(5)  (A) Maybe I'm using the wrong term again with hardship ...  but are you sure you're right?  What is your evidence?
(B) Anyway, whether that's right or wrong, that would still be a different sentiment than the one you previously characterized.  Are you backing down from that assertion?

(1)  Ok, then, are you truly suggesting that a person would have to make more money than he and his heirs would ever NEED to spend, for all time, before he had "more than enough"?

(2)  I hadn't heard of him.  I'd like to explore this more, but I suspect it would expand our debate too much.  For the moment I'll suppose that the government directly providing basic needs to all wouldn't be a complete disaster. 

(3)  That's not the way my story goes.  In the future I'll try to remember to make sure there aren't a bunch of alternate versions running around when I reference something. 

As for there being a difference between taxing income and taxing wealth ... I think I've addressed this before.  Taxing wealth is harder and would tend to hurt people more.  The government will get some of your TVs when you die. 

I would characterize my reasoning as "The rich can more easily afford to pay more". 

Um ... no.  No.  ... No.  (I would, however, go so far as to say that I think a person who amasses a Bill Gates level of fortune would be immoral or at least amoral not to start giving some of it for charitable purposes.  He has, of course.) 

(4)  (A)  Evidence plz. 
No, in fact I don't see evidence of that over the past couple of decades, although I wouldn't be surprised if the current crisis had that effect.  That would be similar to what happened in the Great Depression and NOT a validation of your assertion (that the progressive tax is corrupting minds to be socialist). 

(B)  Only if you assume that the answer is yes ... oh wait.  So you're saying that the final (or at least next) injustice inflicted by the evil progressive tax on our society will be the complete conversion of young minds into rabid socialists who think anyone making more than ten times poverty level should be burned at the stake?

5) The article i posted previously stated as much. When breaking down day to day well being... the poor only were slightly more stressed then the rich... mostly because of finacnial decisions.

There have been all sorts of studies on this.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/43884/output/print

It's basic psychological conscensous.  (Also majored in psychology.)

Well, you're the sociologist here, so please explain to me why it's not just that people gauge day-to-day happiness and sorrow against their overall happiness ... which is higher according to the rich.

Could you also link me to a study that says that about the middle class? This one only mentioned the top ("over $100k") and the bottom ($20k). And is $100k really "rich"? Honest question I assure you, I don't know what is considered the line between upper-middle and just upper.

[edit:  the Newsweek piece seems to be saying that the rich aren't that much happier than the middle class ... implying that they ARE happier.]

Well this is more Psychology then Sociology.

The reason is Overall happiness isn't anything.  It's an illusion.  The person who says they're "really happy" and the person who says they're "not happy at all" but have the same day to day breakdowns of how they feel... feel exactly the same.

It's just they have different ideas on what happy is supposed to feel like... they rich person thinks "I'm rich, therefore i should be happy.  Even when they aren't... and spend most nights unable to sleep worrying about their job.

Or the poor person thinks they're sad, because they're broke.  Even though they spend most of their time laughing and having fun with their friends... because they think people who are poor should be unhappy.

They don't examine it.

^ Makes sense.