(1) After a quick visit to Wikipedia I think it would be more accurate to say I meant "standard of living" or the physical half of quality of living.  That is somewhat more measurable.  Continued in (5).

(2&3) It may be opinion on what the ratio is exactly, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.  I am not knowledgeable enough to identify exactly what ratio to apply so that high-income individuals are not hurt more than low-income individuals, but I am nevertheless certain it is above "1:1 above bare survival level of income"  If I could prove there was a god, but not if it was Jewish God or Christian God or Allah or Zeus or Odin, I would still know that there is a god. 

(4) You make a good point.  But I stand by my position that people with higher incomes are more able to pay a higher percentage with fewer ill effects. 

I could make a few arguments to try to justify its "fairness".  Your alcoholic friend is helping stimulate the economy by spending; when you buy property you are relying on more government services/protection than if you have none; etc.  But to be honest, these are justifications.  Life isn't fair.  Most of the people who make less money than you probably aren't stupid or somehow lacking but just didn't get the breaks or opportunities you did.  Most of the people making more money than you probably got a leg up for some reason.  And besides, the people making less could use it more.  (See (5).)  And they WILL spend it, which helps the economy and the investors who are the great majority of high-wealth, high-income people. 

But please remember that although the progressive income tax can accurately tax wealth in society on average, it doesn't ACTUALLY tax wealth. 

By the way:  in my state, schools get at least some of their money from special property taxes.  I don't know if this is the norm throughout the U.S.  People without kids aren't exempted.  Unfair? 

(5) OK, so basic necessities for survival are covered.  That's a given.  Now, which would you say is more valuable and helpful to a person:  College education or a summer house?  Which is more satisfying:  a video game system or a second sailboat? 

This is what I meant by "But the first amounts of income after paying for basic necessities improve the quality of life much more than an equal increase (even percentage increase) does for already high income".  I asked you before if you would agree or disagree with this statement.  It doesn't have to be a black or white answer, but please give one. 

(7) Sorry -- I misread the original query.  Why shouldn't they?  If all they are is roommates, why shouldn't they be taxed like everyone else?  If they're married, then there is a system in place to compensate for that.  (And if the system is not sufficient, it could be made so.  I'm not familiar with this.)  If they WANT to get married but can't, that's not the fault of the tax. 

(8) I just find it very implausible that moving AWAY from a progressive tax would result in LESS concentration of wealth.  You have only given the conceptual argument in support of this thesis, which I find unconvincing.  But I guess I didn't make too much sense in the bolded part, as it's correct that we do have the progressive tax you blame for the increasing concentration of wealth. 

Not only unfair but racist.

We have that in Ohio... our supreme court ruled in unfair... mostly because it created defacto sergeation in schools... and means the money isn't spread around evenly.

Whether or not the taxes pay for services you use isn't really an issue to me based on how the consitution is set up.  That shouldn't be an issue... or how much you use said resources... since such a thing would need to be really detailed.

I'll get back to the rest later.

I mean... rich people could take advantage of basic food and shelter arrangements but won't because they can afford better.  People without kids could also attend public schools, though they probably have already.

(5) OK, so basic necessities for survival are covered.  That's a given.  Now, which would you say is more valuable and helpful to a person:  College education or a summer house?  Which is more satisfying:  a video game system or a second sailboat?

Two more before i go.

Depends on the person. I had a college education and it has had no value or no help to me whatsoever.  While some rich guys second home gives him a place to go in the summer.

Which is more satisfying?  Once again... would depend on your person.  Some sailboat enthusiast likely loves sailboats.

Which is a flaw you don't account for.

People have different expectations and standards of living... largely based off of the money they have. 

"Quality of Life" is based off of "Standards of Living" in my opinion.

4) Also regarding this.  Do we know for a fact that most people who are rich had a big leg up on people?

Regardless my point is.  Take an even distribution of people.... and apply it to our current wealth system.

What happens is what happens with my friend and I... on every level.

Those good with money go up.... those bad with money go down in wealth.  Therefore your wealth based initatives aren't really hitting everybody fairly, since the wealth group isn't as evenly distributed as you are making it out to be.

More people good with money are in the top groups then people bad with money and vice versa.

Your entire premise of taking wealth as the defining factor is fundamentally flawed.

I presume by your comments that you consider a good (not-college) education to be a basic necessity.  Otherwise you wouldn't complain that rich people choose to pay more and poor people can't, therefore don't, and get crap as a result.  Correct? 

I think we have different ideas about the basic necessities thing.  You seem to be saying that there will be physical arrangements provided, whereas I was thinking that the cost would somehow be figured out and not taxed up to there. 

I don't think your last statement makes sense, unless you're suggesting that they'd let me go back to high school and take classes just for the hell of it. 

Okay, but on average I think you'd agree that video game systems offer way more bang for your buck, even at a 10:1 ratio. 

And most people do get something out of college.  Your higher education was really that worthless? 

You say at one point that wealthier people have higher expectations about their standard of living.  And they WILL have a higher standard of living.  But I don't honestly see your point.  What people actually need is not dependent on what they think they need, but if that's not what you were getting at then I really don't know what it was you were trying to say here. 

Going back to (4), I remind you again that "although the progressive income tax can accurately tax wealth in society on average, it doesn't ACTUALLY tax wealth."  Before you bought the property in your example, you and your friend paid the same income tax.  And afterward, the income tax only taxed the income from the rent; if you have a problem with property taxes that's a different issue.  If you think that having a tax weighted exactly the same as wealth in society is misrepresentative, then it could be adjusted to compensate for your objection. 

P.S. Your discussion of the specific example implies to me that you DISAGREE with the statement "But the first amounts of income after paying for basic necessities improve the quality of life much more than an equal increase (even percentage increase) does for already high income".

BUT PLEASE CONFIRM OR DENY THIS EXPLICITLY.

Yeah.  In the system i'm talking about things will actually be provided.  Not a tax credit.  It's more efficent that way in my opinion.  Since it's stuff everyone can take advantage of, not everyone will... and it's stuff that's needed.

The last sentence is stating that someone already went to public school... or opted out, but could have.

I do expect a highschool education to be a basic necessity though yeah.

Yeah.  Though I did Major in Psychology and Sociology so.

Lets go with the 1 argument at a time format.  I remembered how eaisly that made things last time.  (Well easier.)

I do deny it.  Based on the fact that people have different levels of "needs" and the like.

For example, you've got a poor person, a middle class person and a rich person.

To a poor person, a trip to Disney world would be amazing, to a middle class person, a trip to Disney world would be great, though somewhat expected, maybe they go every once in a while.  To a rich person... it's downright boring.  Probably.

Now if you want to talk about some sort of tax credits for things that improve your life in specific like say college.  Then that I could understand.  After all, this stuff usually pays off... and is good for the country as a whole.

But when you compare like say... the money someone would use to buy a videogame system.  Vs the money someone else might use for their third system... you can't judge that stuff.

The main problem I have is your trying to attach different values to the same amount of money.  You are trying to make one 20 10, and another 20 30.

When money at is definition is what we use to define what things are worth.

Give someone the choice between a college education, and a second house worth more then the college education, and people will take the house 9 times out of 10.

When you compare it your way... basically everything the rich person has that is above what the poorer person has isn't as important combined as what the poorer person has.

I mean... what's more important?  Someones second TV, or a persons third plasma TV, a Yacht, Private Jet, Backpark Amusement Park, 3 Videogame systems, and the Dallas Cowboys?

In that regard, the person with Two TVs is always going to be less then the person with 3 TVs + because they are going to have less entertainment.

So you deny that you disagree?

Money DOES have different value to different people. Generally it is more important to those who have less.

I'm not completely sure I understand you when you say "basically everything the rich person has that is above what the poorer person has isn't as important combined as what the poorer person has". All I'm trying to say is that equal ratios of monetary increase/decrease are more precious/hard to those with less. I thought that trying to use examples would help but maybe it's just bogging us down.