Also... if studies can't be found... how can it be claimed they can be created?

I mean in what scientific way can "diminishing returns" be measured in peoples lives?

How would you even measure such a thing...?

After all i would think you would measure it by how much stuff of value people can aquire, and how much more money they could aquire.

In which case... the only money that's going to make any difference in said expierement is money used for higher education... IF the person picks the right career and even then it's going to vary widely.  (Some other stuff being used for buisnesses equipment... like buying a snow plow... or buying a company for that matter. So really i guess it'd only matter for schooling.)

So why would you be against a flat tax with a tax credit for higher education?

The property tax is a wealth tax, yes.  Sales taxes (including "sin" and "luxury" taxes) are not actually wealth taxes because you can't be taxed just for HAVING cigarettes, you are taxed when you BUY them.  [edit2:  I think I see what you mean:  the sales tax is a wealth tax because it taxes you turning your money into goods or services.  Still, sales taxes are no more "quasi-wealth" taxes than income taxes are, just in an opposite way.  So I guess your point is that EVERY tax is really a wealth tax?]

Also, [edit2: please note] that property taxes and sales taxes are not relevant to the specific topic of progressive vs. flat income tax.  [edit2:  Sorry for forgetting what your post was in response to.]  If you want to talk about that also then fine, but let's keep the discussions distinct.  (I would be interested in how you believe the property tax is an ideological consequence of the progressive income tax.  Especially since property taxes predate the income tax by FAR.) 

[edit2:  I don't think that you actually answered my question of why you would rhetorically ask "what's next" in reference to the consequences of a century-old taxation scheme, but I also think that it really ought to be dropped unless there's something really remarkable that you fear will yet come to pass as a result of it.]

And I thought that I had made VERY clear, REPEATEDLY, my reasoning for why I don't support a wealth-based tax system and why the estate tax does not present the same problems.  Including in the very post you're responding to!

[edit:  I may, however, have mischaracterized the estate tax as a direct wealth tax when it's apparently instead an indirect one based on taxing the transfer of wealth upon the person's death (to its heirs).  The distinction may be a fine one, but there you go.  Source]

Let me preface my response by saying that I have no background in sociology nor any expertise whatsoever as far as how such studies might be conducted. 

Nevertheless, even if such studies have never been done (which I don't yet concede) I really don't see how that implies that such studies CAN'T be done.  (In response to your first line.)

As for measuring diminishing returns, again I'm no expert but I imagine it's possible for an in-depth study to look at thousands of people making all sorts of levels of income.  A study might look at what people tend to do with their money getting 30k, and how much use they get out of it; and similarly for people getting 50k, and what the extra stuff tends to be, and how much use they get out of it and what the difference is; and so on.  Does the difference between a trailer and a nice house affect people as much as the difference between a nice house and a mansion?  A mansion and Hollifield's hundred-[edit:  room] mansion?  One car, two cars, four cars, Jay Leno's cars?  Et cetera. 

Maybe the study wouldn't work in the way I imagine, but I'm confident that this is observable behavior that can be studied.  No, it's not exact science, but studying people rarely is.

And I disagree with your contention that higher education is the only acquisition that affects people in unequal proportion to relative income (including discounting bare-survival income). 

Interestingly... I do. 

What do you mean what would be the difference between a trailer and some nice house vs the difference between a nice house and a mansion?

Effect them how?  This is what i don't get from your argument.  You aren't beign clear at all what your are considering "diminshing returns."

You've already rejected level of happiness as the measure.

So what is your actual measure you are using here?

Oh? What is you area of expertise, and what is its relevancy to our discussion?  (Although simply having experience in this field of study at all, I admit, gives you an edge here.)  Can you explain to me why something like what I am trying to describe is impossible to measure in a study?

What I have the idea of measuring is a combination of standard of living, quality of life, and the practical utility of additional income in improving these for various levels of income.

What I mean by diminishing returns is that additional income at high levels of income is not proportionally as useful in improving the individual's life. So, the "returns" of improvements in one's life "diminish" in relation to the proportion of increase in one's income.

I had thought I was using this term accurately. Am I not? In what way am I misusing it?

I used it to major in it and have read a lot of research on it before and have conducted research on it.  I know the ins and outs of research on the subject in any case.

The problem with the law of diminishing returns is that it's promarily an economic principil.   If anything it seems that having more money increases your chances and abilities to get more money.  Since you could send said money on many kinds of buisnesses instead of just one buisness it would basically never come to fruition... infact it would be the opposite.

First off.  You couldn't conduct a study with that many people.  Unless it was used soley through crunching number data.

Second off.  Standard of Living is a flawed measurement in general.  As i mentioned previously, standard of living is at perfect influx when in a socialist/communist like structure where everybody is paid the same.

Income distribution is a factor of Standard of living.  Therefore using it in a study to decide what is a good distribution of wealth... or even income is faulty.   Income distribution disrupts standard of living.  There really could be a better living conditions in one country, but the other will read as better soley due to having more evenly distributed wealth.

Third off.  Quality of life doesn't have a good judgement for "stuff people can buy." because of how everybody is different.  In fact it's just assumed that more money = higher quality of life with no sort of correlation drawn.

Furthermore, quality of life issues basically need 7 generations to work.  So for us to know how it would work one would have to make the decision to change to my plan... then wait for 7 generations to see if the outcome was better or worse. (Acounting for unforseen natural diasasters) to see if it was a good idea or not.

Also there is no widely accepted standard for quality of life measurements.

Fourth off... isn't your third factor what your trying to figure out in the expirement? 

Basically none of your factors could be used in your study since they all conflict directly with what your actually trying to figure out.

Your using numbers that assume your hypothisis to be true to prove your hypothisis.

Thank you for the explanation. I'll concede for the sake of argument that my idea about the study is completely ill-conceived. Certainly I haven't given it enough thought to make it pass for professional.

(But no, I'm not assuming my conclusion:  my third factor is not what I'm trying to figure out in the experiment. Obviously increased income (normally) has practical use in benefiting a person. The point we have been debating, which I thought could be found out in a study, is whether this practical benefit is proportional to increased income generally on a constant ratio, or whether the benefit is proportionally greater to increases in income at a lower level (above bare survival income) than at higher levels. The fact that we would be looking for ratios without assuming they were constant is not the same as assuming they were not constant.

(Is there a critical flaw in the above reasoning, aside from the impracticality of the data gathering?)

As I recall, the reason this was even being talked about was because you said that the progressive tax did not have "transparency" and "easiness" of reasoning. I can see that this is not ideal. But the flat tax (of above bare survival income) isn't any better supported.

As for your argument against diminishing returns: I admit I wasn't thinking of investment and its influence on future income, just what the actual income at the time was. Although lower levels of income (above survival level) would also be able to invest, having more money to throw around can give one access to better investments. It comes to mind that the "money makes money" argument is actually one in favor of progressive taxes -- it's easier for high income individuals to make up the difference.

Still, at some point a person has more money than he would ever reasonably need for himself and his family. Do you disagree? If you don't, then there is a diminishing return for practical usefulness somewhere. I just think that it's a gradual trend instead of only applying to the superrich, but it's possible that I'm mistaken.

Also, I really need to know your thoughts on what I said here.  This is fairly fundamental stuff we're talking about, and I'm troubled that you (seem to) have ignored or forgotten my previous posts regarding the estate tax.  Please note that I've amended my post, partially to include new insight into what you MAY have meant (in the first paragraph; please do let me know if I'm right and, if I'm wrong, what the truth is) and also to be less belligerent. 

I don't see what i didn't adress in that post.

The problem would be... what is your definition of "Practical use of money."

That usually refers to, food(healthiest) shelter(basic), clothing (basic), Education, Healthcare and Transportation.

Your definition seems to include all of that plus a bunch of extra luxuaries.

The only other definition I know for "practical use of money" is to not spend it on the luxuaries you talk about and to invest it.  Which people with more money actually tend to do.

Also I don't see why "money makes money" is an arguement for a progressive tax.  If you work harder in something more valued, you get more money, and therefore deserve more options.

The thing is, I don't even need to define the practical use. Discussing the third factor alone assumes that we CAN find out the average practical benefit of a certain increase in income. If a person is making 10k [edit: above bare survival income], how much better off would he be if he made an extra 1k? If a person is making 100k [ABSI], how much better off would he be if he made an extra 10k? 1m, 100k?

ASSUMING for the sake of argument that we can actually find this out [and assign it specific value], and since the goal is figuring out the relative ratios of these income increases' proportional benefits (I hope I didn't mess that up), how is the conclusion (what the relative ratio(s) are) assumed by the third measurement (finding out specific ratios at various levels)?

MOVING ON

You pointed out that people with more money have a better ability to invest it, which produces income with no additional work. (Some people also work where they have invested money, but that's different.) So, it's easier for them not only to make money, but to increase the RATE at which they make money (by reinvesting). Wasn't that your entire point? It then follows that they are less burdened by the removal of some of that income since it's easier for them to make up the difference, according to you. QED What is incorrect about this reasoning?

P.S.  Also, just because it got missed in your response and I think it's relevant to the discussion, "Still, at some point a person has more money (and income) than he would ever reasonably need for himself and his family. Do you disagree? If you don't, then there is a diminishing return for practical usefulness somewhere. I just think that it's a gradual trend instead of only applying to the superrich, but it's possible that I'm mistaken."