If you want to postpone one of these two avenues of discussion, I want it to be the other one.

How do you not have to define it?

Your entire point is based on it... and the problem is... you are using the term incorrectly.

I don't disagree that at some point someone may make more money then they could ever use.  However I do disagree that

A) That amount can be ascertained... nor is it even neccisarily an amount the Super Rich currently have... afterall how long will there family persist?

B) That it even matters in the first place, and that it is someones fundamental right to aquire as much wealth as they so choose.  Just as it is someones fundamental right to spend their money however they see fit.

C) Anything based on such a system is inherently flawed as

First, it seems to me that practical use (as you defined it) =/= practical benefit (as a general value). Practical uses are what makes the money be of practical benefit. You buy transportation, that's the use. How much does it help you? That's the benefit. Different people will benefit different amounts and overall averages will emerge, or would if the study was possible to do.

Let me return to what I proposed: "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."

We are only talking at this point about whether the third factor I mentioned is assuming the conclusion (whether the ratio is flat or not).

Taking another look at the Wikipedia entry for standard of living as well as your earlier posts, it would appear that I've overlooked the fact that SOL is actually a "score" that a country gets based largely on income distribution. So you're correct to say that a progressive tax would obviously cause higher scores here than a flat tax, although the study wouldn't be comparing the two tax schemes. Furthermore, that's not really a good indicator of a person's well-being. I only really threw SOL in to emphasize the material benefit, when I should probably have just said QOL.

I still don't think that what I MEANT to say the study would be about would assume a conclusion, but I concede that what I DID say had that fallacy.

Moving on: 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"?

AND that even past that point, there is no moral incentive to remove that excess (by every definition) money to give it to those less fortunate? (That, in fact, it is fundamentally wrong to take it away!)

P.S.  You didn't tell me what was wrong with my reasoning (in the last pre-postscript paragraph). 

P.P.S.  I'm curious what you were going to say in (C) after it was cut off. 

Seriously.  Please respond.  The post I'm referring to is IMO much more important than tearing apart my already-discredited hypothetical study, although I'm happy to do that as well.

Like i said last time.  I have no clue what you want me to respond to in there as I thought i already had.

By your apparent expanded definition of "Practical use" it would.

Aside from that it  is indeed immoral to take from one unwillingly to give to another simply on the basis of the second having less when there is no threat to a persons well being.

The whole problem is you keep trying to expand these terms well past what they actually mean... to seemingly include luxuary items and frivelous things.

If this isn't your intent why wouldn't a flat tax with tax deductions for things that actually increase someones quality of life be better?

Please point out where you talked about property taxes, wealth taxes, estate taxes, and sales taxes after that post.

That post must of never got posted.  Could of swore it was in there.

Anyway.  Even as an indirect wealth tax it is still a wealth tax... it doesn't apply to everyone and that's a bit confusing since the reason the poor are usually exempt from paying taxes are moot. (The person is dead, therefore has zero cost of living.) 

Just an indirect one... and yeah, basically I meant that sales taxes and in general things sales taxes are wealth taxes because they do target the wealthy more since sales taxes do not apply to everything. (Though with the current system as it is, that isn't a problem.)

Also i would argue such taxes are relevent since I would think that all taxes should be through a straight income tax.

More and more it seems the support for wealth taxes grow.  We haven't had any yet.  But progressive taxes and wealth taxes both set out to do the same thing.  Take money from the rich because people believe the rich have too much money.

(1)  I presume you mean it "would... assume the conclusion"?  If so, how?  If not, what did you mean by this? 

(2)  If luxury items shouldn't be counted then wouldn't that make more income even LESS beneficial than what I suggest? 

(3)  Are you, then, an advocate of the dog in the manger?  Keep in mind that the money to be taken (or not) is specifically completely useless to the current owner.  But please also answer the first half of the question. 

(4)  (The postscript)  You still didn't tell me.

(5)  (The post-postscript)  I guess this one isn't a big deal. 

P.S.  I have to go do yard work now so go ahead and take your time.  I look forward to your full responses.

1) I mean, you are stretching the terms of practical use to include things that aren't practical use.  As such second generation practical use (and beyond) are actually more practical.

2) Less beneficial?  No it would make the cutoff extremely low though.  Which is the point.  In the tax system we are discussing most stuff that actually counts as "practical use" is provided.  Which instead of having  a progressive tax system it seems to make more sense to give tax credits for "pratical use" items.  This is more effective as it prevents abuse.  (People instead of buying a car spending their money on non practical use items like any rich person would.)

3)  In your opinion it is compeltely useless to the current owner.  The current owner may have a different opinion however.  After all why would he keep money around that is completly useless to him?   Look at Bill Gates for example.  Super wealthy... is his money really useless to him?  He gives a lot to charities... has his own charity fund.  Isn't this usefull to him?  That he can direct his money to the charities which he thinks are most important and most vital?  Even if someone dies rich... and leaves his money to his family.  Is that really a useless act?

The Dog in the Manger refrence is completly irrelvant as the entire point is the cattle starve and the dog staves.  In this case we've already established nobody would starve.  Furthermore.  Such a thing would seem to once again not even be related to income... but wealth.

4) If you mean by "what's next" I would say that more and more people have grown more happy with the idea of inacting wealth taxes.  If you look at other nations wealth taxes have been reapplied as they go more and more socialist.  (Reapplied since wealth taxes are an older inferior system of taxation.)