Yes.  The PS3, like all goods, should be the same price regardless of who purchases it.  Rich people shouldnt (and for practical purposes could not) have to pay $75 for a can of pop and poor people shouldnt pay $50,000 for a mansion in Beverly Hills.

So you think it is fair for everyone to pay the same amount of taxes as along as the government has enough money to spend?

Once you get over the poverty line I suppose. 

Though this is impossible due to the fact that the government spends tens of thousands of dollars per person.

Taxes are no different then any other service or product... well on second thought.  You can't really opt out.  So having to provide an equal amount of time seems to make more sense.

We aren't talking about time, we are talking about money.  The government doesnt tax you based on how much time you put into something.

So, are you are saying is that people who are poor should pay less taxes because they cant afford it?

We are talking about time.  You are taxed a percentage of your wages which you earn with your time.

Some people work more... some less. 

They are still being taxed a percentage of the time that they chose to work.

If you could charge based on your per hour wage that would be even better.  But we have salaried workers so that would screw things up a bit.

Clearly everyone should be able to make enough money to live before they are taxed however.

Neccesity should not be taxed.  Just luxuary.  Which is everything that  is not neccesity IE food/clothing/shelter (to a reasonable extent, IE: not mansions)

Do you have problems with understanding someones argument and responding to it appropriately? What is so hard to understand about this:

"when taxes are low enough that companies thrive and unemployment is low the low wage earners have far more power to demand more equatible incomes because the companies cannot operate without their work."

In what way did I say that increasing taxes on anyone increased their power?

Beyond that, if I take you (or anyone) out to dinner and I pay the full bill are you more or less motivated to keep the bill at a reasonable cost than if you are expected to pay a portion of the bill? If you insist on always increasing taxes on the top 5% of income earners to what extent do 95% of people have on keeping control on government spending?

Finally, the economy is not better when you shift the tax burden around (because, regardless of who you tax only those who don't have the ability to pass the cost of the tax on are the ones who pay) the economy is better when the tax burden of everyone is minimalized to only cover the services that the government can provide more efficiently than the private sector.

Why can't people look at Seattle spending $165,467,625 for every mile of their light rail transit system, and the Canadian government going 10,000% over budget on their gun registry system, and the hundreds of other examples of government waste that are reported every year and start to realize that the government "loses" more money than it spends efficiently when they undertake a project. Why wouldn't we leave the money in the hands of people who would (probably) cancel a project if it starts to cost more than double what any experienced external contractor would have charged to complete the project?

No one is arguing that the poor should pay the same ammount of tax as the rich because (honestly) that isn't really possible. What people are saying is that the government should treat all people fairly, and everyone should pay the same tax rate. If a person makes 20 times as much money another person they should pay 20 times the ammount of cash ...

You may say that 20% of $50,000 is a greater burden than 20% of $1,000,000 and you're correct, but the benefit the government provides the person earning $50,000 is also far greater than the benefit the government is providing the person who earns $1,000,000 so it balances out.

Wage earners dont demand more income, their income is decided by the free market.  It doesnt matter if you tax a company $100,000 or $1, if the free market values a software engineer at $60,000 a year that is how much he is going to make.

The government has to provide Seattle's light rail system because it the free market would never provide such a service.  There are public goods and private goods, and it so happens that the government is more efficient at providing public goods and the market is more efficient at providing private goods.  This is a simple economic fact, and if you think otherwise I ask you how efficient do you think the army would be if they depended on the free market to provide them with finances, or if you'd like paying a toll booth at every street corner?

Your idea that making people pay more or less taxes will change how they view government spending is a huge and incorrect assumption.  If someone pays $4,000 in taxes and you increase that to $5,000, a light bulb isnt going to flash in their head and change their view on government spending.

I agree with many of your statements.  Which I shy I dont understand why you would want to put a flat tax on everyone.  Surely a poor person who spends most of his money on basic essentials shouldnt pay the same rate as a rich person who spends much of their money on frivolous items.

Actually in both relative and absolute terms the person earning $1,000,000 benefits more than the person who earns $50,000.

The government protects property rights, I.P., security etc and provides the stability for large scale industry to thrive in a country. Without the existance of the government its likely that the person earning $50k could earn no more than $5k and the person earning 1000k could earn no more than $10k.

The only way someone is able to earn and retain a $1M income is due to protection of I.P., property rights, security (police etc), the enforcement of contracts etc. The most libertarian countries in the world are also the poorest because they have governments too weak to function.

So who should pay more for the upkeep of the police force? Someone who has more to steal?

So who should pay for the court system? Someone who has property of value to protect? Contracts to enforce?

So who should pay for the hospitals? Someone who benefits from a healthy society more than poorer individuals?

So who should pay for the schools? The people who benefit the most from an educated and able workforce?

Why?

So should everything work this way? Should I show my W2 to Burger King, so they can adjust accordingly how much to charge me for food?