This is the second time I’m asking you to stop making dozens of posts in a row. I won’t ask you again.
Now, for the actual points:
so should my friend Marcos pay $75,000 year in taxes because my dad does?
Why not? He pays the same amount for a loaf of bread and cell phone service.
Or is it based on life situation?
Why isn’t the amount of money he pays for a loaf of bread or cell phone service based on life situation?
I am paid on salary and pay the same percentage of income as those of other other jobs. I also learn a lot less because I only work part time so I'm not in a better financial situation than others that get paid hourly and work more. Isn't pay based on labor?
Pay is not based on labor. Labor has an indirect influence on pay, but it’s ultimately based on the intersection of the supply and demand curves. The demand curve has nothing to do with labor; it’s based on purchasing power and derived value. The supply curve is not just labor; it’s labor supply, which also involves scarcity.
More importantly, these curves are not straight lines in any real situation. The value people get for a dollar isn’t a straight line either; academically, it’s usually approximated by a logarithm, though that’s just an approximation. It matches up with my own personal experience, though: my first thousand was “worth” a lot more to me than my second thousand, even though both are obviously worth a thousand dollars in money.
Or do you think my dad should pay higher tax amounts and a greater amount of money?
That would be more fair, in the sense that it would more accurately approximate a world where tax burden has the same negative utility for everyone. It might not be optimal to use a progressive tax formula, though, depending on what you’re trying to do: there are a lot of downsides to progressive taxes, because making them work requires accurate accounting of everyone’s income: what happens when someone’s paid in stock, for example, or when someone controls a lot of money that isn’t actually in their name.
I am not a no-caveats supporter for progressive taxation; the more complex a law is, the more room there is to hide loopholes. I’m not really in favor of a constant value tax, either, since it’s blatantly unfair, but the idea of making all the accounting stuntwork that rich people use to be able to effectively control lots of money without actually having very large salleries entirely moot gives me a lot of jollies, because it makes having an accurate picture of the world much simpler when people aren’t incentivized to game the metrics. In any case, a constant rate tax is almost as unfair as the constant amount, but it still requires the government to know everyone’s income. Truly the worst of both worlds.
You want something "more interesting" that's even more regressive than what I support? Why don't you pay the $100,000 a year my dad did in taxes when you both received and benefited from Stuff like fire protection, police, public schools, health inspections?
It should be self-evident that if a large number of people literally cannot afford to pay taxes, then the taxed amount is too high. Obviously, since lots of people don’t earn $100,000 a year, that’s too much.
I’ll bet you most people with low income relate their wealth directly to hourly pay
I reiterate: that’s not actually true, because overtime pay, benefits, and paid lunchtime all add arbitrary cut-offs that don’t linearly relate hours worked to dollars earned. Why do you think so many companies insistently avoid hiring full-time employees?
If price of goods are the same as taxes paid as all those governmental benefits why don’t the poor pay the amount of the rich for them because everyone uses it and it definitely has the same value for everyone?
It doesn’t work that way because it isn’t fair. Tax brackets exist for the same reason; just like the relationship between utility and dollars is neither flat, nor a straight line.