First, "Dignity of Humans" is not at issue here, as how the federal taxation system is structured has nothing to do with civil rights. That's typical leftist reaching, grabbing, revising and extending.
Secondly, "Dignity of Humans" is a religious or philosophical belief unless you can demonstrate scientifically that humans have or should be treated with "dignity".
Now, a Constitutional issue "Dignity of Humans" may be. Fortunately there is plenty of support in a strict interpretation of the Constitution for the dignity of man. But again, that has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with civil rights, equal rights, the right to not be persecuted, the right to be treated fairly, and YES even the right not to be UNFAIRLY persecuted by the government or the masses simply for living in or having different circumstances, or for being a part of an atypical class.
(Perhaps in your interpretation it could mean the right not to be taxed at disproportionably high scales in efforts to satisfy the misgivings and guilt of those part of or empathetic to certain classes of citizens and their special interests).
And of course, there is no right to a "living wage".... there is only a right for those who are able to earn a living wage- and not to be inhibited by the government in attempts to do so.
You know, I'm sure you have been reading about how well the FairTax deals with this. We all get together in a compromise and decide, "Okay fine. Enough of us insist upon classifying and diving people. So we will all agree to determine who should be considered officially 'poor'." And yes in the FairTax system, much like today, the "poor" effectively pay no tax. (That certainly demonstrates our collective benevolence, with our willingness to unfairly and unjustly yet graciously let the poorest of us get by without having to contribute back to the system, doesn't it?)
So says you and your values or personal beliefs. But keep them to yourself. If you feel this way, then I am sure you are disproportionably giving your wealth away to those less fortunate than yourself. But I really think it odd your willingness to abandon one of your core principles and force your beliefs and values on the rest of the population. Well ok, not really. Inconsistency and irrationality are the price of being "liberal".
Again, it is only you and your philosophical beliefs upon which you make such claims. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, implies, or suggests this.
I mention the Constitution because as far as I know, it is the one plumb-line we all refer to when considering matters of governance.
You have no real basis to proclaim that taxation ought to be based on anything other than flat percentages of income or expenditures, other than "because I say so" or "because it feels and sounds right to me" or maybe even "because Pink Flamingo Goddess of the Northeast told me so"
The same way for every citizen. The same rules for every citizen. Like I said before in a previous post: One man, one vote. One man, 18%. (or whichever it needs to be) Or, one man, one national sales tax for all expenditures. And then there's the universal rebate mind you!
Now THAT is inherently, evidently FAIR. We are instructed to provide for the general welfare? Okay geat! What better way to provide for the general welfare than to likewise abide by all of our other governing priciples in the Constitution and collect taxes openly, evenly, universally, and fairly?
Actually, come to think of it.... based on your reasoning maybe I could argue (as some have before) that my vote ought to have a weight commensurate with my contributions to the government in tax dollars, relative to the total of the dollars contributed by (I mean taken from) my fellow citizens. It should work that way too, right?
Secondly, "Dignity of Humans" is a religious or philosophical belief unless you can demonstrate scientifically that humans have or should be treated with "dignity".
Now, a Constitutional issue "Dignity of Humans" may be. Fortunately there is plenty of support in a strict interpretation of the Constitution for the dignity of man. But again, that has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with civil rights, equal rights, the right to not be persecuted, the right to be treated fairly, and YES even the right not to be UNFAIRLY persecuted by the government or the masses simply for living in or having different circumstances, or for being a part of an atypical class.
(Perhaps in your interpretation it could mean the right not to be taxed at disproportionably high scales in efforts to satisfy the misgivings and guilt of those part of or empathetic to certain classes of citizens and their special interests).
And of course, there is no right to a "living wage".... there is only a right for those who are able to earn a living wage- and not to be inhibited by the government in attempts to do so.
You know, I'm sure you have been reading about how well the FairTax deals with this. We all get together in a compromise and decide, "Okay fine. Enough of us insist upon classifying and diving people. So we will all agree to determine who should be considered officially 'poor'." And yes in the FairTax system, much like today, the "poor" effectively pay no tax. (That certainly demonstrates our collective benevolence, with our willingness to unfairly and unjustly yet graciously let the poorest of us get by without having to contribute back to the system, doesn't it?)
So says you and your values or personal beliefs. But keep them to yourself. If you feel this way, then I am sure you are disproportionably giving your wealth away to those less fortunate than yourself. But I really think it odd your willingness to abandon one of your core principles and force your beliefs and values on the rest of the population. Well ok, not really. Inconsistency and irrationality are the price of being "liberal".
Again, it is only you and your philosophical beliefs upon which you make such claims. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, implies, or suggests this.
I mention the Constitution because as far as I know, it is the one plumb-line we all refer to when considering matters of governance.
You have no real basis to proclaim that taxation ought to be based on anything other than flat percentages of income or expenditures, other than "because I say so" or "because it feels and sounds right to me" or maybe even "because Pink Flamingo Goddess of the Northeast told me so"
The same way for every citizen. The same rules for every citizen. Like I said before in a previous post: One man, one vote. One man, 18%. (or whichever it needs to be) Or, one man, one national sales tax for all expenditures. And then there's the universal rebate mind you!
Now THAT is inherently, evidently FAIR. We are instructed to provide for the general welfare? Okay geat! What better way to provide for the general welfare than to likewise abide by all of our other governing priciples in the Constitution and collect taxes openly, evenly, universally, and fairly?
Actually, come to think of it.... based on your reasoning maybe I could argue (as some have before) that my vote ought to have a weight commensurate with my contributions to the government in tax dollars, relative to the total of the dollars contributed by (I mean taken from) my fellow citizens. It should work that way too, right?
By dignity of Humans I refer to the fact that over taxing the lower incomes , so that the higher incomes get tax releif in inherently unfair.
I wasnt refering Specifically to the "FAIR TAX" this thread has moved to cover more than specific proposals , people have advocated flat taxes and consumptions taxes , Etc. therefore the scope of the thread has moved more ino the realm of what kind of taxes are just.
As to the constitution I would prefer you were more specific when you say proportional income taxes are not following it.
I think the Constitution gives much more authority reguarding Taxes then you seem to imply.
*****************
Article 1 -
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Ammendments -
Article XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
******************************************
Other references to taxes deal with the repealed counting some people as only partial peopel for tax purposes. Prohibition on Taxes for interstate commerce. And reference that enumeration for direct taxes needs to be based on census. A specific execption is made for this in the 16th ammendemnt.
I simply can not see where in the Constitution a proportional income tax is prohibited.
