Robert as an attorney you know the law is always contradictory, otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers or judges, we would simply need to learn how to read. The 16th Amendment is nothing more than an over-reaching catch-all as the interstate commerce act. You can't on one hand say all things should be equal, but we can sometimes make exceptions. The equal under the law arguement has been used plenty of times by the minority, but shot down every time by the wealthy. Why is that? Simply because what I consider a burden, doesn't seem like a burden to you?

Now, moving onto your willingness to take 10k out of my pocket without hesitation frightens me. It's not just 4.6% it's vertical equity loss for me. I am accustomed to a certain income and I will maintain that income by whatever means possible, namely cutting overhead. Your advocation of the progressive tax is shocking considering your line of work and the possiblity you may one day fall victim to it. I would suggest you read a book and maybe rethink your position on progressive taxation. Richard Epstein : Takings

What's mine is mine, why should I have to pay disproportionately more than anyone else? I don't use more services than anyone. I drive maybe a hundred miles a month, I have energy efficient appliances and I recycle everything, so why should I have to shoulder the burden more than my neighbor? It seems that the people without money are always willing to spend the money of others without hesitation. I have a novel idea. How about you simply live within your means. But our government won't do that because we have created a nanny-welfare state.

Has it occured to you that this social engineering could lead to a greater disparity between the classes? Working wealthy will always work, poor unemployed being provided for are less likely to get off the teet.