There is a long economic debate to be had about the effectiveness of various tax rates, and that is one quite worth having, but I think the important thing, beyond any sort of economic reasoning, is the moral principle that a person is entitled to, at the bare minimum, a majority of what they have earned, that it is
unconscionable for the government to say, in normal times, that they possess the authority to claim an absolute majority of a citizen's income.
Аverroës is correct in noting there are times of crisis- namely wars, or catastrophic natural disasters- where the compelling interest of the integrity and survival of the nation, of The People, might give the government such a moral authority, and I think we can make exceptions for that. But, by definition, an effective (not marginal) total (including state and local) tax rate over 50%, is confiscatory.
I would prefer a wording that is less rigid, something more along the lines of "We believe that individuals, and not the government, are entitled to the majority of their income,
only in times of great national crisis does the survival of The People preponderate this principle."
(Not sure about the italicised, is sounds rather... clunky. And my concerns about the bodily autonomy part still stands, could we settle for something less... absolutist? My pro-life posturing aside, the wording implies that our position is along the lines of this:
The right to choose should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy, without any questions asked.
TNF presumably believes in total reproductive autonomy.
Perhaps that is what you all believe, but if not it should probably be tempered at least to
some degree. It's so broad. Indeed I think Section 3 in general needs a closer look.
The rest, however, is fantastic.
