Fair Tax can be implemented in such a way so that it is effectively progressive.

Note the or. I said "Stuff everyone gets equally anyway, OR EVEN SOME STUFF...."
I clearly acknowledged the fact that those things did not benefit everyone equally, and they belonged to a second group of benefits, not the group of benefits that everyone gets equally. It's true either way that they don't benefit the rich more than the poor, so it's still unfair to take more money from the rich simply because they have more money.

Didn't you just contradict yourself there? "Stuff everyone gets equally" then bringing up things we don't all receive equal benefit from?

It's not just representation we pay for, it's also all government-provided services, such as free education. Stuff everyone gets equally anyway, or even some stuff (welfare, unemployment, other stuff that shouldn't exist in a capitalist society), that primarily benefit the poor. Either way, it's still unfair to tax one guy more money just because he makes more money. Unfortunately, it's necessary, since the poor would be unable to pay a tax where everyone was to pay the same amount. It's due to effectiveness, not fairess, that we must tax a percentage of income.

I think that if we remember the whole "no taxation without representation" problem, then clearly we should all have a problem with any system where an individual is taxed differently than another based upon ANY criteria, including income. If you are taxed double the percentage, you should get two votes. How can we all expect equal representation, how can we justify unequal taxation?

If taxes must be geographically uniform and the tax from each state must be proportional to the state's population, then what is called for is a flat dollar value tax, rather than a tax that is a percentage of income. If we tax percentage of income, states with a higher percentage of well-paid workers would end up paying more taxes than the constitution calls for. That would be unless the tax brackets were different for each state to make it average out, but if it has to be geographically uniform, then.

If both these points from Mike are true then any percentage tax is unconstitutional, since it would tax higher-income states more heavily than dictated by their population, and low income states would not be fulfilling the requirement dictated by their population.

The power to impose taxes (whether deemed direct or indirect taxes) is granted by Article I, section 8, clause 1. Indirect taxes (or "excises," in the parlance of the text of the Constitution) are required to be geographically uniform, according to Article I, section 8, clause 1 and the court decisions interpreting that provision (see Knowlton v. Moore[4] and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.[5]).

Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution state that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation.

Read deeper

Mike, it's not unconstitutional:

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.

"Without apportionment among the several states." Case closed

Duco, a flat sales tax is regressive if you calculate it by average tax, while a flat tax on income is proportional if you calculate it by average tax

I agree, however you can not possibly ask more from the poor than they can give. What we really need to do is slash spending down drastically and set up a federal sales tax (A small one), abolish the income tax, etc.

That way everybody is happy. It's not a direct tax on income (which is unconstitutional), but it is somewhat proportional too- but not even necessarily- at least no more so than regular state sales tax. A simple flat tax on income is illegal and will harm the poor.

My problem is not so much the tax breaks for the poor, but I have a problem when the gov. says to the rich person, "look, these people can't afford to pay up, so you need to carry their burden, you can afford it though." That, I feel, is unfair and unconstitutional. But the real problem here is that our gov spending is out of control.

For somebody working on pure subsistence 10% would drive them BELOW subsistence levels. For somebody working just above subsistence that might drive them to levels equal to subsistence.