Because the Constitution explicitly authorizes income taxation.
I beleive the point of debate is the use of that tax revenue. I dont think the author of this thread objects to paying for central government programs that are designed to benefit the nation as a whole.
However, programs would give money, tax money, to others in the form of credits that get refuneded after their calculated tax has been reduced to zero, constitues a taking from one person to benefit another.
other than the 16th amendment, there is no mention of income taxation. indeed, article 1 section 2 covers how the federal government was to obtain its revenue. it states:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers”
implying that the federal government must obtain its revenue from the various state governments directly. this seems like a much simpler task than expecting to collect taxation directly from every individual.
also, note that they specified the amount of taxation from any one state would be equated to the percentage of the overall US population that reside within the state. insuring that the tax load on each individual is roughly equivalent.
what they did not do was to specify the rich states, VA and NY at the time, would be expected to pay more per person since those states held more wealth. everyone was expected to be treated equally under the law.
at no point anywhere in the Constitution did the founders allow for the concept of one persons property to be transferred, or redistributed, to another individual or group of private citizens.