Why is it considered okay for income level to affect tax rate but not the right to have children? | pressku.com

Some authorities declared successful nan Universal Declaration of Human Rights are routinely constricted by law:

• Right to liberty, entree to nationalist service, remainder and leisure, to freely participate successful nan taste life of nan community, state of activity and residence (and, successful immoderate places, to life) is constricted for criminal convicts.

• The correct to state of sentiment and expression, to manifest belief successful teaching, practice, believe and observance is typically constricted wherever nan opinion/belief is perchance tin of triggering societal disharmony aliases violence.

• The correct to state of serene assembly and relation whitethorn beryllium constricted successful pandemics.

• The correct to free prime of employment is constricted for non-citizens.

Such limitations are allowed by Article 29:

Article 29

2. In nan workout of his authorities and freedoms, everyone shall beryllium taxable only to specified limitations arsenic are wished by rule solely for nan intent of securing owed nickname and respect for nan authorities and freedoms of others and of gathering nan conscionable requirements of morality, nationalist bid and nan wide use successful a antiauthoritarian society.

Now, taxation is supposedly 1 of specified basal limitations to nan correct to ain property (Article 17). So is progressive taxation (variable complaint depending connected nan level of income), albeit not needfully necessary.

Presumably because of nan connection "family" successful Article 16, nan correct to person children is deemed to beryllium 1 of nan basal quality authorities too:

Article 16

1. Men and women of afloat age, without immoderate limitation owed to race, nationality aliases religion, person nan correct to wed and to recovered a family.

Question:

Why is nan very conception of nan anticipation to limit nan correct to person children depending connected nan level of income is truthful disdained? Why could it not beryllium 1 of nan galore limitations to quality rights, a counterpart to progressive taxation — which is very good welcomed?

Anticipating answers for illustration "because specified a limitation would not beryllium purported successful statement pinch Article 29(2)", I explicate further why it would be:

People connected use benefits who person children spot further load connected taxpayers. This load is inclined to turn exponentially because their kids person constricted chances to study really to earn, return benefits for granted and past person their ain kids while still connected benefits. Limiting nan correct to person children until nan personification is tin of supporting themselves would:

• Motivate nan personification to make effort to go capable to support themselves alternatively of relaxing connected benefits
• Promote and foster responsible parenting, limit nan likelihod of youths becoming criminals
• Ease nan load connected taxpayers (or nonstop nan money into infrastructure etc.), frankincense thief "due nickname and respect for nan authorities and freedoms" and "the wide welfare".