Me too. In fact, I don't think it's the business of the federal government to know what I make or how I make it.
I oppose it simply enough on this basis:
If I exchange my skills or labor over a period of time for money, that is an exchange, value for value. That isn't "income", it is an exchange. No different than trading the cow for magic beans.
If a person or company pays that exchange, but makes money on that, that difference is income (with the cost of all such exchanges and any materials and incidental expenses deducted from the gross revenue).
Saying those who make the most money (or have the highest value exchanges in practice) should pay more is just wrong, and that is coming from someone who has made it as far up the food chain as the 33% bracket and been back down again.
That the government is bloated enough to have placed us in debt far enough that the value of every good or service produced for a year would not pay off the debt is the problem, considering that debt has not been solely incurred doing what the Federal Government is supposed to do.
It's purpose is to provide for the common defense, to coin money, to keep the post roads open, and to settle disputes between the states. We also hold it to be the authority when other levels of government threaten the Rights enshrined in the Constitution. While the semantically creative may be able to shoehorn the myriad powers the Federal Government has usurped into those functions, for the most part, those additional functions should be the domain of the several States or left to the people and their local governments.
Keep in mind the total level of taxation which the Founders rebelled against was 3%, and it puts in perspective the modern dilemma.