lol Hey Dak, here is another one you're going to love:
Taxes are part of the social contract. It is your legal obligation to pay taxes. Only in that way can the needs decided upon by the voters be met. Only in that way can the rule of law be served. Only in that way can we have any certainty that the roads will be built on time, the military will be funded, etc.
It isn't a business. It isn't a charity. It is a legal obligation. If I think there should be a stop sign at the corner near my house, it isn't an answer to say that I am free to slow down or stop there myself. If I say that I think insider trading should be outlawed, it isn't enough for me to abstain from insider trading myself. When someone from the 1% says they want more taxes on the wealthy, it isn't any different than someone from the 99% saying the same thing. It is an opinion on law and public policy; not something that practically can be met by personal voluntary effort, or should.
Whether I want to pay more or less taxes, or I think you should pay more or less taxes, isn't relevant to the discussion, except so far as it motivates our vote. This is stunningly obvious.
To make it a little MORE obvious, in case this is too abstract: what if people started paying a few billion more in taxes voluntarily? Do the people who paid the extra get to decide how to spend it? If they do, they end up with unfair influence. If they don't, then they are going to be less likely to send in those free billions. Should the Congress budget on the basis that people are going to voluntarily pay more in taxes? If so, then what happens when they don't?
Or consider it from a self-interest standpoint. I have an extra $10,000 to pump into the political system. Should I send in a check to the IRS, and have it go to to a priority I don't want, and have it potentially be so small as to make no difference? Or should I give it to a political candidate, who will implement the policy preferences I want, including my desires about taxation?
