What about people that increase spending to wage war? Shouldn't they pay even more still?
Should they? National defense is at least on the list of things that governments "must do".
Except for that whole "must do" part of the war in Iraq.
Congress voted to go to war in Iraq. All of congress. Unlike most of the spending done in the last couple years by the Democrats, the war was bi-partisan. So even accepting your premise (which I don't particularly agree with), your argument still doesn't hold up.
Hey, so it sounds like under your plan, only conservatives get to foot the bill for Medicare Part D, right? Great, I'll expect you to be donating extra tax payments to the IRS for the 2011 tax season.
I already said that forcing people to pay more taxes for what they support is dumb and I don't agree with it. The point is that we shouldn't be funding those sorts of things in the first place. And let me remind you again
that Medicare is paid out of a different set of taxes. You're essentially arguing apples and oranges and avoiding the larger point. People pay into medicare. Like it or not, there is a set amount of taxes that go into paying for it and only it. All the GOP did was change *how* prescriptions are paid for.
That's not remotely the same as eternally adding yet more social spending programs that the Dems think are absolutely essential and then demanding that everyone else pay for it. As I said, if you want to fund charity, there is nothing stopping you. You don't need the government to do it for you.
Of course, I'm not going to be paying extra in taxes for what I believe is a good government program, because I'm not the person suggesting that. According to the rule, if you didn't want the plan you don't have to support it, right? lol
No. The "rule" doesn't work. That's the point. I've explained this to you several times now. No one seriously thinks we should tax people at different rates based on what government programs they support. That would be ridiculous. The point of the exercise is to get you to grasp the concept that perhaps we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing with tax dollars at all. Anything that clearly falls into the realm of "charity" should be left up to private citizens to fund themselves. We should only do with government money, that which only government can do. And while many people don't like this, defense falls into that category. As does foreign and interstate trade regulation, foreign affairs, intelligence, administration, standards, etc.
Providing checks for people who don't have jobs *isn't* part of that list of things that only government can do. How many times do I have to explain this?
Oh wait, does this mean a massive tax break for *** people that can't get married but have to subsidize the benefits of straight, married couples?
Again. My argument is that we shouldn't be funding these things in the first place. The solution isn't to modify tax rates based on what any given individual likes, but to eliminate spending for all those things government doesn't have to be doing. And yes, for the record, the second we agree to eliminate all welfare, income assistance, environmental subsidies, and the zillion other things we spend money on, I'd be more than happy to toss marriage benefits into the pot as well.
Of course, you realize that the only things that marriage gets you at the federal level is questionable taxes (usually higher btw), some social security, pension, and military survivor benefits, right? I mean, you're basically trading away the store for some pocket change here, but be my guest.