http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400_...
Parachutes (and associated equipment) are heavy, so you'll burn fuel lifting that extra weight.
Parachutes are complicated, and would be an extra system to develop, test, and validate.
Parachutes are annoying to repack/replace (increasing turnaround time).
Parachutes put odd stresses on large objects when they deploy (increasing the amount of inspection you would have to do after each flight).
All that hassle to reduce the terminal velocity by a couple hundred miles an hour. That's not that big a win for a pretty high cost.
That's the TLDR. The delta-vee from the parachute is not worth the trouble.
In short, same basic reason why we use wings and wheels to land airplanes rather than dropping them from a parachute when they reach their destination.
What if you have a payload container that was the size and weight limits of the second and third stage, which was put up into LEO by the first stage. The payload would then be picked up by vehicles already in orbit, and the first stage unit returns to earth.
Assuming that the payloads are simply building materials, to be assembled by bots in orbit....
You'd still have to refuel their reaction mass, unless we are talking solar or magnetic sails.
Imagine if somebody replaced your car with a version that had twice the carrying capacity, but would only run for one tank of gas. It wouldn't be a worthwhile trade would it?