No, bad. The federal government is no where near its smallest size and no one is happy with how they're executing. The last thing we need is to give them more money and power.

People are unhappy with partisan gridlock, not with the services government provides (i.e. people hate politicians but friggin' love Social Security and Medicare).

Right, the FCC is completely inept, so let's let a bunch of Telecoms write the laws for us, like Title X. Three cheers for deregulation!

You know you can voluntarily send more money, right?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

I'm sure it's already on your to-do list, of course.

I see this argument a lot but it seems specious to me - though anyone can voluntarily overpay their taxes, the lack of a guarantee that other taxpayers will similarly be contributing more means that my personal overcontribution will be meaningless to everyone but me.

Can we maybe try cutting back on optional trillion-dollar wars instead, and see how that goes? Just as a temporary experiment? If it doesn't work out, you can always raise my taxes later.

When someone misuses their money, you shouldn't react by giving them even more. Really, is this such a radically-offensive position for me to take?

No of course not, and I'd like to see less tax money spent inefficiently as well. My point was simply that it's specious to tell any one advocate of increased taxation that they should just foot the bill out of their own private pocket. That's not the point of taxation.

What is the best way to answer people like that, then?

I think it's specious for him/her to ask other people to pay more money when the existing funds are being managed so badly. Clearly he/she wholeheartedly approves of the current Federal budget, but it's not valid to assume that the rest of us feel that way. It's just another case where people cut the government some slack that they'd never grant to a corporation.

At least you're admitting that you want more taxes so that everyone else is forced to pay for stuff you want. It's the nature of taxation, obviously, but it's so often hidden being euphemisms.

It's also theoretically the nature of democracy - people pool their assets and collectively decide what to do with them. Not every individual member is going to feel like they're paying in what they want or getting out of it what they want, and everyone's a critic. But where you say, "everyone else is forced to pay for stuff you want," I think the less belligerent statement of principle would be, "everyone collectively pays for what the majority decide on."

"Everyone collectively pays for what the majority decide on" is technically correct (assuming for the moment that budgetary issues actually correlate with the population's desires, and omitting for the moment people who pay no taxes), but it is phrased in a way that seems intended to obscure the fact that you as an individual are forced to pay regardless of both your acceptance of your government's policies and the institution of democracy itself.

Right, the advocates for increased taxation don't want to pay more themselves-- they could do that now-- they want the other guy to pay more.

How they think this won't make them poorer as well shows they aren't really thinking it thru.

There's a difference between throwing money at the government, and contributing my share as part of a larger tax system.

Unwillingness to do the former does not equate to unwillingness to do the latter.