The problem with your comment is that it assumes that because someone benefits more from something they represent the bulk of the cost of that thing. That's jus

The problem with your comment is that it assumes that because someone benefits more from something they represent the bulk of the cost of that thing. That's just not true. Or that taxation should be made pro rata of the utility someone derives from something which is an odd idea. Once you give up that calculus you will be hard-pressed to defend these levels of taxation without consciously conceding that this is in fact organized racket. You can dress it with a skirt and call it necessary, moral, or utilitarian, it's still the same beast underneath.