This argument completely ignore economic factors of taxation and instead looks at motivation, which is going to be different on a case by case basis and virtual

This argument completely ignore economic factors of taxation and instead looks at motivation, which is going to be different on a case by case basis and virtually impossible to "prove". Personally, as a liberal (who, combined with my wife, is in the "rich" tax bracket), I too see taxes as a necessary evil as well but I also see it as a way provide additional support to those in need with respect to social programs. I don't see it as a way to "level the playing field" as claimed, but thats just my motivation as a counterpoint . A Keynesian liberal (and I probably fall in this camp) sees higher taxes as both a way to fund social programs and fuel the economy so good for the community and good for the pocketbook. There's a whole other world of hurt when you look at that "at least in theory" part. Recent history has shown conservatives being very good at lowering taxes but totally inept at the corresponding reduction in spending. Liberals tend to be better at staying true to their higher taxes, higher spending line. I'm a liberal but I can understand the basic conservative, libertarian economic argument (I have issues with libertarian theory but thats another flamewar) and can even see it as, perhaps, a viable model. But if they can't decrease spending while cutting taxes then their model fails completely.