Doesn't this already exist? If you don't think you're being taxed enough, cut a check to the treasury.

Jon Stewart is the sh-t

One issue regarding people and cutting spending and even size of government is that most people are very likely lovers of big government:

Funny thing about this.  Almost everyone doesn't think they pay too little taxes on a personal level.  But they feel that the upper class, rich, and corporations, pay too low taxes.  A decent percentage also feel that the poor don't pay enough (over 20%):

 http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

Most people feel what they pay now is fair though.  That is the thing, no one thinks that they don't pay enough.  The thing is that paying the government isn't something done for giggles in its own right, but to do things with it.

Yeah.... the argument stops right here. If you're going to throw such absurd, ignorant, arrogant, bullshit at me like that, then why the hell should I waste my time continuing what had, until now, been a relatively reasonable debate?

If you would actually compare having a portion of your income used by the government to do things that help not just you, but everyone else around you, in a way that no one individual would do on their own, to forcing people into labour camps and into the army, then there's really no help for you.

And I not once said that other people should pay instead of me. Indeed, that's YOUR argument - that people who feel that keeping society running should be choosing to give up their money, while those who aren't as concerned should get to keep all of their money. In other words, conservatives want only liberals to pay for all of those wonderful things that government actually does for them, like subsidies, road construction/maintenance, KEEPING THE ENTIRE COUNTRY RUNNING.

And for the record, the word is "ludicrous", not "ludacris". Ludacris is a rapper and an actor.

Now, when you're willing to be reasonable, we'll return to actually continuing the debate. But I expect some sort of recognition, first, that you went way beyond reasonability.

1. One republican has extra paid money to the IRS, about $49,000 over the last two years. Warren Buffet has matched it, as he promised. Given all the talk by the Republicans about the problem with high debt, you would think they'd all happily show that they're devoted to cutting it.

2. Warren Buffett extended the promise to Democrats in congress, too - he'll match money given by Democrats, too.

3. You want to claim that he has millions in unpaid taxes to the IRS? Source, please. And no, Buffett's NetJets company's tax situation is not valid, as that's a case of contested tax currently going to court (because NetJets decided to sue the government, and the government then countersued), not unpaid tax.

4. Buffett has no problem with playing the same game that everyone else does. He just wants the rules changed to remove the loopholes. While the loopholes are still there, he would be insane not to use at least some of them. If all rich liberals gave massive amounts of money to government, and all rich conservatives didn't, then those rich conservatives would have a lot more money to throw at media, etc, to get conservative governments elected. And that's the real motivation for arguments of "how about rich conservatives pay less tax, and rich liberals pay more tax" with no further impacts beyond that.

The thing is... find somewhere where most people DON'T think the rich don't pay enough taxes.

Most people will think the rich don't pay enough taxes, because the rich have more then them... and it's in most human's nature to be mad when somebody else gets more... often to their own detriment. 

See many game theory expeirments where a subject is told they have the ability to accept a deal and they and the person splitting it will both get money... or reject it... and they will both get nothing.  When told the person has decided to give them 30% of the wealth.  Most people in spite will veto the deal insuring both people get nothing.  Intentionally harming themself, just to intentionally harm someone else.

The French just voted for someone who wants to raise the taxes on the rich to 75%.

I'm not sure there i a tax level high enough that people would be satisfied with permanently.  (Well outside a salary Cap like Khan wants.)

Karl Marx's greatest insight was when he said a town would be peaceful, whether everybody was rich, or everybody was poor and that struggles only really come up when some neighbors end up outpacing others.

That is how most people think... although they shouldn't.  Overall benefit to yourself and society should be judged higher then worrying about being outpaced by your neighbors.

If you don't actually know what you're talking about, please don't try to make it sound like you do.

The game theory thing you're referring to is the Prisoner's Dilemma. Here's what it says:

Suppose that you have two prisoners. The two of them are to be charged with a crime that they committed, and they are separated and each is interrogated. If both choose to stay quiet and say nothing, both of them will get 1 year in prison.  If one of them rats on the other one, the one that rats will go free while the other one will get 10 years in prison. If both rat on the other, they will both get 9 years.

The result is that the most beneficial thing for each one to do (not knowing what the other one will do) is to rat on the other one, and as a result, they both get 9 years, even though both staying quiet will benefit both of them much better. It's not about intentionally harming themselves in order to harm someone else, it's about getting the best for themselves when they don't know what the other one will do.

Suppose you're prisoner 1. If prisoner 2 stays quiet, then if you rat on them, you go free, whereas if you stay quiet you get a year in jail - better to rat. If prisoner 2 rats, then if you stay quiet you get 10 years, whereas if you rat you only get 9 years - better to rat. Either way, ratting is the better action for the individual, but collectively staying quiet is the better action.

And this is precisely the idea behind government - to act collectively to get the better overall result, a result that, with regards to game theory, is unlikely to happen because people are inherently selfish (and nothing wrong with that - but it does mean that things end up being much worse when people act exclusively as individuals).

What is interesting, in that survey, is that a decent percentage believe the poor don't pay enough taxes.  The group, which currently has the most people, thinks the middle class either pay enough or too much.  And an overwhelming percentage don't believe the rich pay too much.  It is human nature to want the game of life to be "fair".  The want to believe that you are getting your fair share, even if the pie is smaller.

By the way, here is something to do.  Take that all of nothing split offer, take or leave it and pit every number against every other number, splitting different ways.  What I did was I saw around 30%, is where the person did best in these all or nothing offers are done.  Like the individual who ends up wanting 90% shuts everyone out.  The person who gets at 10% take doesn't get a lot.  It is around 30% actually, when dealing with everyone, who does the best.  50-50 split guys do worse, because the ones who want more than 50%  will not deal with them.  I just did a simple run on this. I would leave it to others to try and see if they get different results.  What I can see, in a society full of greedy folks, the one who would take less, would end up getting more deals done, while the greedy folk who won't split fairer, go hungry.

I think part of the whole not wanting to do deals if someone gets a bigger share, also comes out of a sense of justice one feels.  It is like, if you feel the person gets a lot more, they could be scamming, and they must be stopped.  People who feel someone is being cheap and ripping people off, will act that way.  Sometimes, it just isn't worth it also, for a small amount.

By the way, there is this game, which looks into deal making and how people split, that is interesting:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/115/im-the-boss

It's less intresting then you'd think.

There is a sociological/psychological trend where people tend to think they're "Average."

(a correct reading would of course show 10's all across the board.)

Hence why everybody thinks the middle class pays enough/too much...

because EVERYBODY thinks they're the middle class. whether they make 20,000 or 300,000.

Feeling the poor need to contribute more is pretty expected honestly, if you consider the fact that hard working poor people think they're middle class, and often see themselves shut out of welfare often for worse relatives get a lot of support... or in general people feeling like there taxes are too high.

A lot of people fighting the "Top 1%" likely didn't realize they were in it, thinking the top 1% were all millionaires.