You do realize the reason they're calling for high taxation is to reduce the costs of kids going to college, child support, and the elimination of major medical not covered by insurance?
Edit: Sorry, child support should be removed from that list; I was thinking of the costs of raising a child, not what you pay after a divorce.
If the cost of those and impact of taxation varied at the same time and the same degree that would be no problem. But that has never happened. Given the state of our governmental problem-solving ability in the US all those numbers can do is diverge.
Also, it's not a zero-sum game. Your taxes can drive up demand to make you even wealthier. Except, perhaps many wealthy people don't actually want more wealth. They just want to be better off then everyone else...
It's not irrelevant - you claimed that the reason legislative deadlock occurs is that people refused to be taxed more. What about the people who refuse to cut automatic increases to spending? Are they to be absovled?
Considering the context of this thread, which is about reasons to increase spending and the fact that this would never happen in a deadlocked legislature, the idea that people who refuse to cut spending would be to blame is sort of contradictory.
Edit: Sorry, child support should be removed from that list; I was thinking of the costs of raising a child, not what you pay after a divorce.