A comment over at ArmedLiberal.com pointed out an interesting distinction that explains a lot about the difference between the liberal and conservative view of taxes:

The first analogy is BS. Taxes pay for government services. Most of these are consumed relatively evenly, while the social services are consumed mostly by the poor and less as you travel up the income scale. The fact that someone can afford to buy additional services after paying taxes means nothing.

Are taxes a form of fee-for-service?

…or are they the cost of operating a complex society?

There is a school of ‘literalist’ conservatives (and of course, libertarians) who argue that taxes should be simply fees for services rendered…national defense, police, fire, sewers, parks.

But…liberals like me would argue that there are a broader class of ‘services’ which are somewhat harder to track, and which lead to the operation and maintenance of a desirable society. I fully acknowledge that it’s difficult to reach consensus on what’s desirable, and as I’ve pointed out incessantly, the hand of government doesn’t always accomplish the desirable without significant costs.

But a ‘fee for service’ society would be one that I think few of us would really (as opposed to in costless assertions on the Internet) choose to live.