You could also make the argument along other lines, such as that the wealthiest individuals have benefitted most from the cohesion/quality of the society, and should therefore be most responsible for its upkeep in kind.
You could also make the argument along other lines, such as that the wealthiest individuals have benefitted most from the cohesion/quality of the society, and should therefore be most responsible for its upkeep in kind.
Making the exemption wider doesn't really escape your earlier argument.
And yes, even though it wasn't my point to begin with, it is possible to distinguish ideologies in the case of wanting higher taxes vs in the case of wanting lower taxes by outcome. In the case of wanting lower taxes, without regard to ideology, both payers would want the taxes on themselves to tend to zero. In the case of higher taxes, the ideologies do differ by outcome in that the ideological party will want to pay something herself, whereas the disgruntled party would have to impose taxes on "the rich" and not on themselves (relatively) to achieve a desirable outcome (this assumes they don't "hate" themselves as well).
Note that this thinking only applies to nations which are currency users, not currency issuers.
For a nation with it's own fiat currency (currency issuers) government spending creates money, and the role of taxes is not to fund spending. Taxes fulfill other roles, like controlling inflation and expressing social policy.
If government spending creates money where does the money the government spends come from?
There are good reasons why budgets should be close to balanced most of the time.