At what percentage though? All during the campaign, I have heard, from both Hillary and Obama, that they would fund programs with money taken in taxes from the wealthy. A 1-2% tax. After awhile, these do add up to making it harder to fund when the money well dries up. They should pay some taxes, but to be fair, the poor should pay taxes too.
See, even if being rich means having 3/4 of what you earn than all of what you earn, it's still good to be rich and no one will say 'screw it, it's not worth to make a career because after taxes I'll only be able to buy one yacht and not two'.
Only a situation where taxation would create an actual hard cap on the income (that is, earn 100$, gov leaves you 50$, earn 200$ and you're still left with 50$) would actually send things to hell. But that's impossible and no one even suggests it.
I don't see paying taxes as some sort of chastisement or moral judgement of those who pay(you have X dollars, so to keep you from getting to proud and happy, we'll take Y from you). I see it as a necessary contribution towards keeping certain things running like they should, because if those things break, people will suffer.
A good example of this is the money used from cigarette taxes. That money is supposed to be used for smoking related health programs. However it was not used that way, and the taxes keep going up. Soon the market will either go black or go away. Then where will the programs get their funding? The democrats won't let them die. They'll be forced to either kill the program or find funding from somewhere else.
If the cigarette market will go black, the gov will have no choice but to wise up, or they'll end up with smugglers getting rich and the source of tax money drying up.
Just like the market can self-regulate, taxation of goods to a certain degree can adjust itself. If something is priced too high, people won't buy it. If something is taxed too high, people won't buy it as well.
That said, do you know what the money was used on? How do you know it was a democratic and not republican or corporate-lobbied thing?
They might not wish it, but that is an effect of their actions. Their actions and words say that they do not like America as it is. They want to remove rights from people. The right to bear arms, the right to practice your religion, the right of free speech. They are subtle about it, but that is what they are doing.
I think many Americans don't like America the way it is and they are right. And I think someone who sees bad things in their country and wants to improve them is a patriot, not someone who'd sooner see misery and failure than abandon their doctrine(whatever doctrine that would be, mind you).
I definitely do not like the way my country is right now. To tell the truth, I can easily say we're a f...n podunk of Europe and we need to change more than we need to keep. But I like my country and I consider myself a patriot, exactly for that reason.
To bear arms. Everytime a tragedy happens that involves guns, there are calls to restrict gun ownership more. Punishing the people who are not using guns for crimes. Religion. They are wanting to remove all traces of religion, especially Christianity, from any mention or place in government. Free speech. That one is subtle too. by disallowing certain viewpoints to be heard, they can alter what people hear and think. It happens on collage campus already. Some people are harassed when they arrive to speak. Loudly enough that the speech is disrupted. Drowning out free speech.
Bear arms - sorry, I think it's paranoia sponsored by republicans who want to kick democrats in any way possible. There are calls to ban 'violent' video games as well. There's the Bush gov sponsored anti-porn squad and punitive anti-porn legislation. There's corporate-backed banning of online gambling.
But those things don't get nowhere. You have your constitution and I only wish Europe would have something just as legally tough as it. And sorry, but I don't think Americans will lose their guns any more than they'll be unable to play GTA or gamble online.
Removing religion from public view, well... maybe it's democrats that want to remove Christian stuff, but I don't think it was a democrat that wanted to deny a Pagan soldier the right to a pentacle on his grave. No idea who he voted for, but probably not democrats.
And to tell the truth, it's also something that's just filler for spin-doctors and talking heads. No one can 'ban' the practice of religion itself, like above. It's a 'paper tiger' used to scare people.
Separation of church and state though, works. Religion doesn't belong in the goverment in an official way and the goverment should be a goverment of all people, regardless of what they believe in(or not). Many Christians(and other religionists) support this view. It's the fundies that stand the most to lose on this.
Free speech on campuses. Yeah, unpleasant to be shouted down. But that has nothing to do with either party, nor presidental candidate, nor their policy. If US campus culture and ettiquete suck, it's not something the goverment can solve either. (because forcing people to be polite is also a kind of restriction on freedom of speech)
These three things are problems, but none of them can be fixed with voting. Regardless of what party will be in power, there will always be someone wanting to ban guns(and failing), bashing a religion(or lack of it) undeservingly or refusing to discuss an academic topic.