The argument on funding our way of life is often one presented as the scalpel or the axe. When it comes to spending cuts, anyway. What if you take the same metaphor and apply it to the revenue side?
The liberal argument is coming up to 313 million people and saying "You should give up some relative percentage of your worth in exchange for the greater good."
The conservative argument is coming up to 600,000 workers and saying "You should give up your entire livelihood and familial stability and potentially your future in exchange for the greater good. And hope you land somewhere." Then looking for other shards to hit at in hopes of crafting the desired angle.
I see the parallels in the difference between the scalpel and the knife. Both have their place, their use. Both are used with purpose. But one is used with thought and precision to keep blood pumping. The other with somewhat-guided hope that the tree falls the right way.
But to summarize; we've already decided the society we want. We want to provide for our seniors, our disabled, our veterans, those of us facing misfortune. Election after election confirms that. So government is going to be there and running off our production. Which is the bigger government overreach: taking a small bit from everyone or taking everything from some?