newfangle said:
The better question is asking why most people wouldn't pay and why there isn't a system in place that takes into account this behaviour.
That's an easy one. It's the free rider problem. There are 4 possible outcomes in this situation:
1) You Pay, everyone else pays too. (Everyone wins)
2) You Don't pay, everyone else pays (You Win)
3) You Pay, nobody else pays (You Lose)
4) Nobody pays taxes. (Everybody loses)
Now obviously outcome 1 will result in the most money going to the gov, and (theoretically) the maximum amount of services will be distributed. Everyone pays their fair share, and everyone recieves benifit.
The problem is, you personally get the most out of option 2. This way you keep your extra money, and still recieve the most service, since the money any one person pays in taxes is insignifigant. Obviously, everyone will want to choose this option. Only the really patriotic would choose to pay when others don't, and eventually, they will become fed up with giving money away, and never receiving anything in return.
Eventually, everyone ends up in option 4. Now everyone has slightly more money in thier wallets, but they have neither the money, or ability to purchase things like roads, education, health care, and a military, and everyone loses out.
The free rider problem can be applied to almost every failing in a Capitalist society, and is by far the best argument for why regulation is needed to control free market economies.