YES TAX >< NO TAX

"If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman"
(an excerpt from the song "Taxman" from the album "Revolver" by the Beatles)

Although personally I've always been against taxes, I don't think I would like to erase all the taxes. But, if we argue within the boundaries of the famous maxim by Marcus Tullius Cicero: "In Medio Stat Virtus", we have, in my humble opinion, two doctrines:

1. You pay more taxes and let the State provide you a wide varieties of services
2. You pay less taxes and let the State provide you the essential services

Now the question so many people and governments aren't yet over to discuss is apparently the definition of "where" these two doctrines will lead to.
The left (but we have to cut out left like how we still find in countries like North Korea or Cuba, for we couldn't speak about an "Open-Market-Economy") tends toward the first doctrine stressing the immediate benefits a strong welfare with all varieties of services could provide.
On the other hand the right (and as to the subject we're discussing good examples might be: USA, Ireland, Italy, GB (with limitations I don't want to discuss here)) criticizes the position of the left warning that the first doctrine inevitably leads to decrement of the economy (mainly because people and industries simply don't have a monetary surplus to invest for they paid heavy taxes), increment of the Public Debt, and in worst cases to State Bankruptcy (e.g.: Argentina).
As to the second doctrine (in this case I start with the proposer of the second doctrine), the right claims that it will not lead to increment of Public Debt, it will not lead to State Bankruptcy and it will push the economy to increase. Now the left here mainly responds that this second doctrine is dangerous for it will cut out the necessary services to the population so that despite the overall economy might be florid, many people will not have a free access to those services, conversely, they might have to pay for them or part of them. The left also sometimes focus on a side effect you can noticeably see in the first moments after the introduction of the second doctrine: the deficit increases. The followers of the second doctrine answer that it is expected and normal, being the benefits of the second doctrine not abrupt like those ones of the first, they tend to take in the deficit on a subsequent phase.
The "roadmap" of the second doctrine is noticeable looking at the evolution of the American Economy from the introduction during R. Reagan mandate throughout today.
The left argues quite vaguely that this doctrine might not be compatible with a "European Economy", tragicly it might be correct for the Maastricht treaty impedes one of the members to traspass a fixed limit as to the deficit.
It seems to me that, at least judging by the intentions and opinions of the two parties: the left is mainly worried on a microscopic scale (singular citizen), whilst the right is on a macroscopic scale (the whole country). We can say this about the space but also about the time, because, according to the right: the left doesn't seem to worry about the future on a macroscopic scale; according to the left: the right doesn't seem to care if to have an economy in healthy conditions we must pay the price of the sacrifice of the lower classes.
I'm not here to tell you which doctrine is right and which is wrong, I just wanted to discuss this delicate matter and illuminate the problem.