Please note the words "large portion". Do you understand that those words do not mean "all"?
Defense is one of the few federal government expenditures that actually provide a return to me (security). If I had my way 100% of my tax money would go towards defense.
Now, Explain to me what benefit to me is provided by the national endowment ofr the arts or the national endowment for the humanities, or subsidies to planned parenthood etc.
You will find that none of those programs provide any benefit to me at all. Every dime of my tax money spent on them is loss.
Do you have any income, receipts of any kind? Yes. Do you know what exact portion of them you would or would not receive, if no one else received any income in transfers? No, you haven't the foggiest notion and can't. The entire state of demand that determines your own income rests on the transfers that actually occur. Perhaps you would receive twice the income without any loss to taxes if those transfers did not exist. Perhaps you would receive half the income you do now. You have no idea. Perhaps you would reap less or more in externalities of the production of others. You have no idea.
The probability is that you lose marginally (half, a third of the nominal sums owed, who knows?) on all transfers. That is the most that can be said about the matter. But all one entry conclusions about it, which is all you have ever shown here, are hopelessly wrong from start to finish, knowably so.
The same thing happens when people pretend that inflation reduces their standard of living because goods cost 3% more than the prior year, while just assuming their 3% higher wages are their birthright... It's a crock.
The government has engaged in progressive taxation and large annual gross transfers for decades. It has set top marginal tax rates as low as 28% and as high as 94%, and corporate taxes from 28% to 55%. Inflation has run 14% a year and near zero. And through all of it, the income distribution has remained largely unchanged, gradually skewing slightly toward high earned incomes. And through all of it, the government has received a stable portion of GDP in total revenues, varying less than 3% of GDP and only in response to the cycle, not policy.
Why? Because economic realities dispose. If a class of men contribute enough economically to justify their earnings, and they do, then prices and terms of exchange move to reflect that. If government punishes one form, activity shifts to another form. If government won't pay for its spending in taxation, savers recoup what they were taxed, as interest on the government's own debts.
Large scale redistribution is largely pointless and self defeating. That is a fine reason to limit it and to want to see it reduced. But it is not a reason to pretend it successfully changes final incomes at will; it doesn't. Not remotely.
All of which remains a side show of an issue, that only came up to refute one particularly specious argument against my underlying proposition. Which is, the American people are wealthy and will remain so; we are not "broke" in any sense. And all the legions of doom mongers screaming otherwise, do not know enough economics or even basic accounting, to run a lemonade stand.