But the fact that the standing army uses up such a large amount of funding, it's a large reason why we have taxes in the first place. I believe it's highly relevant.

And I don't see how you disagree that the founders were against standing armies. I thought this was well-known. The founders had a great antipathy toward a large military, especially at peace time.

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson

This argument, also, is tired. Even if one were to completely disregard people's obligations toward society, the common man, and the betterment thereof, which you obviously are, you're still ignoring the fact that rich people owe something to society for giving them the opportunity to be rich. For example, someone with great business skills wouldn't be able to utilize them growing up in say, many places in Africa, were the education and business infrastructures conducive to such a career are in many cases non-existent. However, with a good education system, and good infrastructure and health of the people in that context, someone can grow up to be a businessman/woman and utilize those skills. It's only "fair" for rich people to give back to such a society conducive to their existence and wealth.

So, just because the very rich wouldn't necessarily always see a direct return as opposed to someone poor in such domestic programs, doesn't mean that it's 'unfair' for them to have the heaviest "burden" (if you want to call it that).