Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston) was quoted by the AP over the weekend saying that the holdup in negotiations between the House and Senate in crafting a new budget were "philosophical" differences.
The House plan increases the sales and income tax rates while expanding the new (higher sales tax) to services, resulting in approximately $1 billion in new revenue for the state.
The Senate plan expands taxes to new services while slightly lowering other tax rates, resulting in approximately $1 billion in new revenue for the state.
The House and Senate aren't at philosophical odds on tax policy -- they are actually in agreement that taxes should be raised by $1 billion. Their differences are purely formulaic.
A philosophical difference would be one body arguing that tax increases will kill job creation and harm the economic recovery of the state (as has been proven in the tax increases of the 2001 recession), while the other was arguing a different position (I can't think of a valid opposite position, so it'll have to be vague).
There's no debate of good v. bad of tax increases -- that would be a philosophical difference. The House and Senate have concluded against all common sense that tax increases are good and are just squabbling over how to raise them -- that's not philosophy, that's bad public policy.