[PhasmaFelis]

Well, for one thing, welfare funding ultimately comes from tax money, and those noble job creators fight tooth and nail against social benefit programs just as they do against minimum wage increases, and anything else that threatens to make the world a better place at a cost to their bottom line.

The US in particular suffers under an entrenched and insidious myth that work is inherently virtuous and people who can't work deserve to starve. Reagan's imaginary legions of welfare queens have taken root in our national dialogue and made widespread, substantial improvements to public welfare virtually impossible. If you feel that progressives are grasping at straws, it's because that's all we have left.

[grinnbearit]

Well it is their income being taxed, why do you feel they should feel obligated to give a portion of it up? (keyword: obligated) they obviously do not.

[PhasmaFelis]

Because I would like to live in a functional society. Because "my right to a third yacht trumps your right to feed your children and get treatment for preventable illnesses" is a shitty thing to believe. Because I think the members of a society have a positive responsibility to each other and to the society. Because, basically, I don't like selfish assholes, not matter how much they try to convince me that selfishness is a virtue.

It's not a popular opinion, I realize.

And before you start talking about "other people's money," I'm comfortably middle-class, and I would be delighted to pay an extra, say, 20% of my income in taxes if it meant that the sick or homeless or mentally ill people I see every day could get the care that they need.

[grinnbearit]

Popular opinion or not, selfishness and generosity are calibrated by your moral values.

You're proposing an economic transaction where X pays, Y benefits and your moral desires are fulfilled. I doubt X would have a problem with you donating 20% of your income to a charity of your choice, why do you have a problem with their yacht?