"It is more unethical to subsidize your personal discretionary spending at the expensive of somebody's necessities because you are simply greedy." Is that real

"It is more unethical to subsidize your personal discretionary spending at the expensive of somebody's necessities because you are simply greedy." Is that really the best language to use? Is it subsidizing people to NOT take their money? Given that you support increased taxation for the wealthy, can I ask why you aren't voluntarily sending extra money to the government? In any event-- governments are good at certain things that require huge scale to work-- national defense, highways, trips to the moon, etc. What they are really freakin' lousy at is redistributing wealth efficiently. For every taxed dollar, how much actually finds its way to deserving poor? How good is the government at deciding between those who deserves it and those who made a bunch or stupid decisions and should live with the consequences? On the other side of the coin, what does "rich" mean? What about a family that pulls down $300k a year but has fabulously expensive medical bills for a dying parent/grandparent? Or a sick kid? Or a big extended family that's actually pretty poor that they want to set up college funds for? I agree that we have a responsibility to help those who are deserving and in need. As someone who's on the high side of the scale by many standards, I'm happy to take that responsibility. But why, exactly, should I be forced to hand the responsibility (and then wealth I've generated) to a government who is horrible at distributing wealth and pretty bad at filtering out people who aren't really deserving? There are organizations that rate charities on how efficiently they distribute donated dollars. How do you think the US government would fare on this scale?