Fd Ski:
I am anything but idealistic. I am a realist. When I say that there are rewards more important than money, I am simply stating the obvious: that some people (e.g., teachers who love their jobs), must value other things over money, because otherwise they would not have chosen their professions.
I do not do what I would do if money were taken out of the equation. If money were no object, I would be the engineer that I trained for 8 years to become. I made the decision, however, that financial security was more important to me and my family than to have a career that might be more personally rewarding than the one I currently have. Everyone knows the rules. Everyone knows that when they decide to become teachers or social workers, they are not going to make a lot of money. Our market economy generally offers full and fair disclosure in that regard.
I'm happy to hear that you'd be willing to pay another 10% of your income to insure a safety net for YOU. That's great. Obviously, as indicated in an earlier post, you could afford to purchase such security for yourself. That's not the point of wealth redistribution through taxes. The point is that you would be paying that extra 10% to purchase the safety net for someone else who could not afford it himself.
Do I think that everyone has a responsibility to his fellow man? Yes. Do I think that eveyrone has a responsibilty to do what he can to see that the people in his community that are truly in need have enough to eat, a place to sleep, and proper medical care? Yes. Do I think that the government can choose more wisely than me how to spend my money to address those convictions? Emphatically, NO!
