The key point in your response is the sharing of wealth (i.e. social welfare) helps to create a society that is attractive to almost everyone. The alternative to this is oftentimes a society where there are the fabulously wealthy and the dirt poor. Many years ago I travelled extensively throughout South America, where the few wealthy capitalists, government officials and land owners lived in heavily guarded fortresses surrounded by a vast sea of grinding poverty. Those people that had wealth lived in constant fear that their wealth would be taken away by the undeserving masses. Social welfare is price that the wealthy must pay to live in peace

I was wondering if your simplistic notion of “taxing those who work and giving to those who don’t” was written by a moron for morons. Just wondering. Society is comprised of a large minority who cannot contribute much to either wealth generation or society building. Apart from the sick, the mentally impaired, and the very old, we have to accept in some degree many who are angry and turn to crime, or lazy and turn to welfare, television, the internet etc. In other circumstances most of the latter two groups would have been contributors, even if minimal, but everyone has to live.

Nowadays millions of clever, balanced, effective, virtuous people can generate much more wealth than they need and are happy doing it. They can share this wealth with the less effective, and in doing so create a society that is more attractive to almost everyone. There will still be crime and anger, and even you Mr Johnson do not want to know what I would do with this dangerous residue.

It’s certainly true that income taxes come from those that actually work and make income. It’s also true that much of those taxes go to support those unable to work, or those who have been laid off from their jobs. I suppose we could just let the poor and the unemployed starve to death so that the employed could feel real “ethical” and “prosperous”. Somehow, however, that doesn’t sound much like the America I know.