I see you resort to cheap shots with no basis in truth in order to try and force your baseless point through. My net worth is irrelevant to the issue. I have no desire to control the lives of others as you claim, just to be left alone by the government. My moral consistency is clear though, just as your belief in big government is equally clear. Here's a video of him claiming the state has the right to steal, er, tax people at whatever level the government chooses. Politicians, especially those on the left love to use the term 'fair share' when it comes to how much people should be forced to pay. My point is that this is a very dishonest phrase to use because they always seem to leave it up to the listener to define what they think of as 'fair'. It seems to me that there are a few ways the term 'fair share' may be interpreted. Since everybody is equal in terms of inalienable rights and before the law (ie, a man or woman), everybody should pay the same flat fee, like a membership in a club. Another is a flat tax which would automatically mean everyone pays the same rate but those earning more would automatically pay more. Or, does fair share mean that those that earn more should be fleeced, er, taxed, at a higher rate than those earning less?
Nobody that chooses the third option believes in equality or private property because they believe that 'the rich' have less of a right to keep their property than those with less. The first of the three options recognises that we're all equal but would also mean the government would not be able to get much done. Before the taxation level debate is settled though, we need to discuss and figure out what we want the government to do, how much of a role we want it to have in our lives, and how much we want to be involved with it.
This seems to be something you don't seem to understand, or just not care about.