There's just not a whole lot of sympathy for someone who can provide for themselves, but wants someone else to just take care of them. If all of society had that attitude, then no one would eat. When you subsidize bad behavior you get more bad behavior.
Funny enough that doesn't seem to apply those born into extreme wealth.
Yes, it does. Under 18 the parent is obligated to take care of the child. Beyond that it's the parents choice and discretion to continue taking care of their child.
If you want to give to charity, that's your prerogative. It's not society's obligation to do it, however.
It's easy to pretend to be high and mighty on a moral pedestal when you're redistributing other people's money.
If you want to give to the less fortunate out of your own funds that you earned, more power to you. And I commend you for your generosity. However, I seriously doubt you're willing to be so giving and charitable when the money being divided out is yours.
Your moral concern was that you didn't want to subsidize idleness but that is exactly what allowing for extreme wealth disparities does. Paris Hilton doesn't have to work a single day in her entire life from age 0 on if she doesn't want to do it. Neither does James Murdoch or any other oligarch. Yet the peasants like you and me, we have to or we starve. You masochistically apply to yourself higher obligations than you do the rich and powerful. Have fun working that out, but the rest of us are not going to live by the free market as the powerful get fat off of government pull and socialism.