Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.

Why all the rage against Person B and not A?
What about Person C, who works, pays taxes, and makes a modest living. His living could be slightly more than modest if the government didn't take his tax dollars and give them to Person B.

So person C gets penalized for Person B's laziness. That's rage inducing

Person A is only mooching off of daddy. He's not victimizing person C

And what about person D? He doesn't work because he got his shins blown off in Vietnam. He relies on government benefits for his entire livelihood. He doen't have the option of getting a job to earn more money or provide a better living for himself. He's getting less money than he could if Person B got off his lazy fucking ass.

It's like if Person B parked in a handicapped parking space because it was easier for him, but it means that Mr. No-Shins has to walk a little further. That's supremely douche-y. How is it different if you swap money for parking spaces?? It's not. It's still douche-y