You can't argue class warfare like that.
Where did I ever argue class warfare ?? For the record, I'm not marxist !
Yes, if a celebrity shows their face for 30 seconds it is hard earned money because that's what the free market will pay them for showing up. It is dictated by market forces. Same for that garbageman who makes his money waking up early. You can't dictate what is hard-earned and what isn't. If it is legal and dictated by the free market you're good to go.
So, if it is dictated by market forces, it is necessarily good ? If it is legal, it is necessarily good ? Come on...
Actually you're the one dictating what is hard-earned and what isn't, and your criterion is strange : market prices. I say that when someone earns money without working, just by cashing in on property he inherited, that's not hard-earned money, because it does not involve effort nor talent.
You outlined a lot of things the government shouldn't be paying for in the first place like schools and hospitals. These could easily be run by private companies. There are thousands of private schools around the country. Probably same for hospitals as well. Roads can also be paid for by tolls for instance. There are many toll highways for instance that are run by private corporations and they are usually far better taken care of than state-run roads where you see Mexican illegal workers sitting around smoking dope fixing the same pothole over and over for years. The state should give an army and police and the rest can be left to private companies via tax incentives.
I did not say that all this infrastructure must always be financed and managed by public entities. There are many instances where, indeed, it is better to have them run privately. I referred to the cases where the private sector cannot provide for them because they would not be financially profitable and yet there's a social need for them. Besides, private services are not always more cost-effective as shown in the energy, the transportation or the medical sectors. There can be wastes in the private sector too.
If you give money back to rich people/companies they will create employment opportunities far more than socialistically redistributing wealth to poor people.
Not necessarily. If the economy is in a demand-driven recession, you'd better reallocate money to those who consume more rather than to those who save more, especially if the latter favor financial investments that do not contribute to growth and employment.