The government robs me at a disporpotionately high rate
compared to lower income earners, and then gives this
stolen money to people who are less ambitious, and didnt
work as hard as me at creating a good life for myself.
( And no I didn't start with rich parents, we were poor, no
head start for me ).
There are costs associated with living in a (orderly) society. However much you may detest it, you cannot deny that you derive your benefits -- in fact, your entire way of life -- from it.
Also, I notice you are equating "work hard" with "good life". Yes, there is a something of a causal relationship, but only up to a certain extent. Thinking thus isn't entirely a bad thing, but it does tend to prevent a person from considering alternatives, or even acknowledging that alternatives might exist.
And do you really think it's fair to ascribe people's failure to reach your standards of a "good life" solely to their lack of ambition? I think that might be a bit tough to justify.
(PS, I did start with rich parents, so it's not the sour grapes of a "leach" you're hearing.)
Since your all about "fairness", please educate me on
hows this is "fair".
A system of government which consistenly punishes
people for working hard and being successful is
NOT a fair government.
As I said, you live in and derive your benefits from a society. Taxing you is the cost of it.
Notice, you don't really appear to be questioning the
current rate of taxation, but the concept of taxation as a whole. Have you really thought about what kind of a world it would be without taxes? It's worth considering, just in case you ever get what you wish for -- something the old sayings warn us against.
And again, you seem to be implying that the balance of your bank account is the only valid measure of success.
Have you questioned why you adopt or choose to adhere to this standard, and this standard alone?
Where is the incentive? If taxes got any higher, I'd
move to a Euro country and collect my massive unemployment
benefits from all the SUCKERS who are out there working
hard to support me! 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ALL your earnings are not eaten up by tax are they? There is still something left for you isn't there?
Well, I'd call that an incentive.
I take it to mean, though, that it's not incentive enough. Well, that becomes more a question of adaptation to environment. If tax rates were 15% (as they are in Hong Kong, I believe) and they jumped to 20%, I bet you'd still be crying foul about being "robbed".
Other entrepreuneurs obviously haven't been as troubled as you about the level of incentive, as long an incentive exists; they were still willing to risk capital and start companies even when tax rates were much higher.
Apprently your history contradicts mine, because from what
I've read, high taxes stifle economies. And although
low taxes are not necessary for economic growth, this
does not mean that high taxes don't slow things down.
Logical fallacy.
I do remember looking at figures that show decreasing revenues with decreasing tax rates. I'll have to have a look. Although if you have something that shows otherwise, I'd really appreciate you posting a link.
I think you're being a little quick to cry "logical fallacy" too; it's not one because I never claimed higher taxes wouldn't slow an economy down, I merely pointed out that they are not an insurmountable obstacle.
I think we might need to remind ourselves just why an economy is important, why we measure things like GDP. Isn't it because it's one measure of the quality of life we are leading? Certainly GDP is not a complete measure of well being -- the list of problems with using it as such is long indeed -- but there is a strong correlation between quality of life (depending on whose standards of quality you use) and GDP. Using that measure, any growth at all is positive; you don't need blistering 5% growth.
Socialism sux. Want proof? Compare the capitalistic
countires to the socialistic countries.
Where would you want to live?
I don't recall ever claiming socialism is superior. There are certainly, I think, some aspects of socialist theory/ideology that are worth considering, and I think it's a big mistake to reject them off hand, but that's far from considering myself a socialist, in the traditional, Marxian sense.
(And I'm glad that you used the term "capitalistic" rather than "capitalist", because you (USA) are certainly not employing the pure version of the latter.)
EDIT
I just wanted to add, I'm certainly not opposed to market economies. For the most part, I think they do a very good job of efficiently allocating resources. But, given that they do fail, from time to time, I am very much in favor of regulating them in order to create more socially desirable outcomes; more socially desirable, that is, for the greater number of people than pure free markets create.
