Some thoughts on subsidizing kid activities for "underprivileged" kids

So, this is a topic I've been dwelling on a bit recently, and I have some mixes and nuanced thoughts, so apologies in advance if this post ends up a bit scattered. Also, this is probably going to be a more controversial take, so if you might be offended by controversial opinions, maybe skip this post.

I have kids. My kids do activities. These activities usually cost money (some a little, some a lot). Almost all of these activities involve some sort of fundraising, to subsidize the costs of the activities for people and families with less money. Sometimes this is voluntary, sometimes this is compulsory, with a strong aspect of forced wealth redistribution (eg: the soccer club my son plays for requires parents to raise or directly pay around $500/year extra, to subsidize other families with less money, in addition to the roughly $4000/yr in club fees). All of this fundraising, donations, required donations, etc. is socialized wealth redistribution.

Now, I'm torn on if this is "bad". Obviously it helps the other families, and we presumably all like doing nice things for kids (and other people in general), when it's reasonable or free. I think it's obviously bad to call a compulsory payment a "donation", but that's an aside here; the real musing is about how I feel about the wealth redistribution itself.

My kids are "privileged". This is because we, as a family, have middle-class money. We have this because the parents of the family made sacrifices, worked hard, had some opportunities, and had some luck (in some combination). But notably, both parents made significant personal sacrifices at various points in life, such that we would have resources to afford these opportunities for our children. We gave up benefits for ourselves, so that our children can have more opportunity, and we work hard to allow them to have those opportunities.

Solicited and/or compulsory "donations" to take money from us, and give it to other kids (so they also can have those opportunities), effectively "steals" the value from our personal sacrifices. They in effect undermine all the sacrifices that all parents make, and send a (very socialist) message that it's wrong that some kids are allowed to have opportunities which others are not.

Now, as noted up-front, I'm not sure what I think about that. As a practical matter, most middle class parents strive for some differentiated opportunity for their children, and at least in the US, money is a means to that end (among others). To the extent that we are the "land of opportunity" (ie: to gain personal advantage via hard work), the differentiation of access to opportunity is part of the fabric of the culture in the US. To work explicitly to counteract that, particularly via compulsory wealth redistribution (in the form of "donations", progressive tax rates, discounts for low-income people, etc. ad infinitum), runs directly counter to the idea that one can achieve differentiated and beneficial opportunity through work and sacrifice, and undermines that entire ethic. That seems bad.

On the other hand, absent the compulsory nature, it would seem good to make opportunities more accessible, and allow people the chance to succeed with hard work (which might otherwise be inaccessible). In some sense, many closed-off opportunities arise from artificial scarcity, and that seems bad. Cultivating more potential overall is also generally good for society, and there's a societal argument for some amount of wealth redistribution to this end (maybe not as much as the massive amount we have now, but some amount certainly). So there's a practical, as well as nominally moral, argument in favor of this theft of wealth from the middle class (not sure I buy it, but there's an argument).

So in summary... I don't know what I think, at least in all aspects. I don't think wealth redistribution should be compulsory at a local level, but I do think some amount is beneficial (and necessary) at a government level. I think parents have a compelling interest in being able to provide differentiated opportunities for their children, though, and I think this has value in a societal motivation sense. To that end, I'm not sure it would be societally beneficial to have all people have access to all opportunities, even if that were somehow feasible without wealth redistribution; there's a societal benefit to scarcity of resources, as a driver for productivity. And that's a strange thought to have, but here we are.

Sorry for the meandering musings; as always, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.