We can do both. This post is not helpful or productive as it trivializes the argument it responds to and serves as a diversion rather than a productive response; it’s a red herring argument.
You could argue there's enough money to solve both problems, and a tax on the wealthiest would help accomplish that. that is a view I'm very sympathetic to.
But I think the comment you're responding to is making the first point, rather than the latter.
Imagine you walk into a theatre thinking it’s going to be a Hitchcock movie. After the 12th minute, they start showing Groundhog Day.
They ask you to come back the next day.
You return. Again, after the 12th minute, Groundhog Day. Again, they ask you to come back the next day.
And they don’t return the money you paid for your ticket. Or a credit. You have to pay for a ticket again. Everyday.
Now. How often are you going to keep returning to someone who steals from you and knows you will return. Meanwhile, any theatre next street is playing the Hitchcock flick.
What would a reasonable rational person do?
I don’t really follow your theater analogy, perhaps you can provide an alternate argument so I, and others can understand why you feel that resources are scarce, limited, and the objectives are mutually exclusive.
2. Please elaborate ‘..we can do both’
And who is ‘we’? Peter and Paul want to tax Bob to hand over $$ to Jack and Jill.