When discussing politics in the abstract it’s useful not to talk about specifics to avoid a derail.

Personally I would have gone with. Someone suggesting a person in group X should subsidized by group Y. When the person speaking in in group X and the listener is in group Y.

Actually listing the groups as say income level, farmers, parents, elderly, ev drivers, or whatever is not actually helpful. That said you might have a reasonable debate on taxes, but that’s much harder when someone wants to send some group to prison etc.

I tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic, while at the same time not being something people here would actually debate, so as to not sidetrack the point.

The problem with your selection is that it's interpreted as the most outlandishly fringe extreme religious/conservative viewpoint, and thus it has a political angle. I would have gone with something like the government being run by lizardmen aliens (which some people in the world claim to believe).

> I tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic

It is very easy to dismiss a "death to homosexuals" discussion among Google employees as unrealistic.

> so as to not sidetrack the point.

Hrm, I understand that logic, but it seems like an attempt to frame disagreement with the current popular political view in the most extreme way.

Maybe that's not what you intended, but since that is a commonly employed technique ("everyone who doesn't disagree with me is a nazi") it does seem that way.