While the thread title is an old quote from a politician, this really isn't a thread about politics. Rather, it's about MMORPG monetization.
As you know, different MMORPGs have very different business models. They range from a one-time purchase to a subscription to buying chunks of content to buying cosmetics to buying in-game boosts. Or more commonly these days, more than one of the above, though usually not all of them. And a lot of games put their own spin on a business model, too.
Different business models lead different people to need to pay more or less in order to play a game. And which business model to players prefer? The answer is basically in the thread title: someone else should pay more. My play style shouldn't have to pay so much. I get that the developers need revenue, but they should get it from someone else.
The problem is that that is now nearly everyone's stance. Relying on a heavily pay to win endgame is fine for people who play a lot of alts and never reach that endgame. People who have one character rush to endgame and find that they're expected to pay hundreds of dollars to gear up for it will scream pay to win. Charging instead for character slots naturally elicits the opposite reaction from both categories of players.
Or what about subscriptions? Isn't charging everyone the same fair? People who will play 100 hours per month often think so. People who will play 5 hours per month tend not to. To play the same amount of time in total, they'd have to pay for 20 times as long of a subscription, and hence pay 20 times as much. It's not just a discrepancy between people who have a lot of free time for computer games and people who have much less. It's also a discrepancy between people who focus on only one game at a time versus those who split time between several games--and hence have less time for each.
In some circles, you'll find widespread agreement that charging for cosmetics is fair. It certainly isn't pay to win. You know who thinks charging heavily for cosmetics is a horrible model? People who like cosmetics. They see no reason why they should have to shell out hundreds of dollars to get the outfits that they like while most other people playing the same game pay nothing or nearly so. Shouldn't your outfits be earned in-game?
How about charging for pieces of content? That works fine for people who only have a little time to play the game, as they're not going to reach the next batch of content and have to pay for it very quickly. People who are low level often don't gain any benefit from buying expansions, after all. But people who are going to zip through the game in a couple of weeks don't like being expected to buy every single expansion and DLC and what not and pay a whole lot of money in those first couple of weeks.
And then there is paying for early access to a game, whether nominally an alpha, beta, or whatever. People who want polished games and don't play until well after launch typically don't mind if someone else has to pay for early access. The people who play lots of betas and quit most games before launch tend to think that the betas should be completely free. It's so unfair to charge for a game that is still a mess when you're just asking for players to test it! People who use betas to test games and help developers with useful feedback may have a point there, but hardly anyone in betas will do that, and most just play the game as they would any launched game. "Here are my game preferences and I think all games should cater to them" is not useful feedback, though developers receive quite a lot of it. "Here is how to reproduce a bug" is far more useful, and developers get a lot less of that.
About the only group of people happy to pay a lot of money for games are the whales who expect to be given large in-game advantages over everyone else in exchange for their money. And that's exactly the group that everyone else doesn't want to see games rely heavily on, as people don't want for games to give big advantages to someone else. After all, that's pay to win!