Your main objections seems to be that people ask for money for work?
They don't ask. They demand. It's not a request. It's a requirement. If you don't get paid, you don't work. When you ask, you're prepared to take no for an answer. But with payment, you're not; if they don't pay, they don't get the service or goods. Can you see how you've diminished this aspect of working for money in the way you've phrased the sentence, to make it sound more innocent? It's subtle, but it is there. That is the problem with working for money; it's not about helping others or sharing. It's about getting paid. The number one reason people give for justifying this attitude is, food and clothing, the most basic necessities. But, this is exactly the issue Jesus addressed in Matthew 6:24-34. Don't let worry about food and clothing stop you from stepping out in faith. Either you believe him, or you don't.
The problem is not with the money itself, but with the motivation. The payment could be
anything and it would still fall into the same problematic category. That's why Jesus used the word mammon; it means money
and the things money can buy, which means even bartering would be wrong. It's an issue of motivation. God looks on the heart;
why we behave the way we do.
Was Paul sinning by paying for his food?
Why did he want people to eat their own bread, rather than receiving from others?
First, I'd like to make it clear that Paul is not the savior. He is not the boss. He is not the master. Jesus is. This is why he said, "If I or and angel from Heaven preach any other gospel, let me be accursed".
Secondly, we all have a bias of some kind, which colors the way we view any given issue. A sincere desire to recognize that we have such biases is what will help us to see past them even if it takes time. It is inherent in what it means to have a bias that it is not easy to recognize it when it is there. That is why sincerity is so important.
Look again at the verses you quoted; Paul does not say anything about payments. Yet, that's how you interpret it. Why?
The context is made clear in verse 11, but you do not see it because, from the start, you reject the idea that these are Christian believers who are living and working together; a body of servants who have already forsaken all and share all things in common. See Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-37.
Try to imagine it from
this context, and consider again what Paul is telling them:
" For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner,
not working at all,
but are busybodies. Now
those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and
eat their own bread."
Have you ever heard the word "moocher"? It's someone who takes advantage of the kindness of others; a lazy person who expects others to take care of him. That's what Paul was addressing. People were coming into the church thinking, "wow, everyone shares everything? Cool, make me a sandwich. I'll be resting on the hammock outside".
Yes, love and sharing, but not exploitation and laziness. If you wanted to eat in the church, you need to work in the church. If not, fine; you're free to hang out, but you'll need to eat your own food. Clearly, this rule was designed to weed out those lazy trouble makers who weren't really interested in working for God. Paul wasn't telling them that they have a responsibility to make a profit from one another.
Can you see that?