Point is understood, just be a bit more careful with word uses. You might accidentally sound a bit aggressive otherwise, even though your intentions are noble. Well, taxes are percentage-based, so in absolute terms, you are demanded to pay more depending on your income (and capital, but idk if that's the same in the US). But indeed, if you earned that money fairly, you have the right to use it as you want (within legal boundaries). The problem becomes twofold when it comes to inheritance and income. First, inheritance makes it possible for people to get massive arbitrary advantages to the point that some people hardly have to contribute anything to society, while sitting on an egregious amount of money. I don't say one should abolish it, but a close eye has to be held to it, so the difference doesn't become too unfair. The second part is that an economy depends on the amount of money circulating in it. So technically it's bad for an economy if lots of money are being sat on, because it lowers the amount of money flowing around. If you make/have so much money that you don't spend most of it, that's not very good for the economy, and those liquid assets could be better used elsewhere. I do agree that competition lowers prices, no point in arguing over that About innovation, in theory it could reward innovation, but with the current patent system, it mainly stagnates it. It's a topic on its own, with a central role for Disney I give the average person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to fiscal responsibility. But when fallacies in the legal system screw you over, for some people it means a vicious cycle of misery just because they're poor. As an American, I think you are wel aware of the many people hefted by the housing market bubble, credit companies, or those who spend years in jail for crimes hardly worth that (especially those who got incarcerated in the 'tough on crime'-age, while sentences for their crimes have drastically lowered). Even if people are ambitious, some people are hardly capable of 'climbing the ladder', for example those with handicaps. No-one is talking about taking money from others, we think that people should be properly compensated for their work. The only government interference is in making sure employers are held to that they pay at least minimum wage. In our country, we have something called job students (age around 15-24, still in school/college), which are treated differently than actual employees (for example, they have a maximum hours of work in a year). It would be rather ridiculous to demand minimum wage for them, and that's not what we demand. The thing about seeking jobs is that it's also based on supply-demand. Even if you have a bad job, the fear of not being able to get another job keeps a lot of people from seeking others, especially in crisis. A lot of the socialistic propositions are to level the playing field in a fair manner, by providing people with the tools to build themselves a better future equitiously*. It is also to make sure wealth inequality doesn't get out of control, which in turn is bad for the economy. On a side note, I think you will like the 'adam ruins everything'-episodes concerning work, those things also apply here in Europe. *please tell me if that's a correctly spelled word...