The class struggle is as important now as it ever was.

With thanks to my opponent's continued interest in this debate, I should like to respond as follows: I did, in fact, take my opponent's point about the oil companies' profits being modest compared to the tax, but the point I was making was that the people should benefit from the tax revenues AND the profits. With regard to taxes precipitating the American Revolution, my implication was that the colonists objected to paying taxes because they did not have any influence over how they were spent, and felt very little benefit accrued to North American settlers from paying them. Although nobody likes paying taxes, everybody understands that every nation must have working capital in order to provide basic essentials such as roads, police, schools, hospitals, armed forces, etc. These can only be financed through the public purse. Provided the people feel they are getting value for money and have some influence (through the ballot box) over how their taxes are spent, they will not object to parting with a reasonable percentage of their income. It is true that in some European countries with left-wing governments, the basic rate of tax is higher than in the US, for example, but the people benefit from things like excellent free education, free healthcare and modern transport systems and are, for the most part, happy to pay for those services through their taxes. My opponent made the point that America became great through innovation. On this point I agree with him, and innovation would prosper in my proposed post-Revolution regime, although key industries such as energy production, the rail network, aerospace and the public utilities will be re-nationalised, that is taken back under state control. Another reason why America has prospered is that it has a very egalitarian society – there is a small under class and a small upper class but most people are middle class and this allows most young people to reach their full potential without being socially stigmatised. This is very different from a monarchy such as the UK where there is a large working class and even the brightest kids from underprivileged backgrounds are not admitted into the best schools and universities because of social discrimination and lack of funds. Furthermore the best jobs in professions such as finance, law and politics are awarded through "the old school tie network" – that is if you didn't go to one of the elite schools, you won't get one of the plum jobs. For instance (if the polls are to be believed and failing a revolution prior to the next general election) the next Prime Minister will be David Cameron who was educated at Eton and Oxford. Similarly, the newly installed Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is also an Eton and Oxford old boy. http://www.etoncollege.com... http://www.ox.ac.uk... Just to reiterate, the redistribution of wealth, which would provide a young couple with over $320,000.00 in cash (enough to buy their first home) will be a one time only, never to be repeated, windfall tax that would only affect the richest 5% of people. These individuals are mainly aristocrats with fabulous fortunes, the likes of Duke of Westminster, who inherited the whole of Mayfair, who never earned their money in the first place. The socialist society I wish to create will enable the nation to produce own equivalents of Bill Gates or Michael Dell and they and their companies will only pay the same rate of tax as anyone else, allowing them to reinvest in research and development so necessary, as my opponent has eluded to, for future growth. I therefore urge you to vote Pro for a fairer society where all the citizens share in the nation's success, not just the privileged few.