America needs more socialism.

Since he presented an opening argument, I will present a counter argument for it. Contention 1:America needs more socialism because the country is facing an economic crisis in which 99% of the country owns 1% of the wealth.While it's generally true that the wealthiest few in the United States, as with other developed nations, happen to hold a considerably large amount of wealth, it's not the case of the 1% holding 99% of the wealth in this country. If that was the case, that would mean that roughly 300,000,000 people would have a share of 0.18 trillion, or 180 billion dollars total, which is also not the case. In fact, sources [1] show that the income distribution is very low, roughly 26% of income going to the rich, and the net worth of the US that goes to the 1% happens to only be 35% of the GDP, not 99%. This statistic is not only a bunch of drivel with no basis, but it's also off by 64%, which is a large factor. I emplore my opponent to state facts, not sophistry.Contention 2: With a more equal wealth distribution, poverty and homelessness would decrease, as well as the power of individual business owners. This argument, once again, is a false assumption, one that has been debunked by 40 years of data and evidence gathered from poverty rates in the United States in correlation with growing welfare spending. The President that has spent the largest sum of money on anti-poverty programs happens to be Barack Obama, and under his presidency, the poverty rate has stayed the same. According to this source[2], "In 2014, median household income was reported as $53,657—statistically the same as it was in 2013. The same stagnation held when it came to the poverty rate, with about 14.9 percent of Americans, or almost 47 million people, falling below the poverty threshold of about $24,000 for the year."Another source [3], shows that poverty rates during the 90s started to fall, while they sharply rose back to 15% from the 11% in 2000. This was in course with the large social spending, which is generated through taxation systems, which thus impacts employers and those with the least skill most harshly.Contention 3:In order to improve the public ownership of capital, business owners and others who qualify as the 1% need to pay significantly higher taxes, including college taxes. With socialism, more government spending would help smart and capable individuals reach their full potential, so all Americans can bear the same natural rights preached by John Locke: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not only is this factually inaccurate and hardly plausible, but it's also a misuse of Locke-ian principles as well as a profound lack of understanding of Classical liberalism and the philosophy behind such. The rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, are by no means a right that you are owed from someone else. Governments are created to uphold these rights, which is the basis of our Constitution, but by no means are citizenry required to provide these rights to other members of the citizenry. The right to Life does not mean you are owed anything, and neither does the right to property. These are rights that you are not allowed to impede upon, but not rights that you are forced to provide. In fact, here is an argument made by a the "Americans for Free Choice in Medicine" organization [4], which states that:"The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to thepursuit—to a certain type of action on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence."Additionally, there is a direct correlation with economic output and the prices of products and services as well as the wages earned in relation to the amount of regulatory burdens placed upon those who create such opportunities. Taxing the rich is not a plausible plan for any form of nation, as they will simply move their wealth elsewhere or spend it all frivolously. Not only will this be detrimental to the economy, but it's also a breach of the right of property, in which you cannot be taxed heavily as a result of your personal success.Conclusion:My opponent has refused to show the respect that this platform requires in which he has decided to forfeit a debate that he himself created and I kindly accepted. I have written my counter-argument, but I see it inane to explain more any further. Sources:[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com...[2]http://www.theatlantic.com...[3]http://www.statista.com...;[4]http://www.afcm.org...;