Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

I am for capitalist equality where everyone has an equal chance to make money, you seem to believe in socialist equality where everyone gets the same thing.The only system in which everyone has the same chance to make money is socialism. Capitalism cannot work if everybody has the same chance, because capitalism depends upon exploitation. In the capitalist system, people have the right to exploit others, but in the socialist system, people have the right not to be exploited.I cannot believe you think that poor people are deliberately poor. Are you fucking serious? Words cannot describe how hard I just facepalmed. Nobody chooses to be poor, and nobody can decide to be rich. You get what comes your way. Some people are born into a rich family, so they get a big head start. Some people are born into a poor family, but an opportunity comes, like in the case of Alan Sugar, who was in the right place at the right time when he was selling electrical goods out the back of a van. However, some people don't get opportunities. Your view is that, tough luck, they have to deal with it, why should I care about other people's lives. My position is that that is simply not fair. And how is it fair, that one person can work less and have more just because they were born rich? I have been lucky in my accident of birth. I was born a white male in an average income family, in a developed country. That doesn't make me better than the homeless guy living down the road. I believe in sharing what I have, because I'm not a cunt.And yes, money does determine rights. You need money to do everything. You need money for a house, you need money for clothes, you need money for food, you need money for education, and in some countries you even need money just so people won't let you die.The amount of money you have dictates how much of all of these things you can have, and therefore dictates the amount of rights and privelidges you have. The right wing libertarian position (I assume that's your position) is that people should have the freedom to amass as many rights and privelidges as possible in the form of capital. The libertarian socialist position (my position) is that everyone should be entitled to the same level of freedom, that is, the same basic rights and privelidges. Capitalism gives freedom to the few, socialism gives freedom to the many.why don't you take a look at some places where these systems were implemented.Ok, lets take a look. Right, you've got the scandinavian countries, who are the happiest and most peaceful countries in the world.Let's have a look back through history and see. Back during the industrial revolution, in Britain, the prevailing political philosophy at the time was one of lasseiz faire capitalism, like you are advocating. The poor were seen as being poor because of their laziness or ineptness. In 1889, Charles Booth published a study of the poor living in Britain. Whilst his original intent was to show that poverty was exaggerated, and that capitalism was fine, he was shocked by what he actually found. He found that only 1% of the poor he investigated were poor because of idleness, criminality, drunkenness etc. What was also shocking was that 30% of the population (in London) were living below what he called the poverty line, that is, without enough money for essentials. These people were living in horrendous working conditions, and were paid a pittance, as in those times there was no cap on minimum wage, no holidays, and no sick pay. Businesses were allowed free reign on how far they could exploit their workers, and that is what it led to.The main factors that pushed people below the poverty line were low wages, lack of jobs, trade depressions, and old age or illness.In the later part of the 19th century, a different social reformer, Seebohm Rowntree, decided to investigate poverty in the area in which he lived, York, which unlike London was not an industrialised area with huge slums. He found that even in the respectable "middle town" of York, 27% of the populace were living below the poverty line. He also found that the same causes were to blame for poverty.The findings of social reformers like Booth and Rowntree meant that the rich upper classes could no longer ignore the fact that a third of the country were living without basic essentials, and it was not their fault. This led to the liberal reforms of the early 1900s, led by liberals (not the same as American definition of liberals, here the liberals are still right wing) like David Llloyd George. These reforms included:-Free school meals (1906)-Free medical check ups and treatment for children (1907-12)-Giving children "protected persons" status, meaning they could not be made to work, and abusing them was a criminal offence (1908)-Pensions Act, which stopped thousands of elderly people freezing to death or starving (1908)-Labour Exchanges, which were basically like job centres (1909)-National Insurance, the start of the NHS, meaning the poor no longer had to die because they didn't have enough money (1911)This also included sick pay and unemployment benefit.Since these reforms, poverty rates have dropped like a stone, health rates have shot up, and everybody is generally happier because we don't have to rely on the off chance that a charity might stop us dying or save us from being exploited by businessess.So yeah, socialism works. It brings us forwards. People like you want to drag our society back into the 1800s.