Socialism, the idea that the wealthy can support the poor without an issue, not a feasible idea if you think about it. For example Bill Gates is worth around 97 billion and the population of US is 325 million if he gave out all his money to the poor which consists of everyone not in the 1% which in this case is about 3 million people so let's say then he gave the money to 323 million people. Each person would get only 300 dollars, barely a week would pass and the richest person would have been wiped from history but the general life of the rest of the countries citizens would be unaffected. This is hard for socialists to fathom since they view the rich as a tit they can continually suck on and it would never run dry, they do promise they won't apply too much force when they suck, they have restraint anyway if you believe them.
Here's an example of two individuals with an idea that can fix a problem in healthcare, the same idea whether they have the same implementation or so close that a patent would block the other I'll ignore for now. The first guy is driven by the end justifies the means mentality where the working product will not only save lives but improves his life standards, he's enticed by the idea of owning a yacht, a couple of super cars, at least two mansion and maybe even a private jet. The second guy is more altruistic, the thought of saving lives drives him more, he does entertain the idea of owning a fast car and maybe even a large house like a 3 bed-roomed house, he doesn't let it go further than that because he feels being driven by monetary gain devalues the process. If both came to know there's another person working on the same thing it should be obvious that the first guy would be more driven to beat the second guy, the second guy would likely feel then the main difference of someone else making the discovery or himself is the recognition of being the one who made the discovery. The second guy's probably in a comfortable zone where they make enough to support themselves and their personality takes over in this case altruism and wanting to put others first as much as they can while the first guy is thinking more where he is, should only be a stepping stone to something better, comfort is something he shouldn't entertain for now.
Let's say this medicine or treatment could net in 1 billion a year and the tax for this is 20%, a uniform system. If you made 100,000 getting 20,000 taken away as tax might sting but you'll get used to it. Here your making 1 billion and you get taxed 200 million that will sting more and will only be comforted with the idea you at least are making 800 million at the end of the day. When the government becomes socialist and says we want more from the ones with more, so you'll pay 50,60 even 70% of the total amount... you'll make a billion but only pocket 300 million, what happens to the first guy? He loses incentive to go for it, the make it or break it mentality will be replaced with something else, complacency. That's why entrepreneurs from Europe where they're heavily taxed start businesses in US, it's got the right mix of people with skill, a fair tax system and a market to appeal to.
You take away one of them like anything with an equilibrium, something will give. Like doctors willing to quit NHS in Britain because the amount of work they put in to what they get isn't adding up, including nurses to find a job with better hours and pay like bagging items in supermarkets. What you get is a European Union that as a whole can't keep up with the innovation, pay or sweet deal for brain drain candidates like the US. You take away the incentive, you risk losing the risk takes.
There's a difference between a social safety net and socialism; even those who are against socialism agree that there needs to be a safety net for those less fortunate, but this net shouldn't drag progress and society down with it, the more extreme form of socialism is implemented the more the drag is assured. Capitalism is the only system that has brought most people from poverty to riches and in general increased the life quality of everyone.
Now for the example; let's say some gamers who are socialist met up and wanted to see how they could tackle any problem using the model of socialism of giving to the more needy. They come to the conclusion that most of them have beefy gaming rigs but others in the group don't and since there's an open source application that can let them distribute networking capability they decide to share their computing power to the less fortunate. The rule is that if you want to join you need to install the software so your pc specs are logged and how much of it's power you are sharing. In this scenario everyone can afford fast internet connection so the plan starts and at the beginning everything goes on well, everyone can play the high end games that requires the most specs. With time though more members with low specs lead to a bottleneck for those with high end pc's that not only can't they play the games they used to, nobody can but as more and more people join to use the free available computing power for whatever high computing task they want to do like video rendering, 3D rendering, bitcoin mining they find themselves in this bottleneck situation. A guy with a good gaming pc wouldn't join this mess, maybe at the beginning the idea of combining all their pc's into a super computer that can game multiple games easily would have been interesting but for now the only assurance he has is joining is a hook and leaving will only leave you with a stigma in the group.
When the GPU's eventually break from constant use, nobody replaced them because the one who owns it was always pissed to boot their pc to see it's usage skyrocket without them even doing anything on it. Eventually what they were left with is a system that as a whole on average joining doesn't improve you much from your initial stats.