My take on socialism isn't particularly original, perhaps, but I think it captures the essence:

Socialism (in whatever guise) requires people to act, not out of their own individual interest, but for the good of the state, or society, or the community, etc. (Never mind how we determine that good, though that is itself a can of man-eating worms.)

However, individuals tend to want to act for their own individual interest, saints, martyrs and true believers notwithstanding. This puts many or most individuals into conflict with the socialist system... and this confict necessitates heavy-handed governmental infrastructure, if socialism is to be maintained in the face of either apathy or outright disobedience.

This means: socialism will tend to destroy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not because the intentions of socialists are bad, but because the system they advocate finally relies on people acting a certain way contra their own selfish interests, and when people don't wish to do that, then the maintenance of a socialist scheme requires that they must be forced to comply.

Historically, too, I think this has been shown to be the case.

In theory, maybe. But in practice they´re basically the same.

whats wrong with capitalism lol

One problem with simplistic analysis like the champagne glass distribution is that it implies that rich people just keep their money on a big safe building where they can swim on their money everyday.
The huge majority of this wealth is concentrated on companies, banks, shares, real state etc, generating hundreds of millions of jobs, research, technology etc which moves the society forward.
Also capitalism is not the reason why Africa for example is very very very undeveloped and very poor. Capitalism is not the reason why china has hundreds of millions of people that are very very poor.
You need to analyze the average of a society. UK for example is very very distorted with most of the wealth concentrated on the hands of a few. But poor people here would be millionaires compared to the average life of a person in Brazil. A poor person in USA can be considered a millionaire in several parts of China.

idgaf 

the important thing is what would happen to me under socialism

so... What would happen to me under socialism?

Just to remember the dear folks that the natural side of human is accumulation.

And that people have different capacities to manage their properties.

My great grandfather moved to a remote place in Brazil where anyone could fence a place and call property. At 85 he divided equally his land to his 12 sons and daughters. It didn't took much time for my grandfather to buy out the land of 9 of his brothers and sisters.

They all could have had the same outcome since they came from the same place, but most were just interested in the minimum to live by. The ones that want more and go after it end up being rich.

I'm pretty certain that if we extinguished all forms of government and distributed equally all the money, property and etc among people it wouldn't take more than 3 generations to get a level of inequality similar to our.

Poor people are poor more because of their habits than anything else.

I'm going to need more than your anecdotal evidence, how am I even supposed to verify the validity of that story?

I would say you are basically right... also human are capable of empathy and charity, but that happens to people they are close by and understand the needs, in why communities help the ones within it, but don't have the same easy to see on a whole 100M people country. That is why forced charity by the transfer of money from people to the government to supposedly redistribution to the poor is a very bad idea, also not forgetting the government overhead cost, inefficiencies and corruption.

That very outdated perception on socialism that inequality instead of poverty is the problem.

If all that money would be spread equally it wouldn't even end famine per see, or do you think the richest 20% also eat 80% of the crops?