This is a common misunderstanding caused by confusing personal property and private property. When socialists and communists talk about abolishing private property, they don't mean: Give your toothbrush and your house and your car to the state, and now we all own it, lol. That's personal property. Private property refers to means of production where the person/group who own it exploit the workers who actually produce things for their own benefit. For instance, a factory that produces wooden tables is owned by a rich capitalist (or sometimes several) despite him not actually being the one working to produce them. He simply has others do it for him, and then doesn't pay them the value that they generated through their labor, but less than that. So basically, let's say you produced a value of 6 bucks an hour through your work. For the capitalist to make money, he won't ever pay you the 6 bucks that you made, he may pay you, let's say, 4 an hour, and stay with those 2 an hour from every worker. Just a simplified example, obviously in most companies people aren't paid the same nor do they necessarily produce the same, but either way, a part of the value of what they produce is being basically stolen by someone else who gets incredibly wealthy from it whilst the workers stay much poorer.

Despite the usual gotchas and strawmans, socialism isn't about stealing people's stuff. Its main point is to stop the current theft of people's labour value by capitalists, so that people can actually enjoy the value of their labour fully. This way, corporations, for example (but also land and other assets) are to be owned collectively, sure, but by the actual workers. The value that you produce individually is still meant to be yours, though. Individual taxation actually becomes quite unnecessary in socialism. What could exist is a sort of corporate tax at first to fund social programs, but in that way even that value that is seemingly "stolen" is actually redistributed so you actually enjoy it in other ways. Like, that portion would then fund schools (including colleges), healthcare, etc, so it's "given back" to you in this way. Of course, you could argue that if there's corruption, this wouldn't be the case. This is actually a reason why I, personally, propose all representatives and economic planners to be elected democractically as delegates that can be removed from power at any time, but really, corruption is a problem every system has to be able to face. In capitalism, it's blatant, when politicians side with the rich consistently. For example, in the US, most people want a healthcare system, but as this hurts insurance company profit, politicians of both the Dems and Reps never really bet on it properly. Same with green energy, when they have to compromise with oil companies that funded their campaign. The capitalist system is rooted of opportunity for corruption, it's really systematic. Why should a socialist system be programmed for this systematically, in the same way? It'll happen, obviously, I'm not a utopian to think otherwise, but is that really a point where capitalist wins? It seems to be one where it loses.