That society already exists in e.g. Nordic countries. If we look at Sweden, Finland etc, total tax revenues as percentage of GDP are 48-54%. In USA, they are 24.3%.
So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation in exchange for freely available health care, higher education etc.
Family funds exist here (e.g. Novo Nordisk is 25% owned by a humanitarian fund, Mærsk) but are less important than US.
the issue is less how much tax _individuals_ pay. Tax avoidance on behalf of individuals is tiny and absolute "small-fry". The biggest cheaters that can afford it on a massive scale are companies.
one of the biggest problems is that if you want to compete in a global market space you're kind of forced to use legal (but dirty) tricks (tax optimization such as transfer pricing etc). The strategy is always to squeeze the consumer end (e.g. the retail) and supply side (production/manufacture etc) and this is where you're losses are while you scoop the profits from the middle (a tax haven). It's cool to talk about Cayman and Switzerland in silly Hollywood movies but some of the biggest tax havens are actually the US (Nevada, New Mexico, etc), Luxembourg, Netherlands, UK ... as long as we don't clean up this rigged global financial system we shouldn't even consider discussing about whether the average Joe has been taxed enough.
There is a great book that links the emergence of this offshore industry with the dissolving of the empires (e.g. Gabon is laundering the money for the French elite in the same way as BVI, Caymans have been used by Brits) ...: "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World (2011) "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...
Even we clean up all our structures in the West there will be plenty of opportunity to move capital to Bahrain, Dubai or uhm ... Japan https://fsi.taxjustice.net/en/
> So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation
Yes, but it's not the majority that runs offshore companies in Panama, but those rich enough that it makes sense for them to go through the trouble of setting offshore companies up.
And IMHO the problem is in simple psychology of how humans compare between themselves. We don't compare in absolute means, but relative to people around us. If you're a middle class and you pay the same taxes as everyone else around you, you might grumble a bit, but in the end you'll except it as a part of life, because, well, everybody does it. If you make a lot more money than others and thus have to pay a lot more taxes, you'll perceive it as an injustice, being punished by mediocrity for your success. And you'll have a much less of morale dilemma should you try avoid paying it.
You're missing out on the significant unemployment in countries like Sweden. There is significantly better free healthcare in Australia - which has an average tax rate of 23.6%.
The correlation of high taxes = better quality of life doesn't hold much strength when you consider that there are plenty of countries doing well without it, and plenty of countries with high taxes that have a poor quality of life.
There is extremely significant unemployment in the US as well. It's just not counted. The number of people in US prisons alone adds about 2% to the total unemployment rate. And abstracting a little from the endless and pointless arguments about whether work should be funded by taxation or by sales - and the correct answer there is it depends - imprisonment not alone removes productive people from society, but also remove other productive people to guard them. But of course, if you have private prisons, then the objective will always be to increase sales. For the same reason, paying surgeons by the operation is also a terrible idea.
I’m Australian and my personal income tax rate is not 24%, but 40%. What tax rate are you referring to —- corporate, gross personal, effective personal?
In terms of model healthcare, Australia is not the system you want. Our health system grossly underfunded and ineffective with lots of waste from years of private sector health insurance.
I specifically said average, because it’s important to note that the Swedish personal income tax rate starts at 32% with a tax free threshold of about AUD$3k.
Re: healthcare, you won’t realise how good you have it until you try to go to a Swedish hospital with a torn ACL only for a nurse to diagnose you with a cramp, direct you to take paracetamol and refuse to let you see a doctor. Or when you try to have a blood test done and realise it’s not a 24 hour turn around, but a 24 day turn around if you’re lucky with 1-2 years minimum to see a specialist.
That's just a higher level of taxation (i.e. mandatory), not the donations (i.e. voluntary) in exchange for naming rights or direct influence which parent is talking about.
They have the resources to do so, but How many low tax, high status countries are there to live in? How many people are free from all community, familial relationships that moving abroad had no social costs?
> So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation
The higher taxation not come about because "people were fine with it". It was the consequence of a political and social
momentum caused by the cold-war era where workers were able to extract concessions from the haves under the threat of a socialist revolution if they did not agree, in turn the result of historical proximity to the revolutionary movements in Europe in the 19th century as well as the geographical proximity to a powerful socialist state for the most part of the 20th century. This momentum is now slowly being eroded by the whole political spectrum on the right, paradoxically including what is left of the Scandinavian social democracies.
The welfare state will likely be a historical parenthesis between the laissez faire economy of the mid 18 hundreds and the new economy where the billionaires once again dictate the whole playing field. Unless a new situation arises where the haves once again willingly will agree to contribute towards funding a welfare state for some reason. I don't see it happening anytime soon however.
So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation in exchange for freely available health care, higher education etc.
Family funds exist here (e.g. Novo Nordisk is 25% owned by a humanitarian fund, Mærsk) but are less important than US.