In many developed countries, 42% tax would cover healthcare, a pension you can actually live off of, and fully-paid education for all of your children. Californians get none of those things, and I don't really understand what it is that they get over (e.g.) Washingtonians for the extra ~30% in taxes.
In the states, tax is obscure but painful -- you feel it when you pay it, like a sales tax not included in the price or a complicated tax form. In Europe, tax is hidden but smooth -- like a VAT built into the cost of everything or a 3-box tax form (in NL)
They get protection by the US military and promotion of Californian business interests throughout the world through Federal institutions. Not to mention: friction free access to a large labor pool and US domestic market etc.
I get your point that the US doesn’t provide as much social services as other developed nations. Almost all these nations depend on US hegemony to not have to spend as much on their military. This is a choice that the US made. There are good arguments for scaling back military spending and increasing social spending without compromising US hegemony though, however those choices may not be politically expedient so here we are.
I don't want to address the hegemony point beyond I disagree on the need or even effectiveness of US military.
But I would want to point out the curious phrasing and of your first paragraph and what that says about USA way of thinking. All these points are business targeted while all european points are individual targeted.
> But I would want to point out the curious phrasing and of your first paragraph and what that says about USA way of thinking. All these points are business targeted while all european points are individual targeted.
I don't think there is anything curious about this way of thinking. And US hegemony plays directly into this!
Pre-World Wars, European nations had their colonies and their militaries and the priority of thinking was along similar lines: access to expansive markets, large pools of labor, protection of business interests etc, chiefly through colonies.
WW2 changed all of that, reducing European nations to client states (no disrespect) of the US, that funded their reconstruction. Colonialism was no longer allowed, and European nations could not freely pursue foreign markets without competing with US companies, which would always get precedence. With no real way to compete with the US militarily, and with NATO aligning with their immediate geo-political needs anyways, European nations invested heavily on Social Services, rather than blow up their military budgets. This geopolitical equation hasn't changed post WW2 and you have generations of people that consider social services as the primary function of their Government.
However, its a fundamental mistake to assume that a Government can provide effective social services without having a strong economy. Strong economies require successful businesses.
> However, its a fundamental mistake to assume that a Government can provide effective social services without having a strong economy. Strong economies require successful businesses.
Umm... I would say the social services in european countries are pretty successful.
It can depend on what to compare them to (and for what class, which changes a lot in terms on access to commercial clinics, etc.). What countries are you comparing to?
I can get into the nuances of it, but honestly even on surface level, just the single point that my Health care is not linked with my job gives me infinitely more control over my life.
WA residents get all of these things with 0% state tax, and only a bit more in property taxes. What Californians get for the extra taxes (and Washingtonians too, for that matter, for a large fraction of theirs) is a jobs program for incompetents that occasionally achieves something good as an unintended side effect; known as government.
I frankly have no idea why US govts on all levels, and from all parties, seem so much more incompetent than many European/Asian ones (I have a pet theory), but they are.
> They get protection by the US military and promotion of Californian business interests throughout the world through Federal institutions. Not to mention: friction free access to a large labor pool and US domestic market etc.
And Washingtonians do not? What you wrote does not address the question that the parent poster asked.
