As a poor person who doesn't fully own his own house but pays in taxes 60% of their income, and much of the rest in house loan interest and principal, I can see how that would play in my own case. If I were to come up onto a lump sum of money by, say, some creative endeavor of mine, and that money is going to be taxed at a 65% tax (such is the law in Sweden for income taxes), I might consider to do a number of things with that money that prevents that tax from being realized, including donating it to charities or investing it in hopeless enterprises. After all, if I can't enjoy the money myself, but I have a bit of agency over it, well the least I can do is enjoy that agency.
Sounds to me like Sweden is doing it right!
If you want very extensive social programs you have to tax EVERYONE really really hard.
The fantassy that one can pay for wellfare by only taxing the rich more or by reducing their loopholes is a pipedream.
Or you could have a society with very low taxes and very low to none social programs, especially if your government doesn't love fighting expensive wars all the time.
Wars and wellfare programs are all very expensive. Even miserly wellfare programs like what the US got is creating some real debt default risk over there.
