I agree with everything you're saying. Additionally, "burden on the state" is both an antiquated statement and, in a global economy, more and more tied to opi

I agree with everything you're saying. Additionally, "burden on the state" is both an antiquated statement and, in a global economy, more and more tied to opinion than fact. An simplistic example of such could be a very wealthy person, who despite paying a lot in taxes, causes considerable (far greater than average) damage to the environment - causing longer term externality and burden on the "state" than immediately recognizable. Furthermore, Is the "inverse" of this burden an asset to the state? If so, does that mean high taxpayers are valued moneymakers for the "states" coffers? Does that not go outside of the scope of what a government is supposed to be/provide? Finally, I'd be very careful to read the actual research and compare it to Telegraph's reporting. There are some laypress misinterpretations that are confounded but dont cause as much harm - such as the belief "eating chocolate everyday will make you live longer." Then there are far more toxic laypress misinterpretations that have far worse consequences (such as this article) if people were to accept it as fact.