The question is more on whether you want to pay government to give you health care, police, fire protection, education, child care etc. Or would you want to pay

The question is more on whether you want to pay government to give you health care, police, fire protection, education, child care etc. Or would you want to pay somebody who primarily wants to profit from you. Who will look after your health better? The one profiting from your bad health or the one who looses money if your health is bad? For-profit health care profits from your bad health. Government loose money when your health is bad if they finance health care. It is pretty easy to see the health outcomes. Americans have for-profit health care and they have some of the worst health outcomes in the western world. Scandinavians all have socialized health care and some of the best health outcomes. There is no natural law that says government must be corrupt. Corruption varies immensely between countries. Nordic countries have some of the largest governments and lowest level of corruption. But regardless, you don't necessarily need to reduce inequality through higher taxes. You can also push legislation benefitting regular people more: Stronger unions to give workers better bargaining power. Worker representation or corporate boards so they can better influence how companies are run. In Norway where I live, we have worker participation in company decision making as part of the constitution. The idea that only shareholders should make decision about how a company is run is just a political decision. In Germanic countries there is a long tradition of seeing companies as part of a community and having a wider responsibility to that community beyond maximizing value for shareholders. We have a choice. The way an economy operates and is optimized is a choice. It is not a law of nature.