Unless they're using more in public services/subsidies than they're contributing in taxes! Think their university system, for example -- it's almost entirely s

Unless they're using more in public services/subsidies than they're contributing in taxes! Think their university system, for example -- it's almost entirely subsidized by the government, but the generationally wealthy are by and large the biggest users of it, especially at Oxford and Cambridge. Not here to debate the merits of that system -- but the wealthy are objectively using disproportionality more of the services compared to the rest of the country. Apply that across entire government sectors (healthcare, transit, pensions, real estate) and you have a government that, yes, while the wealthy are nominally paying the most, they're paying less into it than is sustainable for the amount they use it and expect it to function. There's a whole separate debate about efficiency/"austerity", but "some" is not better than "none" if each of the "some" is a net-negative on the system.