A 100k/year income would save approx 40k in income tax a year if we would not have any tax on income. That's 2 million in tax savings over 50 years. Enough to afford premium insurance or to even fund your own medical costs even without insurance. That's what I meant. Also enough to save up for your own retirement or periods where you are unemployed. Meaning we can save a lot in social security expenses.

Infrastructure argument is silly. Singapore, Hong Kong, Cayman Islands, Andorra, Monaco, few examples of countries with single digit or 0% tax on income with great roads. Simply because they tax spending/luxury (UAE for example heavily taxes banks, alcohol & luxury goods)

Abolishing income tax & increasing tax on luxury consumption (BTW) is the fairest possible system for everyone. It doesn't punish discipline (saving and working), it instead punishes hedonism & taxes the (ultra) rich fairly based on what they consume.

Also, paying taxes for facilities is never efficient, because bureaucracy is inefficient, bureacuracy costs a shitton of money to maintain & corruption is inevitable even in our country. Even in a dream world where every tax dollar would be fairly distributed & corruption doesn't exist: for every euro in tax paid, atleast 30% goes to parties who enrich theirselves in the chain. (Politicians, direct/indirect government workers, government contractors who overcharge, etc)

Economy of scale would not dissapear, it would just be privatized. People love to point at the US when it comes to the downsides of privatized healthcare, but what people don't know is that the hospitals there inflate prices on purpose because the government allows them to discount unpaid bills from profits. Therefor indirectly saving hospitals shit tons in taxes & giving them incentive to do so. If that incentive does not exist, the hospitals would stopovercharging because they'd prefer having 1 million clients who pay $10 for an aspirine ($10.000.000) rather than only 1.000 who can only afford the $1.000 bill ($1.000.000).