"Above all, the Athenian rich paid their taxes because they craved the social success that came from their compatriots publicly identifying them as citizens who are good because they are useful."
If you publicly acknowledge any role in offsetting a problem, it becomes your fault that the problem is not completely solved [1]. I expect that associating yourself with a government program would make you even more hated, unless that program is 100% successful. Imagine every time someone drives over a pothole they see your face.
An interesting quirk of history is that regardless of tax rates the elite tend to put a fairly consistent percentage of wealth back into social causes over time. Leaving giant tips was how the industrialists competed.
Which is absolutely null compared to their income, and does close to absolutely nothing to benefit society - it is only there so they can feel good about themselves.
Your example is not compatible with your claim. You're just referring to conspicuous consumption, and how affluent individuals enjoy signaling their wealth and status by flashing their disposable income in status-seeking expenditures. The percentage of wealth that trickles back is irrelevant and only a trace amount, because their point is to signal status by consuming luxury goods and services that others can't afford.
"The Athenians believed sortition to be democratic but not elections[5] and used complex procedures with purpose-built allotment machines (kleroteria) to avoid the corrupt practices used by oligarchs to buy their way into office."
"In Athens, to be eligible to be chosen by lot, citizens self-selected themselves into the available pool, then lotteries in the kleroteria machines. The magistracies assigned by lot generally had terms of service of 1 year. A citizen could not hold any particular magistracy more than once in his lifetime, but could hold other magistracies. All male citizens over 30 years of age, who were not disenfranchised by atimia, were eligible. Those selected through lot underwent examination called dokimasia in order to avoid incompetent officials. "
And yet, the officials selected for office were more likely to be land owners or merchants, or their friends were. And the more intelligent you were, the more likely you had a privileged upbringing and a particular set of values.
I assume you're being tongue-in-cheek, but just in case you're serious: No, today's wage "slavery" is not anything at all like the literal slavery of premodern times (taking aside the also literal slavery that still exists in many parts of the world today). A slave in antiquity or at any time prior to the general formal global abolition of the practice in the 19th century was literal property, with no more rights than a farm animal. Their owner could kill them, rape them, beat them or work them to death and so forth as they pleased, with no legal recourse for these human beings classed as property. Let's not insult either problems of modern life or the horrors of real slavery by equating the two just to be fashionably negative about modern capitalism..
Athenian slaves had a lot more rights than modern slaves. Sort of close to the lowest rungs of other caste systems.
Modern Capitalist workers actually have a very large spectrum they encompass, from very rich to very poor. Which is not totally unlike Athenian slaves, some of whom could become quite rich. But doubtless the modern worker has far more freedoms, and elects to restrict their life, in part due to institutionalized fear of no wages.
In the US the top 1% pay more in income tax than the bottom 90% combined. Of course they aren't the only ones paying tax, but the top 1% pay for a very significant percentage of the US budget.
Considering the national debt (not even including state/municipal debt) has surpassed $27 trillion[1], it would seem like a significant percentage of the US budget is simply not getting paid.
To the bottom ~40%, tax is a significant portion of their income be it VAT or or otherwise as it directly affects their daily choices in a real sense of Do I buy a loaf and milk or do I buy 2 loaves, butter and milk.
Isnt VAT supposed to be imposed on all regardless of their income status? So a loaf of bread has same vat for a homeless guy and a millionaire ? Income taxes are direct taxes. You earn money, you are supposed to pay it.
A rich person invests in a company which buys a yacht (that they can use). They don't pay VAT because the company can claim it back if the yacht is used for business purposes, which of course it will be because the rich person will use it to have business meetings with all their other rich friends on.
This part really resonated with me.