In some governments somewhere in the world, these programs are effective. But there's no guarantee they will be well run and well administered.
If a government justifies taxing more heavily to fulfill those functions, it's critically important that the government actually deliver the services effectively. The government's efforts must actually succeed. Otherwise, a lot of voters become skeptical and stop believing the promises.
UHC would actually save 2 trillion over 10 years (according to a very conservative Koch brothers study).
We need to end money in politics though, there needs to not be easy ways to bribe politicians.... It's becoming a circus, until corruption is tackled, nothing will function efficiently ever.
Some of these people may have ended up in a poverty trap all their lives, and never contributed. One may even go on to end cancer, or do something amazing with the extra opportunity they now have.
Education ALWAYS contributes to society as a whole, not just that individual. America needs to start valuing education more, I see dumbasses on social media and elsewhere who don't fact check anything, believe everything they're told and can't even tell which side of the civil war Lincoln was fighting on.
They are the same people Jay Leno used to make fun of by asking simple questions on his Jay Walking bit.
But I'm thinking we would use the money to more directly encourage investment. Small business programs are good here, including classes, mentoring, and small-business loans.
A tariff on "cheap shit from Amazon" is a heavily regressive tax, and acts to reduce total delivered value. Whereas taxing the well-off to pay for education and encourage investment increases total delivered value.