> I find it very selfish to think that we should optimize everything to squeeze out the remaining 1.1% of the wealth, given that Scandinavia wouldn't have such a high living standard had it not been for the welfare system.

1.1% is deceiving. 1.1% is actually over 20% tax on savings (assuming a common drawdown of wealth at 4% per year). Plus savings are usually money that has already been taxed. If you can invest at a higher return then the numbers improve but the risk increases (and governments don't share the risk or otherwise ameliorate it) and the taxes remain if you win.

1.1% sounds small. Any analytical person analysing the rewards versus the risks of founding a company will decide that it isn't worth it. Even if you win, you lose.

Here in New Zealand no founder can plan for a decade timeframe because there's a high chance a new government will screw you if you make any winnings. Currently our taxation system encourages entrepreneurship a little (no CGT).

A taxation system needs to be designed to incentivise individuals to create businesses. The government wins through income taxes and sales taxes - it doesn't need to kill the golden goose by overtaxation.

Most people have a selection bias: they see the winners and think those "greedy bastards" should pay more. Few people weigh up the invisible costs of the people that tried and failed. Very few people consider the benefits accrued to society from businesses (consumer surplus, tax income through other taxes, etcetera).