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.
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.
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.
In the US, the workers demand a livable wage and healthcare from their employer. In other countries, the definition of livable wage is quite different (lots of poor/slave labor and no rules that protect employees from age restrictions, working hour restrictions, etc.). Some countries have government provided healthcare so that is not a cost that companies need to deal with.
Additionally, companies in other countries are able to externalize some of their major costs, especially in the area of pollution. In the US, you couldn't emit extreme amounts of waste and just dump it anywhere, you have to pay to "clean" it or face penalties. Other countries don't have such restrictions and are allowed to dump waste into rivers or the atmosphere without penalty.
So in the US you'd have to build a factory that is "clean" and complies with regulations. Then you'd have to hire and pay US workers a fair wage and likely subsidize at least a portion of their healthcare. You would also have to comply with worker regulations for these employees.
It's up to you to determine whether it should be ok to externalize these costs. Treating employees as effectively slave labor and the ability to destroy the environment and the habitats of living things.