Feanor

Here there are direct taxes on your income that are about 40%, then there are "general" taxes like 20% over any transaction (when you buy something you pay 20% of taxes), taxes over gas, etc. Then there are taxes related to the possession or usage of some thing, like you pay an annual tax for your car or TV screen. Then there are some mandatory revisions, like you must take your scooter to an authorized center to be revised every two years, or the house heater every year, etc. Putting everything together the pressure from the various "public" powers (like State, Region, Province, City) is very high. And the funny thing is, despite such a high taxation, the State makes a big debt every year, meaning the more the State collects with taxes and the more the State spends.

You may wonder why.
It is simple, in Italy only a (relatively small) percentage of people are involved in producing some value, the others either provide "services" or simply are payed (or overpayed) by the State for doing nothing. And since Italy is more or less a "democracy" and all these people vote, the mechanism is not going to change anytime soon.
In these years a political movement arose for promoting the separation of north Italy from center-south Italy. The practical consequence was the proposal to transform the State from completely centralized to a more "federative" one, giving more powers to Regions, included a big part of taxation that becomes "de-centralized" and spending for services. The idea is to make the State machine more efficient and reduce the "payed for doing nothing" problem. So far it remains a proposal.

All this connects somehow to the recent american discussion around the public health care system. It is simple, the public health care in itself is good but like any other public service, the efficiency depends on the average "ethics" in the population. Politicians, like public employees, are just like everybody else. There is "corruption" everywhere in the world but some in some places the public system works better than others. In Europe you can find many examples. The problem between north and south Italy is that the north is "culturally closer" to the northern countries (read german influence) while the south is closer to the "mediterranean" area, with all the pros and cons.

Actually taxation over earning it not fixed but proportional to "quotas", it means if you earn less you are taxed x%, if you earn more you are taxed y%, where x<y.
In theory the State collects money with taxes to pay for public services like school, health care, roads and bridges, housing, police and justice, military, etc.

What is good in public services? If you come visiting Italy and you have an accident you go the the ER and get aid for free. I got surgery a couple of years ago and I did not spend anything. I don't know how it works exactly but in theory if I go to another EU country with my "health care ID card" I should get free health care everywhere.
What is bad in public services? If you are sick and you need exams, sometimes you must wait in a (long) queue. Not all the hospitals and doctors are the same, some hospital will have rats in the rooms and some doctors will cut a leg from you if you have a cold. Basically it is a problem of efficiency and quality assurance.

There are countries in Europe with a very high taxation because the State provides MANY services in some "socialistic" way, typically they are northern countries like Sweden.
Then there are countries like Italy where there is an high taxation (officially lower than Sweden but then there is the "hidden taxation"). Here the State provides more or less the same services but a big chunk of expenses is due to waste of money. Waste actually means money is given to some "friend of friends".
So you have to similar systems in place but if you go visiting schools in Sweden and in Italy you see the difference, the worst ghetto swede school would be the very best top school in Italy, even if the expense is equal or even higher here.

So, if you put a public health care system in place also in US you must consider what level of efficiency will be possible given the average american people "values".
My opinion is until the american "middle class" is still rich enough to be able to pay for their health care probably the public health care would be seen as useless. Like I said, the american "middle class" so far had MUCH more resources (and opportunities) than the Europeans. Things are going to change when Americans discover they must pay attention to their expenses because they can't afford the monster truck and the plasma screen any more. Or that if they lose their job they can't find another one right away. etc.

Is it bad?