In the US, capital gains are taxed at a different rate from ordinary income, so taxing the "rich" (where the money is) doesn't necessarily have to destroy investing (not to mention a lot of retirement is tied up in investing, the rich aren't the only investors).

Clinton's government balanced the budget and had a surplus by decreasing spending and increasing taxes. He backed off on some capital gains tax increases and still had the surplus.

The fact of the matter is that if the US government is going to outlay X% of GDP then it needs to match X% of GDP in revenue: that's what Clinton's government did. Outlays dropped from 20.7% of GDP to 17.6% of GDP, tax revenue increased from 17.0% of GDP to 20.0% of GDP. [1]

And that government did not defund Universities to do it (iirc they actually increased funding).

Norway's tax revenue as a % of GDP in 2023 was 41.4%. United States was 25.2% [2]

Your marginal rate comparison doesn't paint a fair comparison because a lot of their government revenue comes from VAT and a special very high petroleum tax (I couldn't find exact percentages). And I think they have fairly low income inequality[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Cl... (citing https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...)

[2] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report... [page 15]

[3] https://gateway.euro.who.int/en/hfa-explorer/gini-coefficien...