The question was 28x though. Not just are you getting more value, but is the value 28 times more. This is not clear, and probably answerable. Health care is very different between now and 1800 (in 1800 your lifespan was measurably better if you didn't go to a doctor ever - this was before handwashing and antibiotics). Even if you compare today, France and the US have many differences in the current system and so you can argue things either way and we learn more about your bias than any truth (there are pros and cons of both systems so all conclusions). Both todays are very different from either in 1800, and we have no way of knowing how either would be different.
I think probably the slaves in 1800, whose experience of the government was its violent enforcement of their sub-human status would probably find the protection of their civil rights in 2024 France to be quite a bit more than 28x as valuable, yes.
I think the women who couldn't independently own property, had no protections against marital rape, being beat by their husbands, or most any other form of abuse would agree that even the comparitively tepid protections offered by modern France are priceless in comparison.
I think children forced to labor without pay, homosexuals forced into hiding, Native Americans kidnapped from their parents and forced into boarding schools, and any number of other now-protected classes would also agree.
Sure, if the government only serves a small fraction of the population at the expense of all others, that small fraction can debateably get comparitively good value. But it sure sucks for literally everyone else.
The end of slavery was really due to slavery being uneconomic. That's why the Northern states didn't have slavery. It would have ended in the South as well, even without the Civil War (which was a kind of big state thing, of course).
Children forced to labour without pay -- also an economic issue.
Even though US is more wealthy than Europe, the average European seems struggling much less than their US counterpart. Just have a look at poverty, homelessness, health figures, even of educated people.
The latest votes, and your comment, only seem to indicate that US people on average find that to be fine enough, the price for a (for me weird) kind of freedom.
Perception is not reality. People complain all the time. People will always spend the most they can get by with. There are people earning $million/year who have less spending money after paying their monthly bills (to spend on things like food) than others living below the poverty line. This is all about how they spend money, the person making $million/year is clearly rich, but if they are still having trouble making ends meet.
Asking the question with the provided data is too simplistic to even argue about.
"Here's the non contextualized percentages, what do you think of the difference between this two percentages which are more than two centuries apart, and from different countries?"
Percentages don't really work like that. 56% of one number isn't 28 times 2% of a different number. And it's not even the right number. GDP measures rate of number flow, not rate of benefit flow, or amount of benefit.
It's also noteworthy how people ask this question about the government but never ask it about private corporations.
