I also think tax funded services are quite regressive as you have to pay for them whether you use them or not, and there are no market forces driving them to be cost competitive.
Except that tax-funded services are operated without a profit motive, so they're not particularly subject to the market forces that would drive them to become prohibitively expensive. That's one of the features of operating something as a collective, via a government.
At the same time it also becomes an incentive to use them, because they become cheaper than the individualistic alternatives (as with the cost of owning, maintaining, and fueling a car).
The profit motive absolutely still exists, as the government will contract out the work to a corporation that will give a kick-back to the politicians that granted them the contract. If not directly via cash (Likely illegal, but still happens anyways), then via campaign contributions or insider stock trading tips (Again, likely illegal, but still happens anyways).
Market forces keep things cheap.
Government services or government granted monopolies that prohibit competition can be extremely expensive and low quality since there is no incentive to compete and improve quality and or prices.
Theoretically, in that ideal world of perfect competition, sure.
One glimpse at our current reality will show that this is not what is working in practice.
Agriculture, for example, is subsidised up the wazoo. Were it not, market forces would dictate that no agriculture is done at all unless it can turn a profit.
Medication, for another example, is more expensive in the US than in any other place on earth. Market forces dictate that you pay hundreds of dollars for a commodity medication whereas in other distant lands the government negotiates a good price for its citizens.
Market forces give you one, maybe two ISPs to choose from in your area that are expensive and slow, or bandwidth capped. Those market forces also collude to prevent new entrants into the market, e.g municipal providers.
Market forces don't really invest in infrastructure, or shared infrastructure, unless they can get a return on the investment (e.g a toll road).
Market forces will try to keep things cheap, like labour costs, which is why there is such thing as collective bargaining and unions to ensure a person's pay isn't optimised away.
Market forces may also optimise away an entire industry or competence in favour of importing. This is how countries like the UK have transitioned to more of a service based economy and have also practically lost the capability to manufacture certain things.
The overall point being that for all of the things where the invisible hand of the market works wonderfully (as it essentially does with consumer goods), there are just as many cases where that is explicitly not desirable and checks and balances (i.e regulation, collective bargaining, government) are required to ensure the market works in favour of society and not against it. The two things have to work in balance, having one without the other would lead to undesirable outcomes.
At the same time it also becomes an incentive to use them, because they become cheaper than the individualistic alternatives (as with the cost of owning, maintaining, and fueling a car).