In rich European countries, ultimately no one has to afford a home.

This is circular reasoning, because someone always pays. The only reason they are rich, is because the majority of people are contributors to society. Once that changes, they won't be rich any more.

Let's take "the government" and "money" out of the equation. The government is just a group of people that most citizens have agreed can make some decisions for them. It isn't a magical "source" of resources.

And money is just an abstraction of labour and bartering. When you pay someone in money, instead of paying them directly in resources or services, what you're really saying is "we, as a nation, have agreed to enforce, by violence (if you don't deal in money you go to prison), the value of this imaginary thing, to make it less complicated to keep track of who has bartered with who".

If you cannot afford a home yourself, the government provides shelter.

That's not actually what happens, when you take away the abstractions of "the government" and "money" and "taxes".

What really happens in rich European countries, is that someone builds a home for you for free, and lets you live in it for free. In return, the person who built the home gets to walk in to a supermarket, and the supermarket will give them free food. The supermarket also gives free food to doctors and teachers. This is good because the supermarket owners and employees want healthcare and want their children to be educated, and if they fall on hard times, they too would like a temporary free home by the home builder.

But the free stuff relies on there being people who contribute and work hard to provide things for each other. If that ratio between contributors and non-contributors starts going the wrong way, then the nation will become poor and weak, and will be unable to provide anything for anyone.

Words like "rich", "wealth", "money", muddy the waters because they are very complicated abstractions of reality: that there are people doing things for each other. When you say "we can do this, because we have lots of money" - that literally doesn't make any sense at all. No matter how much money you have, it doesn't change the number of human beings there are who can build homes, grow food, help sick people, etc etc.

It doesn't make any difference if we have capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchy, or whatever, there are still finite resources that need to be very carefully allocated in order to survive.