You're doing fallacy fallacy. Some slopes are actually slippery, it's just the nature of the slopes.
Government ID connected to all your accounts on the internet isn't much different from other things you mentioned, the only difference is that the other bits of privacy we actually exchanged for convenience. With everything you mentioned and more, you can either opt-out, you don't actually need your car to be "smart" or have a car at all, or it wasn't invented as a control mechanism, like credit cards or smartphones. Using it to do nefarious shit requires effort and additional work, and there are at least some protections in place. But yes, it's another form of control, just way more sudden, invasive, and useless.
If we're doing fallacies, yours called "nirvana fallacy". "We can't have an ideal world, therefore we need not to fight when people are trying to make it worse".
Connecting everything you do on the internet to your id serves the only purpose, prevent people from being able to do speech that the government doesn't like. While we have a democratic government, it might not lead to problems. The second we have all this shit in mind, the government might start asking itself, why do they bother with all this democracy when they have all this authoritarian instruments lying around for no reason.

It's a matter of exposure and attack surface vs rewards for the attacker, and risk in companies are evaluated by the trio: freqency of occurrence, severity of occurrence (how large), severity of the occurrence. Banks can spend a lot because severity quickly gets very high in money.

What's the incentive again for the next gov to properly fund the system? Oh yes: they would have to say "sorry! shit happens! that's all because of the previous admin!!" and maybe throw one guy under the bus.