I have no idea how many times you are capable of completely missing a point, so this will be my last response. Taxation was never intended to, nor is it capable of, funding spending at the federal level. That concept is fairly recent in origin and totally mistaken.
Firstly, money is not a “thing” that a government has to “get” from someone else, as it is the monopoly issuer of the currency/money and is mandated to create it as necessary “for the common welfare” in Article 1: Section 8 which lays out the powers of government. The US dollar is a unit of measure which denominates trade and contracts, much like the inch or foot denominates linear measurements. A government that issues its own sovereign currency can no more run out of money than a carpenter can run out of inches or feet.
That carpenter can run out of boards (resources) but never the units of measure used in his craft (money). Should lumber become scarce and he requires more feet than is readily available he may have to pay more per foot than he would otherwise, but that doesn’t diminish the available feet to measure his needs or have any consequence for his need for nails. Likewise, the government can never inflate the currency as long as sufficient resources are available to accomplish the goals spending is deployed to accomplish.
In order to provision itself without selling off its property, the government levies a tax that can only be paid in the currency it produces at will. However, it must spend that currency into the private sector prior to actually collecting that tax or there is nothing to collect and the government would find itself imprisoning all of its citizens for non-payment. Simple logic and a knowledge of the order of processes would show that taxes “cannot” fund the spending of such a currency-issuing government, but serve only to drive a need for the currency which draws resources into the private sector economy and as inflation control.
That same logic would also tell one that such a government can never be “in debt”, as it would simply need to create more currency to satisfy any obligation it has. Given that money is only a “tax credit” to the government, debt is only a tracking number that informs it of the currency it has created that hasn’t yet been collected via taxation. It “owes” the holders of its currency a dollar of tax credit for every dollar it leaves in the private sector. Actually paying off the debt, even if it were possible for a net importer, would remove all money from circulation and savings, and yet it (balanced budget) remains the holy grail of political propaganda.
That debt also serves to balance/cancel any “revenue” the government might collect in dual entry spreadsheet accounting that is used worldwide to track money. When a positive and negative entity get together in the same accounting sector they balance each other to zero. Recycling revenues to be spent would create an impossible situation for accounting as the dollars would have to survive paying down the debt to then be spent again.
Compliance with standard accounting methods is much easier and simply means that all revenue is destroyed (The colonies had “money burning” events where taxpayers could watch their paper money being destroyed.) and all new spending is via new money creation. Spending by the federal government creates money and taxation destroys money, thus making it impossible for “your” tax dollars to “fund” any purpose beyond controlling inflation and driving a common need for the government’s currency.
The US dollar is a no-cost commodity available to the government in managing the economy and supplying the needs of the people, making “any” misery in the economy that can be mitigated with dollars entirely a political decision, not anything related to economics or your tax dollars. I’m old enough to remember when politicians, and most people, understood this and that gave us the best economic period in our nation’s history. I know what a good economy looks like, and this present economy isn’t it. I will be glad to elaborate on or provide substantiating links for this reality but have no interest in responding to knee jerk uninformed opinion that seems to dominate economic discussion currently dividing us to serve political agendas.
