If money is "being printed out of thin air", currency is distributed into the economy. I think of currency as what makes things run.

This is the part that orthodox economists and the employer class try to hide. Money is definable by "stocks and flows" according to their impact on the economy and inflation. Stocks would represent savings/wealth accumulation and don't really have much effect on either. Investments into productive capacity and consumer spending represent flows and do impact the general economy and inflation directly.

Taxation controls the mix of these in our economy by incentivizing investment between stocks and flows and controlling the total of money in the system. It makes little sense to tax money while it is still in "flow mode" once one figures out that taxing is not a "funding mechanism" for spending.

The myth of taxing to spend and balancing a budget is the most pervasive and destructive element currently limiting our ability to create an economy that best serves the majority of the people. It is extremely advantageous to protecting wealth against inflation, so it has been promoted by almost all media and economists who serve that wealth.

Politicians agree with the myth simply because it is compatible with the way voters relate to money, having to obtain it before being able to spend it, as currency users. Even if they know better they are unlikely to interject econ lessons into their political campaigns, and many are paid quite well to preserve the fallacy.