Taxes are not only used for the money traffic, but they are also used for services.
Most modern economies create money via their government and use taxation to drive demand for the money. This means that money creation always must come first or there is no money in the economy in the denomination the government creates. One of the primary objectives of any government is organizing its society around the currency it creates at will. It is entirely counterproductive to consider taxation as “revenue”, as the US economy has proven.
If services are needed to advance the society they simply need to be paid for by new money creation. This will not create inflation as long as the required resources and labor are available to accomplish the goal the new money is deployed to accomplish. This moves the focus of the currency issuer to resources, not the money, which is proper. Such a properly focused economy would also use taxation to prevent extreme wealth accumulation with progressive taxation, but never with the intention of “paying for” services.
The bourgeois is not accepted as the people I talk about here. When I say people, I mean middle class and work class.
The concept of dependence on the wealthy to pay for government frames that government as a cost to the economy and that is where things go wrong. This is just one step from viewing the wealthy as “job creators” and any taxes levied on them, as well as regulations limiting their production, as detriments to the economy. A democratic process that benefits the working class cannot be sustained if people resent their government which they see as a “competing user” of the money, not the creator of the same.
A government in such a democratic system as I envision would maintain full employment at all times, even becoming the employer of last resort that would set the base level of wages and benefits that private sector employers would have to compete with for their workforce. It would also be a wage/price setter by supplying many more common needs of the people, such as healthcare and education. The people would recognize that any misery in such a system that can be mitigated with money is entirely a political choice or the result of inept leadership and would change that.
Democracy do not let the people control the money in market.
This is wrong. A sovereign currency issuer controls the “net” money in an economy. Banks extend “credit” not money, using their more widely accepted IOUs in exchange for interest. The credit accounts created as loans are filled with currency created by the government’s central bank to enable interbank transfers, but the lending banks must pay that currency back as the borrower pays down his/her principle. Paying down the principle and eventually retiring the loan requires the money that the government issues outside of the banking system.
The “net” money supply after bank debt is accounted for is always equal to the money created by the government that is not yet destroyed by taxation. In America, that is our “national debt” that so many obsess with at budget time. A properly functioning government will regulate the production of goods and services via spending and taxation of the money required to retire private debt and store value via savings/wealth.
