I agree this is a good idea, but history has shown that if there is a pile of money sitting somewhere, governments blow it, just like many states have blown through public retirement funds.
The fundamental problem is that people running governments are spending other people's money and they never have a problem doing that.
Also agree it shouldn't exist, but if there were a general fund, it shouldn't go towards funding any government agencies even in a distributed fashion. Maybe credit it out to all tax payers?
Government money creation should be used for actually productive purposes. While avoiding costs represents some kind of return, it's not clear that's the best plan.
And after a while, maybe we could pool resources together for projects such as infrastructure, bridges, fire stations, that are too expensive for any single person, but from whom we would all benefit! It would be great! We could all give some of our money for these! Let's call this way of doing things government. Oh wait.
I agree. I would go even farther. I think that governments should be funded by investment funds that are financed by revenue from resource utilization. Ideally, the investments are in local businesses and resource development. I am from Alaska. If Alaska had also set up a government fund at the same time to finance government the state would not be in financial trouble now. Alaska didn't do that and oil revenue was directly used to fund government. Now that oil revenue has decreased substantially there is nothing to fall back on.
The greatest tool for building wealth is time. That is an asset that organizations have that individuals do not. Look at the endowments of top tier universities. There is no reason that governments can't do the same and benefit from the long lifespan of a non-human entity.
This has the benefit of aligning government interests with the interests of the people. It also makes government more supportive than punitive as revenue only increases by cultivating an environment for business to flourish.
It should be the same for govt asset sales. It should go into some common pool and have delayed release so you dont get politicians financing their budget via community owned assets.
So you're saying that we should take all the money the government spends and put it in stocks? What about infrastructure and public works? Schools? Research?
The logical thing to do is set up a system in which the government invests in projects, and gets some kind of stake similar to equity so it can recoup some of that tax money for reinvestment (or whatever purpose).
Right, but this should be perfect because they're paying the public. (Not that I expect the government to spend the money wisely, but in theory it seems to make sense.)
An association of municipalities that invested like a pension fund would be a very interesting vehicle. They could buy infrastructure, but their mandate would be for productive assets.
Public energy utilities in Canada just got loaded with off balance sheet debt and used as a general revenue slush fund for “infrastructure,” and built by unions on double time and a half, but it would be harder to get away with that today. A municipal wealth fund like a sovereign wealth fund would be worth exploring.
Paying people to make stuff isn't a bad idea, if your government would be doing public works (e.g. roads) anyway, you just get to do that stuff a bit quicker.
Paying people to do made-up jobs (e.g. most of the UK public sector) just destroys wealth.
The fundamental problem is that people running governments are spending other people's money and they never have a problem doing that.
reply