What is worse?

Tax and spend, or borrow and spend?

Open question.

Share this

well if the expectation is

well if the expectation is that personal wealth will grow over time, i suppose borrow and spend since the burden will be easier to deal with later than now.

in the opposite case, tax and spend.

Taxation is theft and

Taxation is theft and borrowing is a voluntary transaction so obviously "tax and spend" is worse, unless by "borrowing" one means something other than borrowing.

Taxation is theft and

Taxation is theft and borrowing is a voluntary transaction so obviously "tax and spend" is worse, unless by "borrowing" one means something other than borrowing.

Borrow and spend is worse,

Borrow and spend is worse, because people don't feel the impact immediately, hence are less likely to object and start voting for less spendthrift politicians. With tax and spend they feel the hit right away and understand they aren't getting something for nothing.

Tax & Spend = Tax

Tax & Spend = Tax Today
Borrow & Spend = Tax Tomorrow

From the "taxation is evil" perspective, I see no moral advantage to either option. The former, however, is a whole lot more responsible.

Milton Friedman argued that

Milton Friedman argued that lower taxes tended to curb government since the amount that can then be spent is somewhat more constrained.