If they're serious, they should return to tradition and sell honors. Like "Patrician" status if you donate $5M or more, which comes with certain minor benefits. (Like you don't need to go through airport security, or you gain access to certain private clubs, etc.) Hereditary "Equestrian" if you donate $100M in cash. And so on.
There wasn't a feudal monarchy around that wouldn't sell honors and titles if they were in dire enough straits, and a $37T debt is as dire as it gets.
Of course, this is an extremely bad idea for obvious reasons (e.g. endemic corruption in our low-trust society, government donations as political signaling, etc.) and would also be something of a joke...
It isn't uncommon to come across a polemic opining for increased taxation. Frequently the rhetoric will fit a common pattern, "I'm a [insert high status or high income descriptor] and here's my spicy contrarian take: We should all be paying so much more!"
While these people might still support the ideals of coercive taxation as a distinct issue, they might also pursue the voluntary route. If they truly value the government's services to the extent that they describe, it would seem like a win-win for them to volunteer their own wealth.
The fact that they do not suggests that there is a low degree of confidence in government spending. The value received per dollar spent may be perceived as a poor return on investment. This often stands in direct contrast to the stated case for increased taxation. It speaks to the merits of the well known Economic Calculation Problem, which axiomatically explains why the state is unable to optimally allocate resources.
This all sounds like bullshit posturing from politicians that got us into this mess.
The bottom line is that government income must increase and government spending must decrease. Income can come from taxation, competing with private enterprise, donations, or other channels. Decreased spending ultimately means doing less.
The only part of this that has become abundantly clear is that massively firing a bunch of people from government without a transition plan is incredibly expensive. If you want smaller government then expect government to do substantially less and the work force will decrease over time naturally. The small government political bullshit can seem to swallow that bitter pill.
If one thinks that more government is the solution to all problems, a painfully common modern view, then the most utility available from $1 one owns is handing that $1 directly to the government.
In practice, no one donates like this with their own money. They just vote for the government to take incremental money from others via ever more taxation.
It doesn't matter where output comes from whether its government or the private sector. People expect some manner of output at a certain acceptable price and quality. But, this completely misses the point.
The bottom line is government income must increase and government spending must decrease. That income can be from taxes, competing with commercial enterprise, donations, or whatever. It really doesn't matter.
The only part of this that has been evidently clear is that massively firing people from the government without a plan has proven extremely expensive. If you really want smaller government you need a plan to reduce the work force over time in a way that does not diminish the quality and quantity of output.
My point is that for someone who thinks government is the ultimate solution it's completely rational to have ever more government. More debt to finance more government simply follows. Can't have too much of a great thing. Etc.
>In practice, no one donates like this with their own money. They just vote for the government to take incremental money from others via ever more taxation.
In practice they throw piles of money at Trump - knowingly that it will lead to them saving an even larger money pile and thusly a net win.
Trump, who then happily drives up debt. Taxing people more is so uncool, so let's go easy on the whole taxes thing, just have the money printer go brrrrr and let inflationary tax serve its purpose
If they're serious, they should return to tradition and sell honors. Like "Patrician" status if you donate $5M or more, which comes with certain minor benefits. (Like you don't need to go through airport security, or you gain access to certain private clubs, etc.) Hereditary "Equestrian" if you donate $100M in cash. And so on.
There wasn't a feudal monarchy around that wouldn't sell honors and titles if they were in dire enough straits, and a $37T debt is as dire as it gets.
Of course, this is an extremely bad idea for obvious reasons (e.g. endemic corruption in our low-trust society, government donations as political signaling, etc.) and would also be something of a joke...