Thanks to the taxes that at the same time keep people from investing the very same money in a much more distributed way to the investment / consumption / research they'd prefer while avoiding the bureaucratic overhead.
Please don't thank the government unless you think they know better how to distribute this money than the people they claim to spend it for.
> "... taxes that ... keep people from investing ... in a much more distributed way ... [than] they'd prefer ..."
There's an implicit assumption in there that reducing taxes will cause people to 'invest' more -- i.e. something like the trickle-down effect. I believe there's enough evidence to show this isn't how things actually play out (people still keep their cash).
Also governments, need to set up/support entities that do figure out how to disburse funds appropriately. Like Research Councils in the UK or the NSF in the US who have established processes to do exactly this. How is that less distributed than a rich person deciding for themselves? Also, there are fundamental areas of research that would be completely ignored if we relied solely on the wealthy to solve problems.
> "Please don't thank the government unless you think they know better how to distribute this money than the people they claim to spend it for."
That assumes that people have enough knowledge about where it should be spent. I strongly disagree with that. You cannot achieve fundamental scientific breakthroughs this way.
> There's an implicit assumption in there that reducing taxes will cause people to 'invest' more
Typically, in times when interest rates are positive and default rates acceptably low (i.e., normal times), people put their money in a bank and the bank invests it. So the amount invested stays the same and the money doesn't appear or disappear, it's just invested by someone else. So I don't see this implicit assumption here.
> Also governments, need to set up/support entities that do figure out how to disburse funds appropriately.
Exactly and the money to sustain such councils is not used for research but for bureaucracy. And as you already mentioned, these 'well established processes' are not exactly simple and may happen to consume a rather substantial amount of the money supposed to be used for research. Not in all cases but in enough to produce events like this: "EU Resarch Council slams bureaucracy" [1]
> Also, there are fundamental areas of research that would be completely ignored if we relied solely on the wealthy to solve problems.
I disagree - if it is important to someone, then it will get researched. Of course, the very poor will not receive so much attention but then again that's not the case today either.
This discussion is actually more about trust in government and who is better able to identify the needs of a society. I just want to express that I disagree with your view.
Please don't thank the government unless you think they know better how to distribute this money than the people they claim to spend it for.