4 ms·

When the government buys things with tax money, the things are supposed to be used for the benefit of people who paid the taxes. It doesn't seem like the Compan

When the government buys things with tax money, the things are supposed to be used for the benefit of people who paid the taxes. It doesn't seem like the Company even pretended that this was the case.

kolbe 8y ago
Most tax dollars in most countries are not spent on goods and services for the benefit of the people who paid them.
- pickdenis 8y ago
  But there's at least a pretense that it (goods purchased with tax money) will be, right? Forget about what actually happens for a moment and consider that the tax-collecting colonists didn't even seem to bother with such a pretense. The way I understand it, they just bought the goods, turned around, and sold them again (which does not align with any notion of "providing government"). Of course, I know very little about economics or history, but I just wanted to point out what I thought was a logical inconsistency in the root comment.
  - kolbe 8y ago
    I disagree. The pretense makes it worse. I think there's something far more comforting about the honesty of a government just stealing my money and owning up to it. Don't waste time and distort my perception of the world with that bullshit.
- gumby 8y ago
  I doubt that's actually true, especially in the 21st century.
iguy 8y ago
> ... tax money ... used for the benefit of people who paid the taxes This is a surprising recent notion. The Mughals sure didn't conquer territory to tax it for the peasant's benefit -- the entire purpose of conquering land was to extract taxes from these peasants, for yourself & your army.
- notahacker 8y ago
  Yep. This is also a weakness of the original article, with its "If India had been able to invest its own tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings in development" which seems to rather ignore the fundamental reason the East India Company was able to take over the subcontinent in the first place is that the various Indian empires and fiefdoms had ploughed rather more into conflict and ceremony than exploiting India's headstart in areas like steel working. Indian economist Amartya Sen is fond of pointing out that although India has no shortage of hungry people, it hasn't had a famine since the departure of the British. But he's also keen to point out that the significant difference is that the average Indian person now gets to vote governments in and out of power. This wasn't the case under the British, but it also wasn't the case when Shah Jahan dedicated more tax revenue to monumental architecture and unsuccessfully attempting to conquer Qandahar than resolving the Deccan Famine.

kolbe 8y ago

Most tax dollars in most countries are not spent on goods and services for the benefit of the people who paid them.

pickdenis 8y ago
But there's at least a pretense that it (goods purchased with tax money) will be, right? Forget about what actually happens for a moment and consider that the tax-collecting colonists didn't even seem to bother with such a pretense. The way I understand it, they just bought the goods, turned around, and sold them again (which does not align with any notion of "providing government"). Of course, I know very little about economics or history, but I just wanted to point out what I thought was a logical inconsistency in the root comment.
- kolbe 8y ago
  I disagree. The pretense makes it worse. I think there's something far more comforting about the honesty of a government just stealing my money and owning up to it. Don't waste time and distort my perception of the world with that bullshit.
gumby 8y ago
I doubt that's actually true, especially in the 21st century.

iguy 8y ago

> ... tax money ... used for the benefit of people who paid the taxes This is a surprising recent notion. The Mughals sure didn't conquer territory to tax it for the peasant's benefit -- the entire purpose of conquering land was to extract taxes from these peasants, for yourself & your army.

notahacker 8y ago
Yep. This is also a weakness of the original article, with its "If India had been able to invest its own tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings in development" which seems to rather ignore the fundamental reason the East India Company was able to take over the subcontinent in the first place is that the various Indian empires and fiefdoms had ploughed rather more into conflict and ceremony than exploiting India's headstart in areas like steel working. Indian economist Amartya Sen is fond of pointing out that although India has no shortage of hungry people, it hasn't had a famine since the departure of the British. But he's also keen to point out that the significant difference is that the average Indian person now gets to vote governments in and out of power. This wasn't the case under the British, but it also wasn't the case when Shah Jahan dedicated more tax revenue to monumental architecture and unsuccessfully attempting to conquer Qandahar than resolving the Deccan Famine.