> It's a difficult idea to wrap your head around, I know. The government can invest tax dollars, but so can you. Taxation, regardless of what it is spent on is inherently zero-sum by definition.
I think you're defining taxation so narrowly as to be meaningless. One could equally argue that buying something in a shop is inherently zero-sum - your money goes to the shopkeeper, the product goes to you, by definition that's zero-sum.
With more usual definitions we'd say that was a positive-sum trade, because to you the product is worth more than the money, while to the shopkeeper the reverse is true. But the exact same reasoning can apply to taxation - taxation is positive-sum for most people, precisely because it is more valuable to them for that money to be in the hands of the government than for it to be in their own hands (because, as you say, the government can use it more efficiently, because it can undertake projects that while positive-sum are impractical for private individuals).
I think you're defining taxation so narrowly as to be meaningless. One could equally argue that buying something in a shop is inherently zero-sum - your money goes to the shopkeeper, the product goes to you, by definition that's zero-sum.
With more usual definitions we'd say that was a positive-sum trade, because to you the product is worth more than the money, while to the shopkeeper the reverse is true. But the exact same reasoning can apply to taxation - taxation is positive-sum for most people, precisely because it is more valuable to them for that money to be in the hands of the government than for it to be in their own hands (because, as you say, the government can use it more efficiently, because it can undertake projects that while positive-sum are impractical for private individuals).