There is a very particular reason for this: unless a government of this particular sort that is actually responsible for creating the money that is in use in its jurisdiction first actually spends its currency into the economy by, for example, buying goods and services from people and businesses within it, then those people and businesses would not have the currency that they would need to pay the tax that is owing in that same currency.
This rather jars with the other insistence, that 97% of money is created as a bookkeeping exercise by banks.
The two cannot both be true. Either governments create all money in existence in which case, sure, government must create money before money can be used to pay tax, or governments don’t create all money, banks create a lot of it, in which case government money creation is not required for the payment of tax.
Single stump thinking.
And guess what:
Critically, the books of a government that is in this situation of having its own currency do not need to be balanced: instead the objective of a government in this situation is to run whatever deficits or surpluses are necessary to control the level of inflation which is arising within that economy, taking into consideration any desired inflation rate that they might decide upon. So, for example, if they have a desired inflation rate of 2% and the actual rate is 4% per annum then they will want to slow down the rate of growth in the economy, and will as a result wish to run a government financial surplus, or in other words, collect more cash in tax than they actually spend in cash terms during the course of the period. This has the net effect of withdrawing money from the economy, so reducing the purchasing power of people within it. This will necessarily mean that there is less money available to buy goods and services within the economy, which will reduce the pressure on prices, and so bring inflation back under control.
The suggestion ain’t never gonna be that a Curajus State might reduce expenditure now, is it?