The fundamental principle of democratic governance is that the government exists to serve the people, not to act as an independent entity with its own interests. Taxation, the primary source of government revenue, is not a gift bestowed upon the state but a contribution from citizens for the collective good.
This money, therefore, does not belong to the government - it is the people’s money, entrusted to elected officials and bureaucrats to manage responsibly on behalf of the public. Treating it as such changes how we should approach government spending.
Instead of dumping funds into general accounts where they can be spent with broad discretion, all government finances should be held in trust accounts, structured to reflect their true nature as resources held in stewardship.
And subject to strict audit.
Trust accounts, by design, impose a higher standard of accountability. In a trust, the trustee...here, the government... has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, the citizens. This means every dollar must be allocated and spent with clear intent, tied to specific purposes defined by the public’s needs, like infrastructure, education, or healthcare. Unlike “normal” accounts, where funds can be shuffled around or siphoned off for political pet projects with minimal oversight, trust accounts require transparency: regular audits, detailed reporting, and justification for expenditures. If the money is truly the people’s, then the people deserve to know exactly how it’s being used, not just in vague annual budgets but in real-time, enforceable terms.
Consider the waste and mismanagement that plague government spending today. Billions disappear into bloated bureaucracies or poorly conceived initiatives, often because the system treats public funds as a free-for-all once collected. A trust framework flips this on its head. It forces the government to prove it’s honouring its role as a custodian, not a spendthrift.
If we accept that the government doesn’t “own” the money it spends, then treating it otherwise is a betrayal of public faith. Trust accounts enshrine that truth in practice, making it harder for the state to forget who it answers to.
When I had a Real Estate Agency, I had a Trust Account. All money that came into that Trust Account was money I owed to my client. Not mine, theirs. It was a debt. The same with our governments. Our governments are entrusted with OUR money.
Fiduciary duty is a legal and ethical obligation that arises when one party - the fiduciary - is entrusted to act in the best interests of another - the beneficiary. It’s a relationship rooted in trust, where the fiduciary must prioritise the beneficiary’s well-being over their own interests. Think of it like a guardian looking after a child’s inheritance: the guardian can’t dip into the funds for personal gain without breaking a profound moral and legal line. In the context of government, if we view public funds as the people’s money held in trust, fiduciary duty becomes the lens through which we can judge how those funds should be handled.
At its core, fiduciary duty has two main components: the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. The duty of care means the fiduciary must act with diligence, competence, and prudence - like a reasonably skilled person managing something precious. For a government, this could translate to researching policies thoroughly, avoiding reckless spending, and ensuring taxpayer money delivers real value, whether it’s fixing potholes
or funding schools.
The duty of loyalty, meanwhile, demands that the fiduciary put the beneficiary’s interests first, avoiding conflicts of interest or self-dealing. Imagine a politician funneling public funds to a donor’s company...that’s a textbook violation of loyalty. In a trust-based system, such moves wouldn’t just be shady; they’d be breaches of a legal obligation, potentially actionable in court.
The deeper question is whether governments can stomach this. Fiduciary duty strips away the wiggle room for cronyism and forcing a level of honesty that’s rare in politics. It’s why the idea feels radical: it treats citizens not as subjects or taxpayers, but as beneficiaries with rights to enforce. If the money’s ours, and the government’s just holding it, fiduciary duty isn’t optional...it’s the only consistent standard.
Anything less is a quiet admission that the state sees itself as the owner, not the servant.
