[idermoth]

Definitely. War itself brings new markets and new economic activity in many ways. For the most simple example, think of the conquest of the Americas and the opening up of resources and trade or prostitutes setting up shop in a new area to service soldiers or new towns.

But the main historic example I was thinking of, is cited in Graeber's Debt: the First 5,000 years. In the late 1800s, France invaded Madagascar, declaring it a French colony. New, heavy taxes were imposed because France demanded their colonies be self-supporting. France then enforced the building of new rail, roads, plantations, etc. It's an imperfect book but a good read.

Another example might be the destruction of Europe in WW2, which allowed the American Empire to rebuild and form NATO, which the US then enforced (and still enforces) Europe to buy US-built arms and weapons as a percentage of European GDP. It would be misleading to call this a direct "tax," but there are parallels here.

Finally, part of the reason the US went to war in the early 2000s is likely to generate economic activity due in part to the precarious relationship it has with the dollar being the reserve global currency. Bush even said on live TV in 2001 that the best thing we could all do was go to the mall and buy junk, foreign-made stuff which is akin to countries paying tribute to the American Empire. Again, not a direct tax, but there is certainly a parallel here.