NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine the country you live in has a surplus of $500 billion. Pretending that the national debt does not exist, what do you hope will be done with the extra money? Save it for a rainy day? Spend it on education? Nuke Canada?
As a guide, here are some things the money can buy:

The war in Iraq thus far
1.32 annual gross revenues of Exxon Mobil
One-twenty-sixth of the US GDP
About ten Bill Gates
49,019,607.84 salaries of the average human (~$10,200)

send the administration to mars?

Education in america is screwed up, people give up on life before they are 15. Most people focus on elementary school or college when trying to improve education, but middle school is when people lose hope.

I usually just wipe off my surplus splurge with a towel.

Start praying, it's obvious the world is about to end!

The Exxon Mobil statistic has an error. That would be 1.32 times revenues, not profits. If they had $500 billion in profit...well, show me where the hell I could invest in them. The dividends paid out would be more than the average person's salary.

Our mutual friend Hugo knows how to deal with Exxon and others.

send the administration to mars?
Dear Misguided Earthling,

Attempting this plan would be a serious mistake. Do not make me break out my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator on your ass.

Sincerely,
Marvin T. Martian

Our mutual friend Hugo knows how to deal with Exxon and others.

Yes, by robbing from them.

Yes, by robbing from them.

It's not theft in a socialist state, it's redistribution, and even if Hugo wasn't around it's not stealing to take back something that was stolen in the first place - liberation would be a better word.

Give one billion of it to me - I'm not greedy. Use the rest to repair and rebuild the infrastructure of the US (bridges, dams, levees, etc), revamp the educational systems of the various states, and bolster Social Security for the current retirees and research and establish a viable retirement system for the people currently working.

Give one billion of it to me - I'm not greedy. Use the rest to repair and rebuild the infrastructure of the US (bridges, dams, levees, etc), revamp the educational systems of the various states, and bolster Social Security for the current retirees and research and establish a viable retirement system for the people currently working.

That's a terrible way to think, but removing that one billion dollars means that Exxon in the future will have 1 billion incentives less to exploit our resources, do we really want that?

A one-time surplus? Or is it expected to keep coming that way each year?

That's a terrible way to think, but removing that one billion dollars means that Exxon in the future will have 1 billion incentives less to exploit our resources, do we really want that?

Since I never intended to give Exxon any incentives to do anything (given what I understand about oil companies, they really don't need any incentives to exploit anyting), I'm good with it.

Since I never intended to give Exxon any incentives to do anything (given what I understand about oil companies, they really don't need any incentives to exploit anyting), I'm good with it.

Well then, it's on your head when the Exxon board have to tell their children they have to go without food.

Imagine the country you live in has a surplus of $500 billion. Pretending that the national debt does not exist, what do you hope will be done with the extra money? Save it for a rainy day? Spend it on education? Nuke Canada?
As a guide, here are some things the money can buy:

The war in Iraq thus far
1.32 annual gross profits of Exxon Mobil
One-twenty-sixth of the US GDP
About ten Bill Gates
49,019,607.84 salaries of the average human (~$10,200)


Cut taxes.

Cut taxes.

Is that a joke? If so I am impressed by the wittiness.

Is that a joke? If so I am impressed by the wittiness.

Seriously.

The government should not make 500billion worth of surplus when there is no debt. It then needs to cut taxes.

Seriously.

The government should not make 500billion worth of surplus when there is no debt. It then needs to cut taxes.

Low income should pay no taxes, they should be receiving. I think their needs to be massive wealth and capital taxes, similar to those in Sweden and Finland.

Well then, it's on your head when the Exxon board have to tell their children they have to go without food.

I'll bear up somehow.

Low income should pay no taxes, they should be receiving. I think their needs to be massive wealth and capital taxes, similar to those in Sweden and Finland.

They pay no taxes now. They also recieve child tax credits and are eligible for all sorts of programs to help them. You guys seriously need to clue up on who pays taxes in the US and what the poor can recieve.

They pay no taxes now. They also recieve child tax credits and are eligible for all sorts of programs to help them. You guys seriously need to clue up on who pays taxes in the US and what the poor can recieve.
Your talking about charity dude, your talking about giving the bum on the street a bit of bread so the country doesn't feel completely rotten, welfare or support of the kind you speak of is not egalitarian - it's more the people having 'pity' and being 'compassionate' on the poor, it's not about real equality, it's just a scrap from the table so the rich can sleep at night, it's totally undignified, why should anyone have to go through a humiliation of getting welfare or support while the far-right piles scorn on the poor because they failed the genetic lottery.

What I support is genuine equality, and equality isn't just about treating people equal, it's about material equality, giving people political equality is nothing unless it is mirrored in economic well being.

I would give the money to Israel.

I would give the money to Israel.

OH YEAH..... Well I'd give it to the Nazi Party, hows that!

Carbon negative country.

I would give the money to Israel.

Winner of the thread.

OH YEAH..... Well I'd give it to the Nazi Party, hows that!

I was just trying to get your goat. :p

Socialized health care.

I would take it for my own personal use and live in Monaco.

If we have that much extra money, especially in a country as small as Sweden, we've clearly collected far too much in taxes. I'd lower them.

I'd wonder what I'm doing in Norway.

Imagine the country you live in has a surplus of $500 billion. Pretending that the national debt does not exist, what do you hope will be done with the extra money? Save it for a rainy day? Spend it on education?
depends. If I were leader and was up for re-election, I'd 'spend' it on tax rebates and tax cuts in order to appease and fool the easily-placated morons who vote.

Otherwise I'd spend it on myself. buy an island, populate it with Asian models in bikinis. swimming pool of wine. tasteful things like that

People don't understand that tax cuts are inflationary so you will usually end up paying the same somewhere else with interest. I tend to think that the government would be right to say it's better to buy your children food than buying more dope, but hey where am I to disagree with 'personal responsibility'!?!

coat the whole country in a thin layer of gold, or chocolate.

If we have that much extra money, especially in a country as small as Sweden, we've clearly collected far too much in taxes. I'd lower them.

Especially as such a sum is almost twice the size of Sweden's economy.

I'd distribute it to the states on a per capita basis.

If my country had a surplus like that I would never cut taxes. People would have enough money to manage anyway. Cutting taxes would just create a higher inflation. But if it was election time I might aswell promise some tax cuts to gain some fools' votes if I wasn't ahead in the polls already.

Seriously.

The government should not make 500billion worth of surplus when there is no debt. It then needs to cut taxes.

im with you. why does the govt have an extra $500billion? cut taxes and rebate this $500billion to the people.

Your talking about charity dude, your talking about giving the bum on the street a bit of bread so the country doesn't feel completely rotten, welfare or support of the kind you speak of is not egalitarian - it's more the people having 'pity' and being 'compassionate' on the poor, it's not about real equality, it's just a scrap from the table so the rich can sleep at night, it's totally undignified, why should anyone have to go through a humiliation of getting welfare or support while the far-right piles scorn on the poor because they failed the genetic lottery.

What I support is genuine equality, and equality isn't just about treating people equal, it's about material equality, giving people political equality is nothing unless it is mirrored in economic well being.
woah relax!

I would first run for election in my home country(lebanon), using fundraisers, then i would use the money to build up the economy, and maybe buy the sheba farms so we would not have the excuse, change lebanon into a federation based on religous lines, each group would have its own portion of the national guard(since we'll buy off isreal and syria!, i wont need the army!), make the presidency a managerial position , bascially make it into the middle eastern switzerland!

im with you. why does the govt have an extra $500billion? cut taxes and rebate this $500billion to the people.

Of course, cut taxes when the economy is doing well and give the whole surplus to the people who already have enough money. Then they can spend even more, the inflation will go up, they'll have a recession around the corner waiting for them and when that comes the government will have no money to stimulate the economy with because it's already spent the whole surplus.

Cut Taxes and fund scientific research, in all disciplines

Of course, cut taxes when the economy is doing well and give the whole surplus to the people who already have enough money. Then they can spend even more, the inflation will go up, they'll have a recession around the corner waiting for them and when that comes the government will have no money to stimulate the economy with because it's already spent the whole surplus.

it makes no sense to say that the people make too much money so the government has to take some away from them so they dont spend it.

when the economy turns, the government can run a deficit until the economy improves then raise taxes a bit to get rid of debt. then put them back to the level that pays for what the govt needs to fund itself.

It's not theft in a socialist state, it's redistribution, and even if Hugo wasn't around it's not stealing to take back something that was stolen in the first place - liberation would be a better word.

That's going on my fridge.

it makes no sense to say that the people make too much money so the government has to take some away from them so they dont spend it.

when the economy turns, the government can run a deficit until the economy improves then raise taxes a bit to get rid of debt. then put them back to the level that pays for what the govt needs to fund itself.

It makes every sense in the world. If the economy is doing well and people have much money it would be irresponsible by the government to cut taxes and give people too much money to spend. The economy will get overheated and the upcoming recession will be worse than it would've been if the government had been responsible with the economy.

Taxes should be cut when the economy is doing poorly in order to increase the peoples buying power and make the economy turn.

That's going on my fridge.

Comrade, the People tell me to liberate you of your wallet, your computer, and your Fridge. Obey the People.

I say give the whole sum back. But like Hell they'd ever do that (there are bribes and favors to give out, y'know.)

- Demolish all the existing buildings of DC and rebuild a better looking city in a Gothic-revival style.
- Establish a national healthcare system off the UK model.
- Abolish all prisons, instead build extensive reform centres.
- Increase education funding by 1200%, offer mandatory, free education to all Conservatives over the age of 30. :)
- Create soup kitchens at a ratio of one per every two hundred homeless persons in all parts of the country.
- State sponsored ren fairs. :)
- Disassemble the NFL in favour of a rugby league, disassemble the baseball league in favour of cricket.
- Create massive campaigns to influence American voters to pressure the government into joining the European Union.
- Create an American Labour party and pump massive funds into it
- Buy out FOX network and turn it into a state-controlled socialist propaganda network :)
- Raise teachers' salaries
- Some other stuff that I can't think of now

It makes every sense in the world. If the economy is doing well and people have much money it would be irresponsible by the government to cut taxes and give people too much money to spend. The economy will get overheated and the upcoming recession will be worse than it would've been if the government had been responsible with the economy.

Taxes should be cut when the economy is doing poorly in order to increase the peoples buying power and make the economy turn.

taxes should reflect the amount needed to run the government.

what would you do with this extra money that the government takes from people?

- Demolish all the existing buildings of DC and rebuild a better looking city in a Gothic-revival style.
- Establish a national healthcare system off the UK model.
- Abolish all prisons, instead build extensive reform centres.
- Increase education funding by 1200%, offer mandatory, free education to all Conservatives over the age of 30. :)
- Create soup kitchens at a ratio of one per every two hundred homeless persons in all parts of the country.
- State sponsored ren fairs. :)
- Disassemble the NFL in favour of a rugby league, disassemble the baseball league in favour of cricket.
- Create massive campaigns to influence American voters to pressure the government into joining the European Union.
- Create an American Labour party and pump massive funds into it
- Buy out FOX network and turn it into a state-controlled socialist propaganda network :)
- Raise teachers' salaries
- Some other stuff that I can't think of now

I don't like the socialism bits, but I'd gladly return to a King George III type government under the Queen if that means I have to pay the same taxes as the early colonists did (a fortieth of one's income in the south, a hundredth in the north.) Taxation without representation is fine as long as it means less taxation.

I'd devote half the surplus towards ensuring I make double that the next time taxes roll in, and spend the remaining 250 billion on whatever projects need funding.

The Exxon Mobil statistic has an error. That would be 1.32 times revenues, not profits. If they had $500 billion in profit...well, show me where the hell I could invest in them. The dividends paid out would be more than the average person's salary.

Mistake fixed. Thank you.

it makes no sense to say that the people make too much money so the government has to take some away from them so they dont spend it.

But that's not the rationale of taxation! It's more like "government should do this or that (defence or law enforcement for instance); doing this thing will require money so we can buy services; now where do we get the money"

Some functions of government can be run as business, earning money to pay at least some of their costs. That seems to be a diminishing role for government. Or else the government can just take money out of the economy, from businesses or individuals, and this is what it generally chooses to do. Leaving only the question: where to take the money from, not to damage the economy any more than necessary?

Punitive taxes, like tobacco tax, send a quite bad message: we are taxing you to make what you are doing less rewarding for you. That isn't the rationale for taxes in general, and the use of taxation to deliberately harm parts of the economy encourages the impression you have just voiced, that all taxes are punishment for success.

when the economy turns, the government can run a deficit until the economy improves then raise taxes a bit to get rid of debt. then put them back to the level that pays for what the govt needs to fund itself.

Yep. It seems to work OK too. Trade off some of the booms to prevent some of the busts. Kinda like insurance.

I don't like the socialism bits, but I'd gladly return to a King George III type government under the Queen if that means I have to pay the same taxes as the early colonists did (a fortieth of one's income in the south, a hundredth in the north.) Taxation without representation is fine as long as it means less taxation.

The free-market small-government case for monarchy. You meet all kinds here ...:)

I can't see anything wrong with your thinking except that it assumes some government is inevitable. Not an unreasonable assumption ...

it makes no sense to say that the people make too much money so the government has to take some away from them so they dont spend it.
Not necessarily. For whatever reason, people may be saving their money and not investing it. This is almost never good, and raising taxes can insure it will be invested for the public good. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith suggested a higher sales tax, as it would transfer money from private (over)production to public use, beneficial in the long run.

I still think it makes a huge difference whether the surplus is expected to recur or whether it's a one-off.

A surplus doesn't just come out of nowhere, it comes from taxes. If the money was some kind of gift from outside the economy (like the 'what would you do with a million dollars?' fantasy) then the most responsible thing the government could do with it is BURN IT. Government can print its own money any time it wants, and we know it's not a good idea.

If the surplus is recurring (ie the economy is doing fine despite the huge taxation) then (a)giving it back to everyone who payed taxes is inflationary, (b)spending it within the economy is inflationary, (c) investing it on the stock market would drive up the price of all stocks, making the rich (who own stocks) richer, and (d) burning the money increases the value of cash held by the rich and is deflationary.

There is no right answer! Look to reduce how much tax is taken in the future, but in a planned and gradual way, and whatever is chosen to do with the current surplus, try to keep it from distorting the miraculously good economy that can afford to be taxed so heavily without getting anything back. For instance, untied foreign aid, scientific research or just plain incineration.

Andaras Prime: the Correct Line is that government should use the money to begin buying the means of production, factories and farms and merchant banks. I'm disappointed to see you suggest bread and circuses.

taxes should reflect the amount needed to run the government.

what would you do with this extra money that the government takes from people?

No, if it's necessary the government should deliberately raise taxes so the people don't have too much money to spend. When recession, the goverment can run a deficit and stimulate the economy.

I don't know what I would've done with the extra money, depends on the circumstances in the country. But I wouldn't cut taxes.

coat the whole country in a thin layer of gold.

Goldfinger? Is that you?

No, if it's necessary the government should deliberately raise taxes so the people don't have too much money to spend. When recession, the goverment can run a deficit and stimulate the economy.

That is stupid. Tax revenues rise automatically in boom times (times of strong economic growth.) Don't forget that income tax is not the only tax, most countries have a sales tax, all have resources taxes (royalties), then there's capital gains tax and sometimes taxes on transfers of money. There may be other taxes (I'm no expert) but it is pretty obvious that tax revenue increases in boom times, simply by the increased flow of the money which is being taxed.

Take a step beyond that, to deliberately raise taxes because the economy can support it ... and you are into Louis XIV territory. You're into Five Year Plans. "Yes, dear Leader, we have produced the million tons of steel? What now?" "Produce five million tons of steel!"

Sorry about that, a bit of hyperbole. Yes to smoothing, but not to leveling. Government cannot know the natural rate of growth (no-one knows it, it is discovered year by year) so it cannot enforce it. In a boom, the government can only cross its fingers and hope it lasts -- people are happy with their 'management' of the economy, tax revenues are good.

Whereas, in a recession or bust, everyone looks to the government. "The market has failed us, save my business, save me from losing the mortgage on my house." Government gets to look like heroes, while at the same time stimulating the economy.

The clever solution is to cook the books: Stash money away by having departments of government invest in real estate for instance. Then in recession you can spend without raising taxes or running a worrying deficit, by raiding the stash.

There are only so many degrees of freedom in government. You can't piss off the people, you can't wreck the economy, you can't control everything at once and there's a bunch of things you can't tell the truth about.

In that context, lying to the people is a quite practical option. Telling the people "all bad stuff will happen if you spend all that money, so we're taking it off you" is not only bad policy, it's bad politics.

The free-market small-government case for monarchy. You meet all kinds here ...:)

I can't see anything wrong with your thinking except that it assumes some government is inevitable. Not an unreasonable assumption ...

Oh, no, I'd rather have no government at all. But at least monarchy assumes a fortunate powerlessness of Louis XIV, that there is a kind of corporate aspect of sovereignty that the monarch must obey (reason), and if his personal decisions are out of line with that he must be corrected as he is injuring his own sovereignty. Odd, yes, but I'd rather have that than the "will of the people" unbound.

snip due to length

It's not stupid to raise taxes in a boom if needed. If people spend way too much money the answer is not to give them more money to spend but to give them less so they don't spend as much. However, if the government is having a 500 billion dollar surplus I hardly think raising taxes will be necessary.
The government can cross it's fingers for the boom to last but it'll never last forever and then people will bitch about how poorly the government is doing it's job.

I agree with you that the government should stash money away so it can be used in a recession to stimulate the economy without having to run a deficit. But the government should never raise taxes in a recession. That will give people less money to spend and naturally when people don't have much money, the demand for supplies decrease. And if people aren't buying enough stuff, companies don't run with profits and they have to lay off workers. So recession + raising taxes = fail.