Hypothetical tax/budget question

[IllustriousPotentate]

Okay, a very hypothetical question.

Suppose hell freezes over, and we cut and reform spending, reform the tax code, and now have a budget surplus. We then use that surplus to pay off the national debt.

Now what? Would you prefer

a) Reducing the taxes to balance the budget, so there's no budget deficit or surplus
b) Reducing taxes somewhat, while at the same time, keeping a smaller surplus to build up a strict "rainy day fund"
c) Keep taxes the same, and develop new social and scientifical programs with the surplus
d) Other (describe)

Myself, I would choose B. While I consider myself an economic conservative, I think having a small surplus, to be built up over time, would help serve as a contingency fund, which could be used in dire times (disaster relief, emergency aid, etc.). However, it would have to be strictly managed to be used appropriately, not as pork money or for vote buying.

Your thoughts? What would you support, and why?

[Eoewe]

A rewrite of our current tax code would be nice. But those who are in power are making far too much money for it to ever happen.

[MoralLibertarian]

A. Tax cuts are the best. What's the point of keeping money if we don't have a national debt to pay off? Empower the individual, not the government.

c) Keep taxes the same, and develop new social and scientifical programs with the surplus

This doesn't sound like keeping a surplus at all. It just sounds like getting rid of the surplus some other way than tax cuts. BOO.

[K-RadPie]

d) Other (describe)

I would greatly increase taxes to:

-Make sure common people can afford nothing but minimal food and very small houses
-Buy whips and primitive farm equipment
-Buy lots of giant rocks

All so the peasants would be nothing but laborers and farmers so they can build an extravagant tomb for me and all of my successors.

This would:

-Give me and my successors awesome tombs
-Get rid of obesity
-Reduce carbon emissions

Three birds with one stone.

[MoralLibertarian]

Besides, shouldn't the government saving money make us nervous by this point? It's so...unnatural.

[K-RadPie]

At 7/12/07 04:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Besides, shouldn't the government saving money make us nervous by this point? It's so...unnatural.

It's for paying the stealth jews to stop their raids for another year.

[Politics]

B.

Assuming the new plague of flying pigs doesn't get out of hand.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 7/12/07 04:43 PM, Eoewe wrote: A rewrite of our current tax code would be nice. But those who are in power are making far too much money for it to ever happen.

Thanks for not answering the question. You obviously missed the emphasis on "hypothetical" and "very hypothetical".

At 7/12/07 04:45 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: A. Tax cuts are the best. What's the point of keeping money if we don't have a national debt to pay off? Empower the individual, not the government.

To pay off future debts and unforseen expenses--to avoid raising taxes as much in the future?

Think about it. Suppose, for simplicity's sake, that we keep a 1 billion dollar surplus, which, in terms of the budget, is like someone making $30,000 buying a $10 T-shirt.

The federal government can earn interest on this surplus. Let's say, 5% annually, again, for simplicity's sake. In a matter of 13-14 years, that money will have been almost doubled, so funding a $2 billion recovery effort/ pandemic control/whatever fully would have only cost the taxpayers $1 billion.

With a nation as large and powerful as ours, there's always the need for contingency funds. As with your own personal finances, it's better to save a little over time, and let the fund for your rainy day build, rather than have to scurry around looking for funding on the rainy day.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 7/12/07 04:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Besides, shouldn't the government saving money make us nervous by this point? It's so...unnatural.

Again, this is a hypothetical, where we assume that Congress is responsible legislative body, and the members of it care more about the fiscal health of the nation than their reelection.

If we were talking about the current bunch of bozos in Congress saving money, then yes, I would be worried.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 7/12/07 04:34 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

c) Keep taxes the same, and develop new social and scientifical programs with the surplus

I would support this ONLY if the reform was brought about by a newer, more efficient government. If the debt was payed off, but its the same ol' incompetent government, I said lower the taxes.

[azn-vink]

B would be the best option.

[Draconias]

I would actually go with "d) Other" because the other options feel like oversimplifications of how the government should act. I thinkt heg overnment, if it gets a surplus, should:

1. First, pay off the National Debt
2. After that is completed or well-progress, do a mixture of the following:

a. Shift funds from "economic recovery" programs and policies to "economic progress" programs; for example, shift the money that was paying off the National Debt interest into R&D or support for Entrepreneurial Businesses (i.e., start-ups).

b. Reduce taxes on the Middle Class to help buffer increasing strain on them from skyrocketing cost-of-living expenses, college costs, and other money pressures.

c. Attempt to further streamline (not cut away at) curent government programs, particular non-developmental agencies (i.e., don't hurt the Research guys and the Military, but examine purely administrative bodies or programs like Social Security).

In general, all of these things can be simplified down to: shore up the strength and quality of our nation using the surplus money that is available instead of wasting it by throwing it all back or investing it in Poverty Programs or other endless endeavors.

[Der-Lowe]

I have a question, related to the topic: What happened to your reserves? Because the CIA factbook says that you have only 69 billion...