The term “budget surplus” is bandied about a lot these days, particularly by politicians and the media.  A budget surplus, we’re told, is a sign of “sound economic management”, and any government found not to be running a surplus in their budget are derided and hounded by pundits and opposition parties alike for not managing taxpayer’s money properly.

But are budget surpluses all they’re cracked up to be?  In these days of economic uncertainty, it is seen as a sign of good government to be running a surplus, and to have money “in the bank”.

Let’s think of a budget surplus, a government budget surplus, another way.  It is well known that the money governments spend on essential services and God knows what else, is taxpayer money.  So, when a government says, “we have a budget surplus of $1 Billion”, what they’re effectively saying is “we’ve got $1 Billion of your money, that we’re not willing to spend just yet.  In fact, we won’t spend it, and we may even increase it in the next budget.”

So, what would you rather?  A government who takes billions of our dollars, only to “save some of it for a rainy day”?  Or would you rather a government who spent all of the taxpayer money they collected on essential services, investments in infrastructure, and investments in jobs?

Sure, government debt is damaging – if it’s high, out of control debt.  Just ask the Eurozone.  But low, well-managed government debt, can be a sound way of managing taxpayer money, and an effective way of investing in the future of the populace.  But of course, it seems all politicians and the media are programmed into thinking “debt bad, surplus good.”

In the event of a budget surplus, the taxpayers should have a case for demanding their money back.  How you would divvy it up is another matter, but governments shouldn’t be allowed to just take our money, and then not spend it all.  In essence, the populace is being taxed too highly if a government runs a surplus.