{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021739130434782608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.52755905511811, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
HOW SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT ALLOCATE ITS TAX REVENUES BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY-ENHANCING AND UTILITY-ENHANCING PUBLIC GOODS?

We present a fairly standard general equilibrium model of endogenous growth with productive and nonproductive public goods and services. The former enhance private productivity and the latter private utility. We study Ramsey second-best optimal policy, where the latter is summarized by the paths of the income tax rate and the allocation of collected tax revenues between productivity-enhancing and utility-enhancing public expenditures. We show that the properties and macroeconomic implications of the second-best optimal policy (a) are different from the benchmark case of the social planner's first-best allocation and (b) depend crucially on whether public goods and services are subject to congestion.