[Editorial] “The ‘National Dividend’ Fiasco: Excess Profits Are Not the Government’s Slush Fund”

The Blue House Policy Director Kim Yongbeom’s proposal for “AI and semiconductor national dividends” appears to have been dismissed as a mere happening within a day. Kim proposed designing a so-called national dividend that would return to the public the excess profits and excess tax revenues generated by the boom in the AI and semiconductor industries. As controversy grew, the Blue House drew a line, saying the remarks were his personal opinion, unrelated to internal discussions or any official review. However, comments by a senior policy official do not disappear from the market simply because they are explained away as personal views. The words of the Policy Director are inevitably taken as a signal of the government’s direction in industrial, tax, and fiscal policy.

The essence of this issue is not the expression “national dividend” itself. The problem is the signal that the government has begun to view the performance of the AI and semiconductor industries as something to be socially distributed. It is not wrong to say that the achievements of the semiconductor and AI industries were built on the foundation of the national economy as a whole. But in reality, the entities that made large-scale investments, bore the risks of technological failure and business-cycle fluctuations, and survived in global competition are companies, shareholders, and employees. The idea that profits in boom periods should be shared by the entire public while losses in downturns should be borne by companies and investors runs counter to the basic principles of a market economy.

As it happens, in the early hours of the 13th, post-negotiation mediation over wage talks between Samsung Electronics management and labor also ended in final breakdown, without narrowing differences over the payment of performance bonuses. The union raised issues regarding OPI, or the excess profit incentive system, and transparency in performance bonuses, and although the first meeting the previous day lasted about 11 hours and 30 minutes and the second lasted 16 hours, no agreement was reached. This shows that the issue of how to distribute the gains of the semiconductor industry is highly sensitive and complex even within companies themselves. If the government adds yet another claim on excess profits—under the name of a “national dividend”—to a matter that is difficult even for companies and workers to reconcile between themselves, uncertainty on the industrial front can only grow further.

Excess tax revenue is not free money either. It is a temporary fluctuation in tax receipts that can arise depending on economic conditions and corporate performance, not a stable source of funding for new cash-based spending. If this is institutionalized under the name of a national dividend, public finances will become more vulnerable to the business cycle, and politicians will inevitably be tempted to turn temporary tax revenue into permanent spending. What public finance should do is not distribute unexpected tax receipts, but reduce national debt, lessen the burden on future generations, and expand the foundations for growth.

It is also inappropriate to compare Norway’s sovereign wealth fund to Korea’s AI and semiconductor industries. Norway’s oil income is closer to rent derived from natural resources with a strong public-resource character. By contrast, Korea’s semiconductor industry is the result of private companies’ research and development, capital investment, talent acquisition, supply-chain management, and global competition. Treating returns from underground natural resources and the fruits of private firms’ innovation and investment in the same way confuses both the nature of the industries and the parties bearing the risks.

The bigger problem is policy communication. The market does not fear companies making a lot of money. What the market fears is policy risk—when the government steps in to redesign the social distribution of profits every time companies earn substantial returns. The AI and semiconductor industries in particular are fields that require massive upfront investment and the acceptance of long-term uncertainty. What the government should do is not design how to divide companies’ excess profits, but create an environment in which companies can invest more, hire more, and innovate more.

What is needed now is not a national dividend design. The priorities are expanding power, water, and site infrastructure; cultivating talent; easing regulations; ensuring tax stability; increasing labor-market flexibility; and fostering a research and development ecosystem. When the semiconductor industry enters a boom, the first question the government should ask is not, “How should we divide these profits?” but, “How can we connect this boom to sustainable investment and growth?”

This controversy over national dividends shows that remarks by senior policy officials can operate as policy uncertainty for the market and industrial sites alike. Excess tax revenue is not free money, and excess profits are not a source of state dividends. In the AI era, the fruits of growth should spread as wealth for the entire public not through dividends handed out by the government, but through corporate reinvestment and innovation, expanded employment, and higher productivity.

2026. 5. 13.

Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [논평] ‘국민배당금 해프닝,’초과이윤은 정부의 쌈짓돈이 아니다

Author: Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

Date: 2026-05-13

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=comment&pn=1&idx=28908