Is it so much to ask? 63 replies

Please wait...

Aeroflot

I would die without GF

169,400 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

15,205 Posts

0 Threads

#61 12 years ago

WarHawk105Department of housing and urban development for one

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/view.html

Why don't we just get rid of NASA instead?




IR15H

An end has a start.

50 XP

7th September 2005

0 Uploads

2,031 Posts

0 Threads

#62 12 years ago
WarHawk109;3282029No, it's a sign that they are spending too much. And I would rather my gov't keep a balanced budget.

The first line was a joke. In regards to keeping a balanced budget over a surplus, why? If you are running a company would you rather break even or make a profit? In terms of government, creating a surplus shows it is possible to the same thing but with less money, efficency. That extra money can be used to pay off an exisiting debt faster or help fund tax cuts. You are not necessairly taxed more becaue you have a surplus then if you do not, infact I would suggest the opposite is true - you are more likely to recieve a tax cut if there has been a surplus previously, and more likely to be taxed more if you only balance the budget, to help with rising prices of things. Give someone $1000 and tell them you want them to spend it all (balanced) - they will, maybe on a few things they don't really need but just to reach $1000. Give someone $1000 and tell them to spend only what they need and you'll be more likely to get some change back.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#63 12 years ago
masked_marsoe;3281922Here, the government has announced a $11 billion surplus. Of that, $8 billion went to improving institutions, the schools, hospitals especially

Were there reduces to corporation tax, increases to universities & technology investments, state's investments & businesses or police & justice deparment?

The trouble is, if that debt isn't dealt with, the nation's credit rating will most probably drop, and the debt will continue to damage the nation's economy, more so than what the current tax level is doing. What do you think?

I say choose the golden middle road: use $2 billion for reducing the debt and $1 billion for reducing the income tax. Paying off the national debt brings extra money for next year as there's less interest to pay. Income tax reduction pays itself back almost totally and creates new jobs in a healthy way, reducing unemployment and money used to reduce it or at least giving a change to concentrate the money more effectively.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#64 12 years ago

Universities are getting increased funding, as are police, so yes. No, not corporation tax cuts with the surplus, the Labour party plans them for 2008.

Personally, I would spend all the $3 billion on reducing the national debt, then look to reduce income taxes and introduce floating ecological tax for businesses, and cut their tax too, in about 2008.