Homework assighnment need at least 30 answers from you all, its turn in tomorrow....
2006-11-12 06:35:44 · 10 answers · asked by Remi 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No. I want the government to spend less in other areas in order to pay for these projects. Too much money is spent on meaningless pork. Too much money is wasted in fraud, waste and abuse. The government needs to do what most families have to do, namely tighten its belt and live within its budget.
2006-11-12 06:41:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is city and state tax, more then federal income tax at this point and I believe it should stay that way. They cannot simply raise property tax (which is the majority of your state/local taxes where I live), people could lose their homes. They must cut from other areas. As for damaged building that is private property and will be fixed with private funds. It's a trick question, be careful.
2006-11-12 06:50:36 · answer #2 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends. Under classical liberal theory, government spending to promote economic growth is acceptable to provide ifrastructure - that is, the means to the economy that it is not in the interest of any one player in the economy to build or maintain. roads and railroads seem to fit this best, although many would argue that commercial rails are sustainable without government spending. a building may be infrastructure - a post office - or may be better left to the private economy to repair.
2006-11-12 06:39:33 · answer #3 · answered by carol h 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I vote for quickly elevating taxes and utilising funds to pay off the national debt, then doing extremely pruning interior the government so as that taxes can returned be diminished. rules are often for the stable of the patron as long as they're put in place to maintain opposition and save expenses on issues diminished, so we ought to continuously save rules as they're and make extra as mandatory over the years. Deregulating and doing away with transparency of company practices is a factor of the reason we are in this funds crunch on the 2d. There should additionally be no golden cushions for companies that fail by way of fact the executives are incompetent. Governmental help ought to flow to the small traders that lost existence mark downs, if to anybody in any respect. the persons with the least funds (it extremely is the biggest chew of the inhabitants) ought to, as an entire, be taxed below those that have the main funds by way of fact those with the least will then have extra figuring out to purchase potential, which in case you think of of difficulty-unfastened shopper products being bought on a daily basis (outfits, nutrition, footwear, shampoo, etc.) would be stable for companies. One person with $a million,000 won't purchase as many toothbrushes as 500 those with $2 each will purchase. The extra shopper products companies can sell, the extra they are able to enhance and hire people. The extra anybody is employed, the extra issues people ought to purchase, and the cycle keeps. I additionally vote for the President to have a line-merchandise veto, the place he can decrease out extra pointless spending as he sees in good shape.
2016-12-14 05:56:55 · answer #4 · answered by lacross 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know a lot of people won't agree with this, but I would say if you are going to raise taxes in order to fix roads, rail roads, etc, then tax those who can afford it, and who have the money. I think that if you make more than $100,000 a year, you can afford to give up more to taxes than someone who makes only $15,000 a year.
2006-11-12 06:42:48 · answer #5 · answered by denise.watson9441@sbcglobal.net 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Our parents believed enough in this country to invest in it. That is what our taxes are, an investment. That investment should be used only for the common good.
I pay my taxes and am proud to do it because I too want to make an investment in helping to keep this country moving.
I do however feel that the taxes paid should be proportional to ones ability to pay them and sustain ones self.
2006-11-12 11:15:17 · answer #6 · answered by Black Dragon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they get taxes for roads from the sale of gasoline. Buildings are usually provate property and railroad should pay for themselves.
2006-11-12 06:39:27 · answer #7 · answered by Bill 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well for the past 6 years Republicans
much rather spend $$$ on their wars,
vs. feeding USA kids or helping them
stay warm in the winter.
Go figure!
Big changes ahead!
2006-11-12 06:51:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The gov. is already collecting taxes for this purpose, but they use it instead to build bridges to nowhere and other useless trash. They need to reign in spending and use the money for it's intended purpose.
2006-11-12 06:51:15 · answer #9 · answered by Cinner 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO--THE GOVERNMENT IS BROKE AND CAN'T FIX ITSELF...
2006-11-12 06:37:00 · answer #10 · answered by cork 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋