English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

why not lower taxes and spend less. goverment should only provide fire,police,a standing army. and only things we need.
like roads,bridges, and such. no more bridge to no where. no fish barns in iowa. less taxes less spending

2007-06-01 02:13:36 · 6 answers · asked by tentieooo 3 in Business & Finance Taxes Australia

6 answers

just a rough guess here

could it have anything to do with the notion that 95% of the populace, voters and non-voters alike, are inherently fiscally challenged and are currently suffering from effects of Financial Illiteracy?

In a country populated with citizens handicapped under the weight of economic ignorance, any issue on taxes will most likely end up in confusion

In order to clarify what to do about exploding debt loads one must first become fiscally competent and then teach another the basic principals in order to get at the solutions

ignorance can be cured through education - take a good read of the report on complex money and Financial Illiteracy

2007-06-01 17:05:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You have answered your question better than anyone else could. You just would have a hard time getting elected in most places with your views.

Politicians think (and maybe it's true) that they have to buy votes with the type projects you name.

Democrats want a permanent dependant class that need them to provide necessities in exchange for votes.

Republicans historically have tried to provide a system(low taxes etc) that allows people to raise themselves out of an underclass and achieve more in exchange for votes.

Recently, the spending has gotten out of hand for both parties. The theory behind lower income taxes is that people will work harder and make more if they get to keep what they earn so even with lower tax rates, the total taxes paid are more. Democrats like to tax--specially the so called rich??--cause that allows them to promote class warfare and get one class to think they are voting against another.

Taxing and spending by either party will some day have drastic consequences; high inflation if the govt just decides to pay off debt by printing more money. Depression if the govt can't pay its bills.

Hope this helps, but you show good thinking about the problem already

2007-06-01 02:35:01 · answer #2 · answered by cgm 2 · 0 0

The only thing worse than a "Tax & Spend" Democrat is a "Borrow & Spend" Republican. At least with a Democrat, you know the bills are paid.

Ever wonder how we went from a budget surplus in 2000 at the end of the Clinton era to a $9 trillion shorfall in 5 years under Bush?? Yep, classic "Borrow & Spend!"

(And before you bring up 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina, those only account for $2 trillion combined. Where's the other $7 trillion??)

2007-06-01 03:02:49 · answer #3 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0 0

Democrats want to tax and spend on business regulation, and social welfare.

Republicans want to tax and spend on business subsidies and defense.

Plus all politicians want to be reelected and as a house member getting money for your district is one of the best ways to get campaign dollars from local business and support of local voters. The bridge to nowhere is a boon for the fifty or so people who live on the island it connects to the mainland and I bet those people will be voting for Ted Stevens again.

Either way a $315 million bridge is nothing compared to the budget of the Armed Forces. 35% of the budget is Medicare and Social Security, but that is not paid with federal income tax, so after removing that the Armed Forces is 29% of the remaining budget. While the pork is only a portion of 17% of the remaing.

2007-06-01 02:34:29 · answer #4 · answered by plbogen 2 · 0 0

Spending the money and financing it are separate decisions. Assuming you're going to spend it for something, then you face the question of financing it from current revenues (taxation) or borrowing the money to finance it. Right now the government can borrow at very low rates -- 4-5%. If you leave the money with the public, they can invest it at returns higher than 4-5%. It's exactly the same decision that a company faces when deciding whether to finance a project from borrowing or issuing more stock. Or you face in deciding whether to save up to buy a house or get a mortgage.

2007-06-01 04:45:01 · answer #5 · answered by SDD 7 · 0 0

You have discovered that you are a libertarian. This is good. Now we need a candidate. See www.philvalentine.com

2007-06-01 02:18:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers