Can someone please explain......?

Question

how we are going to have a balanced budget without raising taxes and cutting spending? I am very interested in your ideas, because without a raise in revenue, I just don't understand how we can have our income = outcome. Mature answers only. Thank you!

KID... Instead of insulting us "dumb libs", I am looking for you solution. I don't think that asking for a solution to a problem is dumb, from my understanding, coming up with the answer is what eliminates issues.

Also, who said anything about raising corporate taxes to 70%? Here's a look at what the actual rate has been throughout history:
http://www.cbpp.org/10-20-03tax-fact.htm

Now, please tell me how they are paying 70%, and please answer the question.

Thanks White Feather!

Answer 1

Cutting spending is the obvious one. The tax question is a little trickier. There is a balance between tax revenue and tax load. Raise taxes too high and revenues decrease as a result of decreased investment. Lower them too much and revenues decrease just because the tax levels don't generate enough money. We are at historically low tax rates and historically high revenues, so it seems to me that the levels are probably OK right where they're at.

Answer 2

By cutting the taxes we have actually seen an increase in revenue. Why is this so hard for you dems to understand. An increase in revenue means more money. If you raise taxes you will destroy the thriving economy that we are experiencing right now. which will, in reality, decrease our revenue. What we need is someone that is fiscally conservative. Even I agree that Bush and most of the Republicans haven't been doing that.

Answer 3

Republicans think the economy is in great shape, for some reason. The reality is that we're on the verge of another great collapse and dumping money into this pointless war is hurting our country.
Raising taxes and cutting spending in the right places is the only way to get out of the red.
Of course, the rich don't like the thought of this at all. Spend, spend, spend, says their leader.

Answer 4

Well I think we could get a very large windfall if we cut healthcare for Federal Employees, to include past senators,reps,vps and Pres. Also cut security for past senators, reps, vps and Pres. Cut the pay of these same people in office now and make it retroactive, where they have to pay us back for there ineffective governing. Make them responsible for bad laws by charging them big bucks for passing bad laws without doing extensive research on what they are putting out there.

Hold all politicians responsible for there bad government by making them ineligable to run if they screwed up the last time.
It would be wonderful if politicians could be sued for monetary damages if they did not suceed at what we put them into office for. I think they get in get perks from special interest groups and blow off their constituates. Which makes them liars and cheats.

Answer 5

Why do you think a balanced budget requires raising of taxes and cutting of spending? This is not a valid presumption e.g. if you spend more of your wages than you earn, then you are not balancing your budget. However you may be spending the bulk of it on unnecessary items (e.g. clothes and jewellery), therefore you need to cut the type of spending in order to balance the personal budget. It does not necessarily mean you need a raise in your wages. Low income earners barely earn enough to stay out of poverty regardless of careful spending, so in this instance you could say they need a wage rise - rather than have to pay more taxes.

A balanced budget is one that has the revenue to pay for its expenditure. In terms of taxes and budgets the aim is to receive enough tax (and/or other income) to pay for the necessary expenses of government and the required infrastructure of the country (e.g. roads, health and hospitals, education and schools, police, defence etc.).

When projecting a budget the government has many other considerations such as economic growth, inflation and unemployment, housing affordability, etc. For example, if inflation spirals out of control (usually when demand outstrips supply it can cause shortage of labour, shortage of product or food supply, shortage of housing etc.) it affects unemployment numbers, housing affordability (dearer to build a home due to increased wages and/or building product which also applies to government spending on infrastructure), higher prices for petrol and food etc..

There are many factors to consider re inflation, for example housing affordability or non-affordability can affect the amount of investment in housing, and if you have too many people seeking to rent homes yet not enough supply then rental costs can escalate which causes those already struggling - to pay rent increases which they can ill afford. Therefore the amount of investment in various industries must be carefully monitored in an attempt to provide stability in the economy.

Also, our exports and imports affect the economy and therefore the balancing of the budget. When we import more than we export we create a trading deficit which is an economic expense. The more of our product we export (mining, manufacturing etc.) the more employment we are creating within the country thus reducing unemployment, and offsetting the cost of our imports. Ideally we would export more than we imported, however this is not the case.

If you take the Aussie economy at the moment, then you have a situation where there is a federal surplus of billions of dollars, yet we are screaming for further infrastructure especially in health and education, and additional housing facilities for the elderly, to name a few. It could be argued that the government has not balanced the budget effectively, as to have such a surplus yet be so short of infrastructure could be viewed as incompetent. There is no advantage to taxing people further when there is already such a huge surplus that needs to be spent.

A concern now, is that the economy may have been allowed to 'overheat', where we have a situation of a shortage of labour, shortage of housing, and expensive product. Further taxing will not assist in these areas. Further, that to suddenly pump all this surplus budget back into a bulk purchasing exercise of infrastructure is likely to have an effect on the already short supply of labour etc. (another consideration for example is if we build more hospitals and schools can we staff them when there is such a shortage of these professionals).

As you can see, balancing the budget is not just one simple exercise of continually increasing taxes and cutting spending, it encompasses many, many considerations, and is not unlike juggling several dozen balls at the one time.
I have only given you an outline of considerations, and I trust this helps you somewhat.

Answer 6

Yes raise corporate tax to 70% on top of making them pay for every employees health care. I'm sure they'll still stay afloat some way. Right?

Answer 7

Rasing taxes stifles productivity and innovation. Cutting spending is a must. Let's start with the Nanny State.

Answer 8

Increased "profits" in theory will garner higher tax revenues.