akuma587 said:
bdbdbd said:
TheRealMafoo said:
The problem is it’s backwards. The government should figure out what it needs in money to do its job, and then bill the people for it.
But how it works, is they collect the most they think they can get their hands on, and then decide what to spend it on.
|
You have rather low taxrate, but that's not really an issue here.
Budget surplus (as i understood you were meaning) isn't a bad thing, the money would go back to circulation. More problematic thing is the loantaking (i'm not going into detail here, since it has important upsides) to create the surplus.
Creating a budget isn't that easy, since the tax income may vary largely from estimations, and the money to the budget isn't last year tax income, it's the taxes collected "at the moment" (or in another words, it's spent as soon as the money comes in). Of course, different ministeries may spend their whole budget so, that it wouldn't be reduced next year in favour of another, which do look what you described. |
Plus a budget surplus can be used to pay down the national debt (and is the only way to pay down the national debt).
And for everyone who complains about Obama spending so much money, I would like to remind you that Bush's budget for his last term was over $3.1 trillion. And that does not include the $700 billion TARP legislation.
|
An odd thing occured to me when I read this ... The Obama administration is doing more to ensure a legacy for George W. Bush than shrub ever did for himself. Seriously, after a couple of years of people defending Obama with "He's only twice as bad as Bush was in his worst year" a lot of moderates and fiscally conservative democrats are going to start thinking that Bush wasn't that bad afterall.
