🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
4
answers
0
watching
255
views
20 Jan 2018

Revenue Streams for Public Organizations

As noted in the readings, taxes and user fees provide much of the revenue for public organizations that is necessary to fund public programs. Yet, despite these revenue streams, local, state, and federal governments consistently face budgetary shortfalls in attempting to fund public programs. What changes, if any, would you make to the way governments obtain revenue for public programs? Consider the following questions: would you make any changes to individual and corporate income tax rates, property taxes, or sales taxes? Would you increase or decrease user fees? Do you think that a flat tax might be a more appropriate way to generate revenue? Would a national sales tax (not to be confused with state sales taxes) be a sensible method to raise revenue?

Watch
4
answers
0
watching
255
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Sixta Kovacek
Sixta KovacekLv2
22 Jan 2018
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Henry told us in his guide to the Institutional Framework of Taxation in Australia that the Australian Taxation System is one of the most complex in the world and is made up of approximately 125 taxes including taxes such as Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Fringe Benefits Tax and Goods and Services Tax just to name a few. He also mentioned that there are many different organisations that play different and varied roles within this system to ensure its integrity and all Australians are equally treated with equity.
The Australian Taxation System is embedded in the way of life for all Australian taxpayers, we pay tax on our income, we pay tax when we purchase goods and use services, we pay tax when we sell assets and this is just to name a few but in return the Government provides services and benefits e.g. hospitals, schools, defence, and financial assistance to those in need etc.
As we know the government relies very heavily on the revenue from taxation to be able to finance its activities and services it offers to the public and reforms on taxation are often a focus of governments. An area of taxation reform that is constantly under review is a rise in the current GST rate or broaden the GST base (e.g. make basic foods taxable). Many feel that this would solve some of the government’s financial woes, whilst other are adamantly against any rise or broaden of the tax base. This is a very political issue and is extremely topical as the government, opposition and the premiers of the Australian States/Terrorities are engaged in heated debates regarding the issue of GST and its possible reform.
The assessment requires you to review this topical area of taxation (GST Reform).

Some views may be that it is not unreasonable to raise the GST rate as compared to other OECD countries the Australian rate is very low, that broadening the tax base will make GST a simpler tax remembering that businesses are responsible for its collection and a more simply system will lessen their burden. Others may view it as that the GST rate should not be raised or the base broaden as it will cause more financial stress on some areas of the public, it may be the view that it is too much of a problem politically for a government to introduce changes to GST especially as we head into an election year ….. WHAT WILL YOUR VIEW BE?
The requirements of the assignment for part two is to produce a 1000 to 1500 word essay on your opinion of this topic

Dems, GOP talk up deficit reduction, but don't act

WASHINGTON (AP) — Liberals' loud objections to White House proposals for slowing the growth of huge social programs make it clear that neither political party puts a high priority on reducing the deficit, despite much talk to the contrary.

For years, House Republicans have adamantly refused to raise income taxes, even though U.S. taxes are historically low, and the Bush-era tax cuts were a major cause of the current deficit.

And now, top Democrats are staunchly opposing changes to Medicare and Social Security benefits, despite studies showing the programs' financial paths are unsustainable.

Unless something gives, it's hard to see what will produce the significant compromises needed to tame the federal debt, which is nearing $17 trillion.

"There's not much of an appetite for deficit reduction," said Bob Bixby of the Concord Coalition, which pushes for "responsible fiscal policy."

There might be a few small steps this year, he said, when the government again needs to raise its borrowing limit. But a "grand bargain" involving significant spending cuts and revenue increases seems unlikely, Bixby said.

He added, "It's a little depressing to hear the reactions to the president's budget, from both sides."

There was nothing surprising about Republican denunciations of Obama's proposed tax increases, which he wants to combine with spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

The newer wrinkle was the left's sharp criticism of his proposals to slow the growth in Medicare and Social Security benefits, provided Republicans agree to new revenues. Obama has offered Republicans such a deal before. But this month's budget proposal gave it a new imprimatur.

The group MoveOn.org said Wednesday that supporters "who are outraged at President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security benefits will protest and deliver petitions" this week.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent from Vermont, is leading a similar petition drive, opposing "any benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid." The deficit, his letter says, "was primarily caused during the Bush years by two unpaid-for wars, huge tax breaks for the rich and a prescription drug program" for Medicare, funded through borrowing. He suggests that higher taxes on the wealthy are the fairest way to tackle the deficit.

Democrats cite several reasons to raise taxes on high-income households. Obama campaigned for such tax increases in 2008 and 2012 but accomplished them only partially with the "fiscal cliff" resolution of Jan. 1.

Major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 played big roles in turning a federal budget surplus into soaring deficits, according to research by the Congressional Budget Office and others. And by many measures, the U.S. tax burden in near historic lows.

Households earning roughly the national median income paid, on average, 11.1 percent of their income in total federal taxes in 2009, the most recent year for such data. That's the lowest level in more than 30 years, the CBO says.

Nonetheless, House Republicans have placed their highest priority on refusing to raise income tax rates, effectively ranking it above all other goals.

"The president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is fond of saying. It's a reference to the $620 billion in new revenues, over 10 years, that Republicans were unable to stop because of the "fiscal cliff" law, resolved on New Year's Day.

If it's easy to make a case for higher revenues, the same is true for slowing the growth of Social Security and Medicare benefits. For decades, studies have warned of approaching trouble in these popular but costly programs, as health care costs rise and baby boomers begin to retire.

"Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers," the Social Security Administration says, summarizing findings by the two programs' trustees.

"The early detection light has been going on for a while, and there has been a failure to act," Social Security trustee Charles P. Blahous recently told a House panel. If lawmakers are to preserve the programs for future retirees, he said, they will have to accept much more "political pain" than officials endured during a 1983 overhaul that included "several extremely controversial measures."

Obama has proposed an often-discussed step, which deals with government accounting in general, not just entitlement programs. If Congress agrees to higher tax revenues, the president said, he would back a slower growth calculation for cost-of-living increases for Social Security benefits, plus higher Medicare premiums for higher-income seniors.

Interest groups have criticized both ideas. AARP calls the slower cost-of-living formula a "harmful change," and urges seniors to oppose it.

American voters can largely blame themselves when Congress is more talk than action on deficit reduction. Americans routinely say they want a smaller federal debt, but not at the cost of programs they hold dear — including Social Security and Medicare.

A CBS News poll in March found that most Americans want to cut spending and raise taxes to reduce the deficit. But 4 in 5 oppose cuts to Social Security or Medicare. And two-thirds are unwilling to have their own taxes raised in the name of deficit reduction.

When Pew Research asked which was more important — reducing the national debt or keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are now — the public sided with safeguarding the benefits programs, 53 percent to 36 percent.

The deficit-spending partisanship continued Wednesday. On a party-line vote, House Ways and Means Committee Republicans passed a bill to protect Social Security recipients and investors in Treasury bonds if the government hits its borrowing limit and can't pay all its bills later this year. Democrats say if the federal government starts reneging on any obligations — even if it pays bondholders — financial markets will lose faith and the economy will tank.

Some Democrats fear a lose-lose situation if they support Obama's proposals. First, they could be attacked from the left for tweaking the programs that many Democrats see as their party's greatest legacy. And second, Republicans might accuse them of "raiding Medicare" in next year's congressional elections. That battle cry proved effective in 2010 after Obama's health care overhaul bill was passed.

Democrats call such tactics shamelessly hypocritical. Republicans, they note, have long called for reining in entitlement spending.

Boehner rebuked a top GOP campaign figure for hinting at a renewal of the "raiding Medicare" attacks. But Reince Priebus, the national Republican Party chairman, seemed eager to revive the question of whether Democratic trims to Medicare's costs amount to an unfair cut in benefits.

9. Read the AP article “Dems, GOP talk up deficit reduction, but don't act (Links to an external site.)” by C. Babington (Apr25’13).

a. What are the two basic ways of shrinking a budget deficit?

b. Which of your answers above are Republicans vehemently against? What are the potential negative economic effects of implementing this basic policy?

c. Which of your answers above are Democrats strongly opposed to? What are the potential negative economic effects of implementing this basic policy?

Related Documents

Textbook Guide Economics: Tax Rate, Deadweight Loss, Sales Tax
grayraven524
ECO 211 Chapter Notes - Chapter 10: Tax Rate, Payroll Tax, Progressive Tax
tealhamster82
ECON 110 Chapter Notes - Chapter 18: Unemployment Benefits, Canada Pension Plan, Laffer Curve
pinkantelope920

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in