Low-income individuals and families must spend money on the same necessities required by higher-income people (Meehan). However, after the necessities are purchased, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts (Meehan). Implementing a flat tax system could dismantle the IRS (Meehan). Many view the IRS as an imposing, intimidating arm of government; however, this institution employs numerous people who were trained to work in the tax industry. IRS employees would most likely lose their jobs under a flat tax system (Meehan).
When the government prevents prices from adjusting naturally to supply and demand, efficiency is improved in the economy. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxviii]. A market economy cannot possibly produce a socially desirable outcome because individuals are motivated by their own selfish interests. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxix]. While the invisible hand cannot guarantee efficiency, it is better at guaranteeing equity.
This is because if the government decides to increase taxes then the general public would have less money to spend on the electronic equipment. This would then affect on my profit margins as I will have to keep reduce the prices of the products so that I don’t lose any customers of my
Taxpayers have the incentive to try to pay as little tax as possible in order to maximize their wealth. The IRS may choose to negate certain matters under the Sham Transaction Doctrine. Corporate taxation law is constantly growing and adapting which make the validity of these transactions even less clear.
This will cause less money to flow through the economy eventually causing lenders to reduce the amount of loans being given. Taxpayers are not the only ones that can be affected by a surplus, deficit, and debt. Social Security and Medicare recipients can also be greatly affected by changes in the economy. In the past it was safe to assume that an individual would collect social security. Times are changing and some feel that social security might not be around for too much longer.
The less expansion, the less inflation. However, if the economy is slowing down, interest rates will decrease. This allows banks and businesses to borrow more cheaply, which results in them being able to higher more workers and produce more goods. The monitoring of inflation is very important in the US. Inflation has many negative affects.
To play their intended roles successfully, public organizations must also be structured with such interactions in mind. The supporters still argue that private firms are more efficient than government because of balanced economies, higher labor productivity, and fewer level restrictions. We can say that the nature of government services makes many of them inappropriate for privatization. Because of lack of information, contracting may involve hidden costs; therefore the need for monitoring is demanded. In some places for example, creating the competition necessary for effective contracting is impossible, so in practice privatization is more complicated than it
I believe that while paying taxes may seem burdensome, it is actually beneficial in the long run. Taxes provide citizens with services that they are unable to obtain on their own. When we pay monthly taxes, the government provides security and protection for our futures. For example, the United States’ system of social security and other social welfare programs offers citizens a sense of security and government assistance in the event of old age, retirement, unemployment, and in extreme cases of poverty. Without taxes, individual citizens are required to provide for themselves in a time of unforeseeable hardship.
There is much evidence supporting Liberals claims of homelessness due to the economy, via unemployment and lack of education. On the other hand, the Conservative perspective is also irrefutable. The basis of the “McKinney Act” and other affordable housing programs alike, is not to abolish homelessness altogether, but to get the homeless population off the streets thus ending homelessness by definition. This is so because it is far cheaper to house people, than it is to provide them with the services and counseling that they so dearly require. Therefore, instead of squandering federal money into programs that have ceased to end homelessness for the past 23 years, it would serve best to commence funding elsewhere, mainly educational programs and homeless awareness programs.
The insurance companies furthermore spend a huge chunk of the premiums collected from their clients on administrative expenses such as executive compensation and other sumptuous administrative expenses, as opposed to the actual provision of health care resulting in myriads of hidden charges to clients as well as saving precious little for precautionary efforts (Manchikanti & Hirsch, 2010). A fundamental aspect of a government administered system would be heightened simplicity of the scheme, a greater investment in preventive interventions as well as a decreased administrative bill on account of the supposed simplicity. This is desirable as it may bring down the overall per capita costs of health provision, bearing in mind that a dollar spent in preventive services can be equated to 200 dollars spent on treatment. Highlighting prevention over treatment moreover saves patients from unnecessary pain and agony in the course of treatment (Oberlander, 2010). The present deregulated health care provision system is detrimental to business as owners of companies with big workforces are forced to spend a fortune in securing their employee’s health care bearing in mind the hefty premiums charged and the requirements for a minimum life time payments that are payable by clients.