So, I thought you'd like to see the expenses versus the revenues from as far back as I could get, which is 2003. In the chart below, the figures for 2009 are projected and the numbers for 2008 are the approved budget, since the final numbers for 2008 are not yet on the city's website.
It's interesting to note that in only two years were the revenues higher than expenses (2005 and 2007) and then only slightly.
What this clearly shows is that the revenue isn't the real problem - the real problem is that the mayors and city councils have routinely spent more than they took in.
So maybe it's no wonder that the presentation included only the revenue side of the equation....
(click on chart for larger version)
4 comments:
From my untrained perspective, the problem with deficits is amost always spending. When Ronald Reagan cut taxes, revenue to the Federal Government doubled from 1980-1990. The deficit increased also due to too much spending in the same period. It is very complex, but spending needs to be controled on every level. Every good, even great idea does not need to be fininced by government.
Based on current budget discussions, 2008 had a deficit of
approx. $5,000,000.00
The Finkbeiner administration is very good at fiscal irresponsiblity.
Maggie,
It is both sad and ironic that the Finkbeiner Administration and Council seem unable to translate the ability to keep a balanced personal checkbook (at least I assume that they must) to being able to do the same thing with the taxpayers money.
Incresed taxation reduces revenue to the government by influencing consumer behavior.
The state of Colorado just imposed a $1.00 per pack tax on a package of cigarettes. Guess What? People aren't buying them and tax revenues have plummeted! Great that folks are quitting smoking, but now Colorado is beating up other consumers to make up for lost cigarette tax revenue.
Unbelievable.
Post a Comment