1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Mashcka [7]
4 years ago
7

Given that the government will eventually run out of money to pay for all of its entitlements, do you think we should reduce ben

efits or increase taxes?
History
1 answer:
qwelly [4]4 years ago
3 0

Answer: increase taxes

Explanation: If government will eventually run out of money to pay for all entitlement, it is advisable to increase taxes to increase the amount of money generated. Social benefits should not be reduced. if taxes are increased , there would definitely be more money in the reserve to meet up with government expenditures and the government can compensate the public by continuing paying all the entitlement.

You might be interested in
Article 2 of the Texas Constitution states: "... Those which are Legislative to one;
Tpy6a [65]

Answer:

popular sovereignty  i hope this helps good luck

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Why do Muslims believe it is important to recite? (1 Point)
Wewaii [24]
THE CORRECT ANSWER IS B

<span>B. So the reciter does not forget what he has heard
 
Muslims recites the Quran so that they do not forget to read it. this is because they believe that if the forget to read the Quran, everybody will forget it, and then it will be altered without their knowledge.
</span>
3 0
3 years ago
1 point
Liono4ka [1.6K]

Answer:

popular sovereignty

Explanation:

popular sovereignty is the only one that isn't correct

6 0
2 years ago
What was the main benefit of scientific management?
Tju [1.3M]

The answer you are looking for is the last one! It should be "It encouraged workers to create goods more quickly and efficiently."

Have a great day!


8 0
4 years ago
If your country and your enemies country both had nuclear weapons, would you fire them at each other? Why or why not?
leonid [27]
No
they’re NUCLEAR weapons
firing them at each country would cause massive devastation, literally wiping out millions of people
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What did Columbus originally want to prove?
    15·1 answer
  • What term means that the supreme court asks lower courts to send up a case?​
    7·2 answers
  • Why did the Pilgrims leave Europe to establish a new colony?
    11·1 answer
  • How did the agricultural revolution change the life of workers in great britain?
    9·1 answer
  • Who emerges from the French and Indian War as the strongest European power in North America?
    7·2 answers
  • The US policy of containment contributed to which war
    15·2 answers
  • _______ maintains American neutrality ?
    12·1 answer
  • Wells spoke out against problems with black schools. The Memphis school board refused
    11·1 answer
  • Provide one specific piece of evidence that demonstrates how Europeans funded exploration and trade New World in the period from
    11·1 answer
  • I need help to find out which one is the answer
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!