Example collocations logo

Taxes in sentence

2462 examples of Taxes in a sentence

For starters, people tend to think of taxes as a loathsome infringement on their freedom, as if petty bureaucrats will inevitably squander the increased revenue on useless and ineffective government employees and programs.
We need to consider such issues in trying to understand why, for example, Italian voters last month rejected the sober economist Mario Monti, who forced austerity on them, notably by raising property taxes.
It has nothing to do with taking on debt or tricking people about future taxes.
They argued that, because any government stimulus implies higher taxes sooner or later, the increase might as well come immediately.
For the average person, the higher taxes do not mean lower after-tax income, because the stimulus will have the immediate effect of raising incomes.
Some form of debt-friendly stimulus might ultimately appeal to voters if they could be convinced that raising taxes does not necessarily mean hardship or increased centralization of decision-making.
If and when people understand that it means the same average level of take-home pay after taxes, plus the benefits of more jobs and of the products of additional government expenditure (such as new highways), they may well wonder why they ever tried stimulus any other way.
The state demanded more from its people, including conscription and ever-higher taxes; but the people also began to demand more from their government, including adequate food provision, hygiene, and medical care.
The UK authorities have decided to prioritize fiscal consolidation while running a loose monetary policy to contain risks to the recovery from higher taxes and lower government spending.
Additional taxes on investment income meant the top tax rate before Thatcher came to power was initially above 95%.
Although the top rate of income tax in Britain was recently raised to 50%, there is no thought of going back to pre-Thatcher taxes.
By creating independent courts, securing property rights, and collecting fair taxes, the state is crucial for making the environment favorable for business.
These representatives know that their states are net winners of the union, ultimately benefiting from giving two dollars to some of the weaker states for every dollar that they pay in federal taxes.
The first was the belief that taxes are inherently bad, and thus that reducing them is the only solution to any public problem.
In California, many taxes were reduced by voter initiatives, demonstrating the damaging consequences of too much democracy.
For example, direct ballots on hot-button issues made prison sentencing mandatory, while simultaneously reducing taxes and funding for prisons.
In 1978, Proposition 13 capped California property taxes – the main source of public-school funding.
Second, the House Democrats will begin to investigate Trump’s taxes and personal business dealings, including through congressional subpoenas.
According to two close observers of Trump, the president’s grip on reality “will likely continue to diminish” in the face of growing political obstacles, investigations into his taxes and business dealings, Mueller’s findings, and an energized political opposition.
Germany can cut taxes.
But if the rate rises to 8%, mortgage interest payments rise to 24%, which, together with amortization, taxes, other debts, and necessary expenditures, may claim too much of the family budget.
A second argument attributes the difference to income taxes, which, in fact, have increased significantly in Europe since the 1970's, while in the US income taxes fell from the early 1980's onward.
Income taxes certainly must affect willingness to work.
These two items, plus a country’s net debt, comprise what must be paid for in taxes.
If a future taxpayer is to pay more in net taxes (taxes minus transfers) than a current newborn in order to receive the same level of public goods, then the current generation is not paying for its own consumption but is, instead, imposing debts on its own children and grandchildren.
If future generations in these countries are to receive the same per-capita level of public goods, their net lifetime taxes will be at least 75% higher than the taxes facing current newborns.
Italy’s future generations, for example, can expect to pay 131.8% higher lifetime net taxes if current policies are maintained.
Norway, Portugal, Argentina, Belgium and America all have substantial imbalances, imposing a 50 % to 75% increase in net lifetime taxes for future generations through their current fiscal policies.
In only three countries - New Zealand, Thailand and Sweden - are generational balances negative, meaning that those countries are leaving generations yet born with lower lifetime net taxes than current newborns.
As a result, generational imbalances - and the lifetime net taxes of future generations - will continue to pile up, until the tax burden will be too heavy to be imposed.
BackNext