Example collocations logo

Taxpayers in sentence

648 examples of Taxpayers in a sentence

According to Michel Barnier, the EU commissioner spearheading the reform effort, the proposed measures – including regulatory authority to divide banks’ riskier trading activities from their deposit-taking business, and a ban on proprietary trading by the largest banks – would enhance financial stability and protect taxpayers.
Official analyses downplay the effect of lower marginal tax rates on taxable income, but experience shows that taxable income rises substantially as taxpayers respond to lower marginal rates by working more, taking more of their compensation in taxable cash than in fringe benefits, and reducing their tax-deductible consumption.
The result is higher costs for taxpayers and donors.
It is governments – and thus taxpayers and bondholders – that finance nuclear plants.
Moreover, the alleged “cost-savings” of nuclear power never include the price tag for direct and indirect governmental subsidies, decommissioning of aging facilities, and emergency clean-up and remediation of impacted communities when disasters occur – all, again, at taxpayers’ expense.
Even stronger is the case for Western governments - above all, Germany, which holds nearly half Russia's Paris Club debt – to ask taxpayers to forgo part of these claims.
Different principles for organizing a pension system – defined-benefit versus defined-contribution, fully funded versus PAYG, plus all the points in between – allocate those risks differently across workers, taxpayers, retirees, and the government.
Chile’s system already shares risks between low-income workers and taxpayers, via a minimum non-contributory pension and a set of pension top-ups introduced in 2008 (as Minister of Finance, I helped design that reform).
A kinder, gentler Fund is in no one’s interest, least of all the distressed countries and the world’s taxpayers.
As if rescuing the big insurer AIG and prohibiting all short selling of financial stocks was not enough, now US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposes buying up (with taxpayers’ money) the distressed assets of the financial sector.
Paulson’s plan would create a charitable institution that provides welfare to the rich – at taxpayers’ expense.
It is a well-tested strategy, and it leaves taxpayers out of the picture.
But, for the major players in the financial sector, it is much more appealing to be bailed out by the taxpayers.
Since the many (taxpayers) are dispersed, we cannot put up a good fight in the US Congress, whereas the financial industry is well represented politically.
In particular, the administration pushed through a tax cut that largely failed to stimulate the economy, because it was designed to benefit mainly the wealthiest taxpayers.
Now, Russian taxpayers will pay TNK-BP shareholders $45 billion in cash (and the rest in Rosneft shares).
Europe’s Perpetual CrisisATHENS – The Cyprus bailout deal is a watershed in the unfolding eurozone crisis, because responsibility for resolving banks’ problems has been shifted from taxpayers to private investors and depositors.
Extraordinary profits when their bets paid off increased their financial and political power – which they still enjoy – with taxpayers left to bail them out when their bets turned bad.
In the 1960s and 1970s, capitalism appeared to be collapsing for the opposite reasons: inflation and a backlash by taxpayers and business interests against the redistributive policies of “big government.”
These recovery schemes put national interests first, using the argument that taxpayers’ money must be used to defend the nation’s companies and workers.
Indeed, the mere thought that major shareholders’ debts would be forgiven at taxpayers’ expense has created political paralysis for years.
As late as this past May, the FDP defended the ownership rights of US billionaire Christopher Flowers, a major stockholder in the failed German bank Hypo Real Estate, which was saved from oblivion by state guarantees worth more than €100 billion of taxpayers’ money.
And it is hard to rationalize so atavistic an effort being initiated by a government and supported with taxpayers’ money.
In cases where individual member states have incurred too much debt, private creditors – not taxpayers of other countries – should bear the burden of debt restructuring.
More than 80% of the value of these incentives goes to the top 20% of taxpayers, who earn more than $100,000 a year.
Moreover, while the incentives cost the US Treasury nearly $100 billion annually, they induce little new saving; instead, they cause high-income taxpayers to shift their savings to tax-advantaged assets – a major reason why President Barack Obama proposes capping the tax deduction for retirement saving.
Taxpayers are more responsive to matching incentives than they are to tax incentives, because the former are easier to understand and more transparent.
This is not exploitation; everyone – migrants, taxpayers, and Europeans young and old – is better off.
This discrepancy is at the heart of the question with which European policymakers are now grappling: Should taxpayers in debtor countries expect “solidarity” – or, more bluntly, money – from taxpayers in creditor countries?
Why should taxpayers in creditor countries have to take responsibility for financing the euro crisis, especially given that high private wealth/GDP ratios may result from low tax revenues over time, while lower ratios may reflect higher tax revenues?
BackNext