Taxpayers
in sentence
648 examples of Taxpayers in a sentence
Policy debates in the US are chiefly preoccupied with ensuring that banks are never “too big to fail”; that private investors rather than
taxpayers
hold “contingent capital,” which in a crash can be converted into equity; and that “over-the-counter” markets’ functioning be improved through greater reliance on centralized trading, clearing, and settlements.
What would be the reaction if, say, Italian or Spanish
taxpayers
were asked to pay for the reckless behavior of the German IKB or HRE banks?
And yet when the bailout is presented the other way around, with German
taxpayers
asked to backstop reckless Italian or Spanish banks, somehow it is supposed to be an act of solidarity.
Trump recently suggested that the US should negotiate with its creditors to buy back much of its debt at a discount – in effect, a partial default on trillions of dollars of liabilities, intended to reduce the burden of debt service for
taxpayers.
Treasury bond prices would tank and in the end
taxpayers
would be saddled with even higher debt-service payments.
This policy has long been a burden, both on EU consumers, because it has kept food prices high, and on EU taxpayers, because the subsidy to farmers' incomes costs the Union some e(Euro) 41bn every year (about $40bn), or around half of the total EU budget.
For example, although in Peru corruption was pervasive elsewhere, government reforms that lowered tax rates managed to increase tax revenue from 8.4% of GDP in 1991 to 12.3% in 1998, and increase the number of
taxpayers
from 895,000 in 1993 to 1,766,000 in 1999.
We must end the vicious circle whereby the use of taxpayers’ funds – more than €4.5 trillion ($5.7 trillion) so far – to rescue banks weakens governments’ budgets, while increasingly risk-averse banks stop lending to businesses that need funds, undermining the economy further.
It will ensure financial stability, increase transparency, make the banking sector accountable, and protect taxpayers’ money.
Some politicians fear the burden that migrants will impose on local communities and
taxpayers.
Taxpayers
bear no financial risk, because the government pays a return to investors only if a contractor meets predetermined targets.
After all, it was many of those same lobbyists who in the past managed to convince legislators to insert clauses and provisions that contributed so much to the lax standards that created the systemic risks for which
taxpayers
are now being forced to pay.
Learning from Bill GatesNEW YORK – Everyone – from elected officials and bureaucrats to voters and
taxpayers
– can learn from the world’s largest charitable foundation about effective development spending.
The most obvious difference is that
taxpayers
avoid the upfront financial cost of trying an unproven strategy.
But that is exactly how the approach is supposed to work: risk-conscious investors, rather than taxpayers, assume the upfront financial costs of innovating.
Taxpayers
in debtor countries, such as Mexico, picked up the tab.
Greeks have been forced to accept brutal austerity measures in order to continue to service an unbearable debt burden, thereby limiting losses for French and German banks and for eurozone
taxpayers
whose loans to Greece bailed out those banks.
But here, too, the Berlin-Brussels-Frankfurt axis blackmailed local
taxpayers
into paying for foreign banks’ mistakes – presenting the Irish with a €64 billion ($87 billion) bill, roughly €14,000 per person, for banks’ bad debt – while imposing massive austerity.
The question is whether governments can afford it, without increasing the burden on
taxpayers
and undermining economic incentives.
Taxpayers
and governments alike are tired of bailing out creditors for fear of the destructive contagious effects of failure – even as bailouts encourage excessive risk taking.
With the government now fully guaranteeing Fannie’s and Freddie’s debts, American
taxpayers
will have to pay for everything not covered by their creditors’ inadequate capital.
Is it fair that innocent
taxpayers
must now pay for their mistakes?
Most importantly, it is not clear that the bailout will actually impose any net costs on US taxpayers, since it may prevent further systemic effects that bring down the financial sector and, with it, the world economy.
American
taxpayers
are getting an increasingly bad deal.
Bank losses have already occurred, and their gains must now come at taxpayers’ expense.
Short-sighted responses by politicians – who hope to get by with a deal that is small enough to please
taxpayers
and large enough to please the banks – will only prolong the problem.
The claim is that such a tax will help repress the forces that led to the financial crisis, raise a surreal amount of revenue to pay for progressive causes, and barely impact middle-class
taxpayers.
Five years later, the US Congress is still holding up IMF quota reform – not because it would imply any loss of power or cost to US taxpayers, but because many members do not want to give Obama anything he asks for.
Moreover, in the case of domestic debt, a higher interest rate or risk premium merely leads to more redistribution within the country (from
taxpayers
to bondholders).
Even as bankers are back to reaping enormous bonuses,
taxpayers
have been left to foot the bill for the economic collapse.
Back
Next
Related words
Would
Their
Banks
Money
Government
Which
Financial
Countries
Other
Should
Public
Costs
Burden
Governments
Billion
Private
Losses
While
Crisis
Could