Example collocations logo

Taxpayers in sentence

648 examples of Taxpayers in a sentence

The cost to the UK for its contribution to the NATO operation in Afghanistan, for example, totals £3.1 billion – a heavy burden on British taxpayers.
Even if it gives rise to future tax liabilities (and some of it will), these will be transfers from taxpayers to bond holders.
The answer lies in its oligopolistic power, which enables industrial livestock producers to externalize their true social and environmental costs, which must then be covered by workers and taxpayers.
What cannot be accepted are financial rescue operations that benefit the unworthy and cause losses to other important groups – like taxpayers and wage earners.
The tax rate necessary to fund social spending must equal the ratio of the number of people receiving benefits to the number of taxpayers (the dependency ratio), multiplied by the average benefit relative to the income being taxed (the replacement rate).
The government also plans tax relief for low-income taxpayers.
And it would spare German and other taxpayers from the EU’s solvent northern countries from having to fund yet another bailout of a southern member state.
But there is one area on which both sides agree: No one believes that the rich should be subject to lower rates than low- and middle-income taxpayers.
It is likely no coincidence that the one thing all of the presidential candidates’ proposals have in common is the elimination of privileges for the richest taxpayers.
In the end, it appears to be taxpayers who are hurt most by attempts to fight a debt crisis with more debt.
Of course, losses would be borne by eurozone taxpayers, with Germany potentially covering a disproportionate share.
Budget support suffers from low credibility, not only among donor taxpayers, but also among citizens in recipient countries.
Politics on the donor side is no less complicated, with growing aid budgets often viewed by taxpayers as excessive at a time when the anti-aid lobby is becoming more vocal.
But, while donors and their taxpayers might be willing to make long-term commitments for such a purpose, there is likely to be rather less appetite for making commitments which would seem to be never-ending.
Households in US cities received mortgages in 2006 that they could never hope to repay, while taxpayers never dreamed that they would be called on to bail out the lenders.
US taxpayers will lose, too: they will pay for the costs entailed by higher emigration.
Moreover, “climate finance” – advanced countries’ contribution to developing countries’ emissions-reduction and climate-adaptation efforts – remains pitifully small, with efforts to persuade investors and advanced-country taxpayers to contribute more having delivered only small returns.
But this far-sighted message was lost amid general disappointment with the panel and a focus among some developing-country leaders on seeking higher contributions from developed-country taxpayers.
Governments have refused to reinstate the absolute wall of separation between commercial and investment banks, leaving taxpayers on the hook to pay deposit-insurance claims when the bubble-prone financial sector blows up.
Even after two bailout packages, it is unrealistic to expect Greek taxpayers to start making large repayments anytime soon – not with unemployment at 25% (and above 50% for young people).
In order to rescue the country’s banks from their bad lending decisions, Merkel breached the Maastricht Treaty’s “no-bailout” rule, which bans member governments from financing their peers, and forced European taxpayers to lend to an insolvent Greece.
Taxpayers’ money was spent to purchase corporate stocks in a failed attempt to support collapsing stock prices.
Moreover, it is potentially a wealth transfer from taxpayers to private shareholders, because under new banking rules government bailouts are possible after bondholders have covered (bailed in) 8% of a bank’s equity and liabilities.
Dependence on aid undermines the implicit contract between citizens and their government, according to which politicians must keep taxpayers satisfied in order to stay in office.
One is the 1980’s savings and loan crisis in the United States, which cost US taxpayers more than $100 billion.
Rather than imposing the costs of the ECB’s and EFSF’s losses on European taxpayers, the banks’ creditors could give up some of their claims in exchange for receiving shares from the banks’ owners.
But, even then, it would be better for creditors to bear the loss than for taxpayers to do so, because this would encourage more cautious lending in the future.
The opioid epidemic, for example, has become a heavy burden for the US government (and thus taxpayers), as it has strained law enforcement and the health system.
Taxpayers may even be asked to shore up financial institutions’ capital base.
In particular, banks, for which maintaining market share is crucial, cannot be expected to constrain risky lending, especially given the expectation that, if things do go wrong, the taxpayers will fund a bailout.
BackNext