Example collocations logo

Taxpayers in sentence

648 examples of Taxpayers in a sentence

The prolonged operation of unit one and the country’s aging nuclear power plants probably would not have been possible without financial support from European taxpayers, delivered through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) as part of a €600 million ($650 million) “safety upgrade” program.
But if the EFSF has to guarantee Spain, would Germany really be willing to step in and use its taxpayers’ money to cover Spanish banks’ losses?
Prior to reunification, Germany was the main motor of integration; now, weighed down by reunification’s costs, German taxpayers are determined to avoid becoming European debtors’ deep pocket.
Between 2008 and 2011, EU taxpayers granted banks €4.5 trillion in loans and guarantees.
The European Commission has proposed a single rulebook for banks’ capital requirements; mutual support between national deposit guarantee schemes; and Europe-wide rules for resolving failing banks that place the main burden on bank shareholders and creditors, not on taxpayers.
Moreover, the prospect is not a distant one, but something knocking at the door: population (hence the number of taxpayers) is already declining, the social security accounts are already turning to deficits and 15 years hence the debt mountain will be crushing capital markets.
In such a situation one needs urgent reforms that create more taxpayers, not fewer as is now the case as a result of partial restructuring without deregulation, good budgets and lots of growth.
Why, because 20 or 30 years from now China needs a lot of taxpayers to fund a wave of retirees; opening up the rules on births now provides taxpayers down the road.
A simple number to watch is this: what is the growth rate of the population group of 1 to 14 yearsCthe taxpayers of 2030?
They all have very large net social security liabilities; they all have excessive entitlements and too few future taxpayers to shoulder the burden.
Third, governments need to focus on policies that create employment and taxpayers.
The tax rate required to fund social-welfare benefits depends on three factors: the dependency ratio (the ratio of recipients to taxpayers); the replacement rate (the ratio of benefits to average wages); and the economic-growth rate (roughly, productivity plus population growth).
The solution is either a broad and deep debt restructuring that imposes losses on the private sector, or an ever more expensive bailout by taxpayers.
Not only does this severely undermine the ability of small firms to compete, but it also contributes to systemic instability of the type that we experienced in 2008, thus increasing the likelihood that taxpayers will have to step in.
Taxpayers and pensioners in European countries that still have solid economies are worried that the Court could pave the way for socialization of eurozone debt, saddling them with the burden of these same investors’ losses.
Simply put, Germany is unwilling to spend its taxpayers’ euros to bolster Europe.
Even so, the economy is smaller than it was before the crisis, the unemployment rate is in double digits, domestic demand remains depressed, and the €64 billion bank-bailout bill unjustly imposed on 2.2 million Irish taxpayers still looms large.
German, French, and Dutch taxpayers?
The measures taken so far have opened channels of contagion from Europe’s crisis-ridden peripheral economies to the still-sound economies of Europe’s core, placing the latter’s taxpayers and pensioners at great financial risk, while hindering long-term recovery in the troubled countries themselves.
In bad times, it is national taxpayers who pay for any financial-sector trouble, because there is no pan-European taxpayer or plausible burden-sharing models.
By contrast, banks and others can use European “passports” to provide financial services – which do have significant public-finance implications – throughout the EU.That is a nice idea, but it is half-baked: it fails to specify which taxpayers should be on the hook if something goes wrong and savers want their money back, as with the Icelandic banks in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, or even Switzerland.
Needless to say, “disputes” and “emergencies” are exactly the future situations likely to matter most to national policymakers and taxpayers.
If decisions about systemically important national financial institutions are made at the European level in good times, while in bad times national taxpayers pick up the tab, the whole EU will lose.
Canada’s taxpayers are not required to support the religious beliefs held by their fellow-citizens.
But foreign investors, who hold nearly half of the US government’s debt now – and are likely to hold an even larger share in the future – could still have reason to worry that the US might someday try to reduce the value of its debt in a way that adversely affects them but not Americans, or that affects all debt holders but relieves the foreign-debt burden on American taxpayers.
This need not mean outright default; a plan to repay principal and interest with low-interest securities rather than cash – or to withhold income tax on interest earned from government bonds, crediting those taxes against the obligations of American taxpayers – would achieve the same result.
A better way to help banks and prevent them from simply deleveraging their business would be to establish full transparency and provide fresh money from taxpayers.
Indeed, the financial crisis has worsened in recent weeks, reflected in the US Federal Reserve’s takeover of quasi-government mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which may cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars – as well as the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the sale of Merrill Lynch.
As taxpayers had already put huge sums into rescuing failing banks, with the prospect of more to come, a transparent process to reveal how the money was being used was imperative.
The problem with this latter view is that most taxpayers like domestic programs, and will not readily support major spending cuts.
BackNext