Sentences with phrase «earners spend»

▪ Commission split earners are spending roughly 19 percent of their income on business expenses; 100 percent earners spend closer to 28 percent.

The bottom 20 percent of earners spend almost 10 percent of their income solely on electricity — more than seven times what the top 20 percent pays.

Too much marketing may be a damaging distraction: according to the Taleist survey, top earners all spent more time writing than marketing their books.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012, an average household with 2.5 people and 1.3 earners spent a total of $ 51,442 per year.

At the same time, 100 percent earners spent considerably more to make their money.

Not exact matches

In addition to a comprehensive provincial job growth strategy, increasing the capacity for low - wage earners to spend will strengthen the economy.

You have to, then, blame policy, and the fundamental policy approach over the past five years has been to spend more on social programs and government assistance, all at the cost of America's businesses, the small business owners and our most successful earners.

He found they spend half of what the highest earners do at restaurants.

Having spent generations idealizing equality and punishing high - skilled, high - income earners with punitive tax rates, it's entirely plausible that Swedish kids and their parents would finally realize education, ability and work ethic are irrelevant to success in adulthood.

This means that every single person on this planet, from a newborn to the pre baby boomer generation, from the most advanced countries to the worst places on earth, from the top 1 % earners to homeless people have spent more than $ 3 on Apple products (and services) last year.

Individual tax cuts seem likely to goose consumption, although the largest beneficiaries of the tax cuts — higher - income earners — may be less likely to spend those savings.

It could have chosen to lower spending by $ 277 million, to increase income taxes for middle earners by a few points, or to let the deficit come in $ 277 million higher.

In the U.S., for example, those in the bottom quintiles of income distribution spend a much larger percentage of their expenses on food -, energy -, and rent - related expenditures than higher earners.

Moreover, as middle - class families have shifted from having one earner to two, their spending needs may have changed in ways that adjusting for inflation doesn't capture.

So for the higher earners, if they are careful with their money, they could easily spend more 10 % of their income.

The government wants to cut spending, and the opposition parties want to increase taxes on high earners as well as corporate income taxes (CIT) instead.

Many Democrats claim the plan — which includes both corporate and income tax reform — favors only the top earners, while fiscal conservatives worry the tax cuts could dig the U.S. deeper into deficit spending and add to the already - mountainous national debt, requiring another showdown over raising the debt ceiling.

Continued turmoil in financial markets could begin to hurt spending, especially among higher earners, who are more likely to own stocks.

And that's before you add in the fact that, as mentioned above, some (or all) of the higher earners» spending could be moved offshore, decreasing the real percentage that is paid by them.

Under Senator Sanders's plan, for example, Social Security would spend $ 42 billion a year more for the wealthiest 20 percent of earners, but only $ 8 billion for the lowest quintile, according to Third Way.

We would still need major entitlement reform and related health care reforms (among a whole lot else), but the above policies would give Republicans something real to say about the concerns of many Americans who spent the election just hearing about how the Republicans plan to cut marginal tax rates for high earners.

A message that amounts to «we need to cut taxes on the high earners who built that and cut spending on the government to balance the budget» is self - defeating.

Their coherent policy agenda of tax cuts for high - earners, spending cuts for everyone else, and increased low - skill immigration favors the business lobbies.

Other Trump supporters (such as the millions of Obama - Trump voters) would favor more spending on healthcare for struggling wage - earners — even if it meant higher taxes.

They are one of the three top earners in the world so they are technically just spending their own money.

We are most definitely the latter, which is ridiculous when you think of the 5 «big teams» in England we've spent the least in the last 7 years but we're the 2nd biggest earner behind United.

That's a point I alluded to earlier Amos — some people are quick to jump on our net spend in the current financial year and arrive at the conclusion that we're riding roughshod over FFP but when the cost of these players and wages is amortised over the length of their contracts, coupled with removing high earners (Tevez being the main one) from our books then it's entirely conceivable as to why we've spent # 80m - # 90m net without it jeopardising our chances of meeting FFP.

Granted, that net spend is considerably higher this season but that's because several high earners were removed from our books while the new arrivals came in on much less wages than many of the departing players.

Children of low earners not only lose out on spending time with their parents but they are also more likely to be sick.

Cuomo has insisted that extending high rates on wealthy earners is a key piece of his budget, which also includes a $ 961 million spending increase for education aid and a $ 163 million plan to phase out college tuition costs at state and city universities for those who earn less than $ 125,000.

It's not «we've found a way of raising # 17bn, what do we spend it on», it was clearly the other way around; when Charles Kennedy set up the Tax Commission, one of the objectives was to rebalance the tax code to take the lowest earners out of tax completely.

But the final document confirmed such plans as raising income tax for the top 5 % of earners to fund greater spending on the NHS, reversing a great many of the Conservative's welfare reforms, and re-nationalising the railways.

Many legislative Democrats, seeking to block Gov. Cuomo's efforts to cut spending to close a projected $ 10 billion deficit, have hoped the «millionaires tax» on high earners, which expires Dec. 31, would be renewed to raise more than $ 1 billion in the new fiscal year.

Cuomo's plan includes $ 1 billion more for schools and the extension of an additional tax on New York's highest income earners, known as the millionaire's tax, in order to pay for education spending and close a $ 3.5 billion budget gap.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D - Manhattan), whose liberal, tax - and - spend - friendly conference is expected to be Cuomo's biggest budget opponent, has indicated he wants to continue a soon - to - expire «millionaire's tax» that actually hits single wage earners making $ 200,000 and up.

For lawmakers to truly curb government spending across New York State they need to get public school teacher and administrator salaries, as well as the five - and six - figure payouts many of them receive upon retiring, back into the realm of what's normal for middle - income earners.

Democratic legislators, who opposed deep cuts in social services and education spending to close a $ 10 billion deficit, tried to alter the tax by introducing a «true» millionaires tax on the highest income earners.

Per capita spending equates to an estimated # 137 for British citizens on the cause, however, an earner of # 18,000 would pay only # 30 towards international aid.

It will hope to persuade ministers by pointing out the taxpayer spends # 4 billion a year on in - work support for low earners.

A proposal that would hike taxes on upper income earners in order to bolster mass transit spending in New York City is «dead on arrival» due to Republican opposition, Gov. Andrew Cuomo told reporters on Tuesday in Henrietta.

Cuomo said he was pushing for a tax cut aimed at middle - income earners that was previously approved in last year's spending plan.

Another interesting line is the money reported by the Strong Economy For All coalition, which really tapped into the Occupy movement and pushed hard for an extension of the state's tax on the wealthiest earners instead of spending cuts.

Liberal advocates also support the idea, but say it should be paid for not by holding spending near flat, but by increasing taxes on upper - income earners.

The groups called for a return to higher rates for top income earners, more spending on education and municipal aid — which they said would keep locally imposed property taxes in check — as well as increased oversight of several business tax credit programs.

That was the same year that President Clinton proposed his plan to balance the budget, which called for a mix of spending cuts and income - tax hikes on the top 1.2 percent of earners.

E.J. McMahon, president of the fiscally conservative Empire Center for Public Policy, said that the number of million - dollar earners may be up but that more and more wealthy New Yorkers are declaring themselves to be only part - year residents of the Empire State — members of the «183 club» that spends at least that many days (half a year) living elsewhere.

The liberal Democrat said he expects Trump's tax plan «to be met with a huge backlash,» asserting many of its provisions would reap a windfall for high earners at the expense of domestic programs, and would involve an «immense amount of deficit spending» — supposedly anathema to conservative Republicans.

Cuomo's plan includes $ 1 billion more for schools and the extension of an additional tax on New York's highest income earners, known as the millionaires» tax, to pay for education spending and close a $ 3.5 billion budget gap.

Criticising the government's decision to tackle the deficit through cutting back on public spending, Mr Barber's alternative Plan B would tax higher earners more rather than targeting «the poorest and most vulnerable,» which, he argues, is what the current public sector cuts are doing.

As a result, the Obama administration has proposed increasing «mandatory spending,» which designates money generated by selling federal assets or raising taxes (such as a proposed $ 10 fee per barrel of oil sold and increasing taxes on higher - income earners) to pay for specific programs.