Many elderly people contribute, while children have
high dependency costs.
Not exact matches
Furthermore, California because of prop 13 and enormous housing
costs is pushing out young people, leading to
higher dependency ratios which are correlated with lower GDP in the long run.
This is largely due to
high dependency on declining government reimbursement (Medicare and Medicaid) and the rising
costs of pharmaceuticals, supplies and labor.
It is simultaneously failing the poorest, unfair on couples,
costing a fortune and - most importantly - trapping people in
dependency with
high marginal withdrawal rates.
It's an apt description for the rising debt - to - income levels currently seen in Canada and a new survey by Manulife Bank highlights there's a
high price to our debt
dependency — a
cost that goes far beyond the low interest rates you see posted online.
Most importantly, it helps people feed themselves with the materials that they already have, without hooking them on an increasingly expensive
dependency on chemical inputs and
high -
cost seeds that are bred to only work with synthetic herbicides and pesticides.
Further, increased human - caused CO2 emissions mean more energy use, which results in more human productivity since humans generally use fossil fuel energy to increase their productivity and reduce their
dependency on other less reliable and
higher cost energy sources.
Reduce
dependency on (imported) fossil fuels (balance of payments, reliance on potentially unfriendly or unstable nations as suppliers,
high cost at the pump, all problems as seen from US viewpoint): — encourage nuclear power generation (cut red tape)-- encourage energy savings and improved efficiency projects (tax breaks)-- encourage basic research into new (non fossil fuel) resources (subsidies)-- encourage imports from friendly neighbor, Canada (Keystone pipeline)-- encourage local oil and gas exploration («drill, baby, drill»)-- encourage «clean coal» projects (tax incentives)-- set goal to become energy independent within ten years
The decision to go for a 40 % emissions reduction target ignores key findings from the European Commission's own research which show
higher targets will bring savings on health
costs, reduce
dependency on energy imports and not significantly affect GDP.