Sentences with phrase «less government money»

Higher education institutions are preparing for a new fees regime against a backdrop of severe cuts and must get used to receiving less government money.

He added: «It's a logical consequence of what we've said that yes, if there's less Government money, then the private contribution, through the graduate contribution, is going to be bigger obviously.»

But he insisted: «In reality, the only way to maintain high quality higher education with less government money is for the graduate beneficiaries to make a bigger contribution from the extra earnings they enjoy later in life.

So I agree the less government money the better if we had to go in that direction in the first place.»

Not exact matches

«Except the U.S. government will have some extra money to help it with budgeting, and Apple will have a little less money.»

The Senate investigators also found evidence that the company turned over substantially less money to the government than its public filings indicated.

Remember, if the government gives us a tax cut they'll still have to make up the budget shortfall somehow, chiefly by selling more bonds to American citizens (who happen to be the same people getting the tax cut) or foreigners (who will raise the money by selling us more of their goods and services, or buying less of ours).

A government - sponsored enterprise that either has an average daily outstanding amount of RRP transactions of no less than $ 1 billion for the past three months, or has an average daily amount outstanding of overnight money market transactions of no less than $ 100 million over the past three months; or

You can buy a Swiss government 10 - year bond and get LESS money back at the end of ten years.

Applicants are sometimes cleared in less than a month and the critics say the government is essentially selling visas to wealthy foreigners with no proven skills, paving the way for money laundering and compromising national security.

By then, the U.S. government would be even deeper in debt with less money to spend to revive the economy.

Similarly important are the returns that bond investors are willing to accept in financing governments, which is generally seen as a less risky proposition than loaning money to commerce.

If banks would look at their overall portfolio and invest money with «safer» investments (for example, infrastructure projects, with government backing), they will have lower yields on those investments, and probably make less money, however it would be more guaranteed money and less risk.

Pew said less money is being allocated to core government services such as education and public safety as states try to prop up their funds.

It's because the two precious metals are not only money but, from the point of view of free individuals, the best sort of money, less susceptible to what governments see as the most desirable quality of money — the susceptibility to control by government and particularly its susceptibility to devaluation.

I predict we will see American clinics installed in Canada as Jean will realize it is less expensive to bring the clinics to the customer, Then, there will be price increments the government can't cover because there is no money and within 2 years we are totally involved in a US Republican style health care.

For instance, if the government doesn't borrow anything then there's less demand for money and interest rates will be lower.

(If program eligibility were widened, it would have more simulative effect on the economy, but save the government less and potentially lose money in the long run.)

While interest rates on government loans are one - size - fits - all, private lenders will loan money at lower rates to borrowers they consider less risky.

It brought a long - desired prescription drug benefit to Medicare for the first time, at less cost than if the government had paid for it — and indeed, for less money than its own projected budget (last time I checked).

If Romney wants a running mate who can explain how Republican policies can lower health care premiums, increase jobs, lower energy prices, get government to work better for less money, and maintain the safety net for our elderly while avoiding huge tax increases, then Jindal is the guy.

The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.).

Charities help reduce the need for government dependence, so less tax money has to be taken from the citizens.

«This is very simple: Americans want the government to stay open, and they want it to spend less money.

You can see how this is a lose / lose situation — hungry students have a harder time learning, and when kids skip meals which would be paid for by the federal government, the cafeteria brings in less money to help offset its fixed expenses like labor and overhead.

I know that the population of Greece is much less than in the U.S., however I do not think it matters to people «lending» money to the governments This is where you are mistaken.

There is a deep and fundamental difference between government giving someone other people's money, and govenment taking less of their own money, having nothing to do with semantic games of calling both «welfare».

I know that the population of Greece is much less than in the U.S., however I do not think it matters to people «lending» money to the governments

I know that the population of Greece is much less than in the U.S., however I do not think it matters to people «lending» money to the governments - In both cases it seems extremely unlikely that this money will ever be refunded.

We will have to govern with less money, which means the next Labour government will have to make cuts too.»

«It is the plaintiffs» case that contrary to the amount approved by the government to be paid to them, they received monies less than what the government had approved,» it said.

But, Daniel needs to recognise that there will be less money if the next Government does not cut taxes and spending (for example, slashing Labour's client state, the welfare bill etc).

«Government can't succeed and can't really work for ordinary New Yorkers until we do restore the public trust,» said Scharff, who believes that can only happen if there's less reliance on big money donors and more on small donors.

Government unions will likely continue to push to weaken the cap because it's been an effective curb on the growth of government spending, causing some unions to collect less money in dues than they would have Government unions will likely continue to push to weaken the cap because it's been an effective curb on the growth of government spending, causing some unions to collect less money in dues than they would have government spending, causing some unions to collect less money in dues than they would have otherwise.

If you consider that Authoritarian leaders can spend all the money they want to, It might make an Authoritarian government less economically secure.

He said a survey which was commissioned by the government and handled by Planet Projects Limited, said that residents now have lesser travel saving times and money in the process.

They do not pay fees because their government, in spite of having much less money to play with than ours, values education.

With the money and muscle of labor unions, Democrats are less likely to need to use government staff for minor party petitioning than Republicans.

Tax Reduction — With more jobs and more revenue coming in, theoretically, the government will need less money and can send some back to residents, Dilan said.

It will see 40,000 households receive less money from the government as part of a drive to reduce public spending.

While the cuts to Local Government in the Welsh Government's Draft Budget were less than feared, the Welsh Government's formula to distribute the money to local authorities has meant that rural councils have been disproportionately hit.

If we had a few less local government employees it would save me a boatload of money.

A government that cuts taxes has less money.

With less money from taxes, the government has to reduce spending on education.

So presumably, the less wealthy, after being told what to spend their money on by «society» for all their working years, reach pensionable age fully moulded by a paternalistic government into financially responsible citizens who will commit a significant amount of their time to research where they want to invest their pensions, and subsequently enjoy «regular updates on how their pension fund was growing» — because of course, like house prices, pension funds can only rise in value.

And once you strip away all of these categories, the amount of money spent on what most people would label «welfare» - unemployment benefit - is vanishingly small at less than one per cent of all government spending.

So some money is already taken away to the federal government and we are getting less money back to the states.

It is great news that the Government has announced a good range of tangible cuts which will save a lot of money and mean lower taxes and less money wasted on debt interest over time.

Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb on Monday in a radio interview said he is not worried about having less money to bring to a gubernatorial race than businessman Harry Wilson, saying experience in state government matters, too.

In addition, the government intends to publicise a little - used scheme that allows people who decided to take their second state pension to a private provider, but who subsequently face losing out, to get back into the state system for less money.