Sentences with phrase «less wealth because»

Do student debtors have less wealth because they have more debts, fewer assets, or both?

Not exact matches

Because the sooner you start saving, the less you need to save each month, the more wealth you'll accumulate, and the sooner you can quit saving and start enjoying a life of leisure.

Because of their outsize wealth, the richest schools rely far less on tuition and student fees to pay the bills.

«If you anticipate the kind of huge appreciation in your personal wealth that could come from an IPO or a company sale, the best thing you can do is transfer stock to your heirs before the sale, because it will be worth much less then, and that minimizes the tax liability,» explains Allan Landau, a partner with Boston law firm Sherburne, Powers & Needham.

He noted that the firm operated with a higher tax rate than some peers — it had got more US - centric over time rather than less, largely because of its presence in wealth management, which he reckoned was now about 98 % US - focused after the firm sold its European business in 2013.

We, on the other hand, view it with hope: because more than anything, the events of the past few days show that the truth is getting out — the truth that capital markets simply can not exist under the authoritarian rule of central planners, the truth that the stock market is a casino in which the best one can hope for a quick flip, and finally the truth that our entire socio - economic regime, whose existence has been predicated by borrowing from the uncreated wealth of the future, and where accumulated debt could be wiped out at the flip of a switch if things go wrong in the process obliterating the welfare of billions (of less than 1 % ers), is one big lie.

That's why there is now in some evangelical Christian churches the promotion of «wealth» theology (the rich are rich because G0d loves them... not because the Devil favors them) and coffee bars for thirsty worshipers and bowling alleys for entertainment and the idea of charity, self - sacrifice and submitting your own wants and ego to the betterment of others less fortunate takes a backseat.

Put it this way: it's possible that anyone here can win the lottery, but arguing about «the best way» to spend your new - found wealth is dumb, because the probability of that happening is likely even less than of such a trade going down.

One reason that we don't tax gifts and inheritances at a 100 % rate is because the ability to pass on wealth to the next generation gives the people who are currently earning that wealth an incentive to create more wealth and because these very wealthy people would be less economically productive if they couldn't do so.

Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the elites who are determined to hijack Brexit to pay even less tax and take even more of the wealth we all create.

Third, funding must be equitably distributed, or the funds needed to reach those goals might differ from town to town because students might require more or less help to reach the same goals depending on where they live and other characteristics like poverty, town wealth, language status, and racial identification.

I have added the word substantially because in order to accumulate any significant wealth, it is important to spend MUCH less than you earn, especially when you are young so that you can reap the rewards of many years of compound interest.

On the other hand, Democrats with less wealth (and education) are less likely to care one way or the other about the issue because they're more concerned about simply making ends meet.

And Jim Larsen @ 521 — to that I would just add, it shouldn't tend to be inhumane to tax regardless of wealth because if CO2 emission were proportional to wealth generation, then the poor will be taxed less; otherwise, the price signal is encouraging wealth generation with less CO2 emission (which shapes investment so that it becomes easier to do so with less).

There's nothing to «save» it from and you can damn well bet that they will alway need more money to «save the planet» because this is about greed, power, control and the redistribution of wealth, nothing more, nothing less.

I can create more wealth, more jobs, and better conditions for all of my employees if I pay less tax, because I'll have more to re-invest in my business».

Thus, there are sound financial reasons to value your own money and NOT to leave your cash in a conventional bank, earning less than 1 % in today's financial climate, because this is simply giving someone else (a bank) the use of your money while allowing your wealth to stagnate.

Instead, the slowdown of Middle Eastern capital into the U.S. may be a function of regional investors having less capital to invest with because of the drop in oil wealth, coupled with fewer opportunities to find good rates of return, Costello notes.

Because I get such high returns in my wealth preservation strategy with almost no risk, it doesn't make sense for me to get less than 200 % IRR annualized on urban development.