Sentences with phrase «people paying more money»

«We're seeing... more people paying more money to go to supermarkets instead of discount stores or other low - price alternatives — trading money for convenience,» he said.

This problem would only worsen under the health - care plan now being considered in Congress — a plan that would leave people paying more money for less insurance coverage of their medical expenses.

«If you just count miles and not true energy use, you can get people paying more money for something that's actually going the opposite of what they wanted which is to get a lower carbon footprint,» said Messer.

Not exact matches

Let that money sit for a while, and you'll most likely pay no more than 15 % in taxes on its growth, as the long - term capital gains tax for most people is far lower than taxes on regular income.

The study found «that people who were asked to think about the past were willing to pay more for products than those who were asked to think about new or future memories; another experiment showed an increased willingness to give more money to others after recalling a nostalgic event.»

While deposits in checking and savings accounts can be volatile, as people might draw their money out all at once (run on the bank), CDs provide much needed funding stability, so banks are willing to pay a little more.

People who paid much more than they expected to change their mailing addresses have some money coming back.

Although some people told him $ 50 was too much money for a bike light, Menn predicted that others would be willing to pay even more for a higher quality product.

As I recall the headline read, more or less, «Women Don't Negotiate Because They're Not Dumb,» and the author went on to cite research to make her point that when women do ask for more money, people tend to hate it, and «pushy» women end up paying mightily in terms of career progression and opportunities.

Banks would have to pay the central bank to hold their money overnight, but people might borrow more, which would be a positive.

Smith started Vice as a print magazine with Suroosh Alvi and Gavin McInnes in Montreal more than two decades ago; with Smith at the helm as CEO, it's now a multi-platform content mill with a reported audience of between 250 million and 300 million people a month, many of them members of Generation Y. Smith made his money by convincing an older generation that Vice knows millennials better than they could ever hope to, and that pitch has worked: Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox paid US$ 70 million for a 5 % stake of Vice in 2013, and Rogers Communications (which owns Canadian Business) inked a $ 100 million partnership.

Being physically attractive can also literally pay off, as many people believe it can mean you make more money.

But people took issue with the fact that the game's developers tipped the scales in favor of people willing to spend more money, known among gaming fans as «pay to win.»

What's more, for this to work, the person who rents has to actually invest money they would have put into a downpayment into the stock market, as well as all the principal payments they would have made to pay down the debt.

A recent study published in the Journal of Consumer Research found that people who were asked to think about the past were willing to pay more for products than those who were asked to think about new or future memories; another experiment showed an increased willingness to give more money to others after recalling a nostalgic event.

Fascinating, yes, but the success or failure of basic income won't necessarily rest on its benefit — people with more money will either spend it or save it — but how it will be paid for.

The reason more people don't have high networths is because they don't want to cut out all the «little crap» they spend money on: coffee in the morning, going out to lunch, going out to dinner, going to a movie, buying that thing you will never use, letting your food spoil, having to pay interest on your credit card... congrats, there goes your earnings.

But Tidal's «stand» amounts to asking people to pay more money for music they can legally obtain elsewhere for less.

People get paid huge amounts of money to figure it out, and they still get it wrong more often than not.

The one major point in favor of your argument that you didn't highlight is that most people using a Roth IRA assume that they'll make more money in the future than they do today, thus realizing a lower tax rate by paying taxes now than they would have in the future (even assuming tax rates stay constant).

Hedge funds that get paid millions of dollars to make rich people even more money underperform the S&P 500 all the time.

In other words, people have to pay either so much debt or they have to have forced saving, like pension fund saving, that the economy is shrunk for financial reasons, for putting more and more of its money out of the real economy of goods and services into the financial sector.

For example, more and more people are making payments through their smartphones, they can pay for taxes, buy movie tickets, shop online, transfer money, pay for goods at restaurants and shops, all on their smartphones.

Today money is debt, so when a person, company or a government has a debt, they are in fact promising to pay back a debt with more debt.

Still a lot of room to grow their revenue through people upgrading to smartphones and paying for data packages which they make more money off of then regular phones

Of course, people can borrow money to top up a reserve account, pay their bills by borrowing more, and have perfect credit without the means to buy an expensive house.

«Young people more often struggle to pay bills and manage money,» said Collins, noting that that demographic experiences low levels of financial literacy and is prone to expensive credit behaviors, such as using payday loans and carrying a balance on high - interest credit cards.

I think people will pay more money if it's from someone who is a credible consultant.

Those who wish to borrow money — people, corporations, governmental bodies — have to pay more in interest in order to do so.

And so Coolest is in an incredibly tough spot: Unable to appease the people who are truly pissed off, and forced to ask the people who have waited patiently to pay more money.

So if you have one kind of growth — booming financial fortunes in the stock market, higher real - estate prices and more expensive means of living — then you are going to have slower growth in the real economy because money is diverted from peoples» pay - checks away from buying goods and services to just having to pay the banks.

Rich people (e.g. republicans) are willing to pay big money to hear a pastor tell them that they are successful because god loves them more, not because they are greedy.

And had those 45,722 babies been born in 2009, there would be 45,722 more people that tax money would pay for to live, as clearly the parents were financially unable to support the estimated $ 10K per year cost to sufficiently raise a child if they were using Medicaid to pay for their heath care procedures.

If he can just get those of the weak and thoughtless minds to concentrate on gay people and not on his distorted unemployment statistics, pay - offs to his union buddies, economy collapsing debt, bullying of the American businessman / woman, ever - lavish spending wife (our money, not theirs), and a debacle of a healthcare plan, then maybe, maybe he might just get elected again so that he can do even more damage than he has already wrought.

@@@@@ WIMPY WASP explained it when earthquakes and floods and famine hit really hard then most crazy broke really religious people who don't have a job go crazy like you.you religious people don't give back in my last three years I given back too helping the poor more then $ 20,000 dallors of my own money how much you so called chicken heads crazy religious people given out of your own income wait you crazy religious people got ta pay your light bill.by the way I own my own commercial health base buisness in Arizona.you still working for a pay check I write employees paychecks.

Another reason might be that he can not bear to request paid secretarial help; for this would involve a need for more money; and thus he would lose his reputation for being such a «spiritual» person.

I would never give money to a religious organization that doesn't pay taxes — that is like giving money to my kids — and they need it more than the church... I think faith is a wonderful thing for a lot of people — including myself (I have faith in myself)-- I just wish others would keep their «faith» personal, and out of politics and government.

What people fail to understand is, that if you have healthcare through your job, you are being double - dipped: — your employer is using YOUR money to pay for your health insurance (otherwise you'd get more pay)-- you pay for the uninsured through your taxes.

I don't think it's so much about the levites being paid for their service it's about us doing what's right toward Pastors that must feed and tend to the flock of GOD if GOD has called them.JESUS even said in luke 10:7 that the laborers are worthy of their wages.In luke 8 1 - 4 it's says even JESUS HIMSELF recieved financial support from the women who ministered to him with their possessions.Now most people today would say he should have been ashamed of taking money from those poor women but JESUS accepted their support and they was blessed for sowing onto the LORD»S work.1 Corinthains 9:1 - 15 says dint muzzle the ox while it tread out the grain was GOD talking about oxes no he was talking about those who labor in the ministry.Who goes to war at their own expense.Or who goes to war but pay for their clothes, guns, etc.No one because the goverment if that country provide these things because of the soilders service.Who plants a vineyard and don't eat from it.Who tends a flock and don't drink the milk of it.I think it's just spiritual sense to support a pastor that's teaching you the word, casting out devils, laying hands and healing is manifesting in people lived, going to hospitails, prisons, and house calls to pray for the sick and shut in, going to graduations and funnerals, praying and fasting for himself and the flock.I think a person who think a pastor shouldn't be paid for their service either don't know they need to be paid and need to be taught or they are demonic in their thinking and either hate GOD, PASTORS, AND GOD»S PEOPLE.Why do nt you hear people saying anything against the dope dealers, strip clubs, dope houses, liquor stores, etc.It's only when people give into the LORD»S work that evil minded or misinformed people have a problem with it.No sir we don't have to use the old testament to show that we should support out pastors.You don't use the law, love tells me to support the pastor.Under the new testament LOVE is the greatest of all.Love for GOD and man.If GOD asked for 10 percent under the law to support the levites who didn't have all the responsibilities of Pastor today.Church rent, gas for vans of thd church, insurance fir the church and church vehicles, feeding and clothing the poor, light, gas, and water bill, mantience on the church or vehicles, not to mention the Pastor own house, cars, children, insurance, etc.If would be foolish for one to think that a pastor should take care if his house and GODS HOUSE without people supporting the work of the KINGDOM OF GOD.If we love GOD we are going to support HIS KINGDOM and HIS PASTOR.If under the law GOD asked for 10 percent how much should we give under the LOVE COVENANT?Example I love my wife and if I had 300 dollars I would surley give her more that 10 percent which would be 30 dollars because I love her.The law says you must give LOVE says I chose to give because I love GOD and man.Again we don't have to use the law just love and spiritual sense because hate and a carnal senses will not understand.Now I have given you scriptures please do the same when you respond not your opinion.Please respond right away I await your answer.GOD BLESS.

To say it isn't effective is talking BS, it is prob the most effective thing we supporters could do but it wont happen because of people like you who want people to spend money and go to games, spend a bit more on banners and go pay AFC # 60 to hold a #SilentStanOut sign or whatever.

I'm so sick of people telling those of us who are disgruntled fans to relax and give this club time to correct itself... for anyone who believes that taking a wait - and - see approach is appropriate at this juncture they should take a good long look at themselves in the mirror because they are a big part of the problem... no other «big» club's fans would stand for this shit for nearly as long as we have... think about it, we've witnessed a changing of the guard at every major club in England, Spain, France and Germany in the last several years because those «big» clubs failed to live up to expectations (Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern, PSG, Chelsea, ManU, ManCity etc...)... for some reason, many fans have become as fragile as our current manager, believing that there couldn't possibly be a suitable replacement, even though everyone of these clubs have found multiple replacements and still achieved far more than our club... this mindset has been created by an organization that has been milking it's fans, telling countless lies (no world class players available) and lowering expectations every since they rolled out the biggest lie of all: that we couldn't spend because of the new stadium but once it was paid off we could compete with any team in the world... this organization is rotting from the inside out and if we don't demand that those in charge put soccer first this despicable behaviour won't end with Wenger's ridiculous 2 year contract... I think the real fear isn't that a suitable replacement doesn't exist, but that this organization is so money hungry and poorly mismanaged that we will sink even lower by choosing our next coach the same way they choose our players, on the cheap... even so, we need to see what mustache will do if left to his own devices so he will have to show his true colours... only then can we purge this club and start anew

With the other top Gunner Mesut Ozil also in talks over a new contract you would expect the German international and his people to be looking at a similar sort of deal to keep them happy as well, but revelations last week showed that such a huge pay rise for two of the players already on more money than their club colleagues would have put us in a precarious position.

I thought people here were debating about two or three seasons back why he should be our top striker.When I thought the Monaco match was the icing on the cake to show how average he was it seems just like Wenger we» will never learn our lesson.Now people our okay with him being a super sub which is debatable.Giroud was a super sub in games last season because he wasn't played when he was supposed to.He's not your ideal super sub because he very hardly creates but rather requires people to create for him.Most of the time super subs are the one's who tend to create the chances and open up spaces in the opposition defence.West ham are ready to pay and hence we should demand more from them.We can then use the money from his sale on far better players.Given the same seasons, time and chances a lot of average strikers can do better than what he did.This is because Arsenal create a lot of chances and it just needs someone who can finish.Goodbye!.

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

Money shouldn't really come into it, but many on social media liked to point out that the amount he earns in a week is considerably more than that earned in a year by virtually every single person who pays to go and watch him and his teammates perform throughout the season.

Marriage has become a system where the person who makes more money, shall pay the lesser earner enough so that incomes are rendered equal in the eyes of the state.

And there my Republicans friends wanted, you know, shy away and say, well, I don't know about paying those people more, and that costs more money, and I don't know if we should do that.

For the amount of money people pay for a cloth diaper that they hope to use for 1 child or more... they deserve a quality product.

And asking people to pay money out of their pocket to put into yours (or anyone's) doesn't make sense, I shouldn't have to pay more just because someone else needs a job.

If the answer is because they spend money here (as it seems to be), then why not let all rich people off paying tax, so that they can buy more Bentleys?