The case portrays the need for a review of income and property taxes, highlighting information on which taxes should or should not have their exemption limits extended and how this affects the country's infrastructure.
Accordingly, we can answer the other questions as follows:
- Economic research is against increasing the income tax exemption limit, as this would harm the poorest population.
- The research states that the property tax is important for the growth of the country's infrastructure, in addition to falling on objects that are easy to identify and that belong to the richest population.
<h3>How does the survey present this information?</h3>
The research shows that the income import should matter the exemption in the poorest population and this is a way to promote more taxpayers for this tax. This is because by allowing poor people to be exempt from income tax, the State promotes economic ascension, allowing these people to reach higher economic levels and leave the lower classes, becoming taxpayers.
However, the research is in favor of extending the exemption limits for property tax. This is because these taxes must fall on people who own buildings and residences. These people have a higher economic standard and are easily identified since the properties are immovable assets.
Learn more about income tax:
brainly.com/question/17075354
#SPJ1
1. Civil
2.military
3. Constitutional
4.military
5. Constitutional
6. Civil
7. Constitutional
8. Juvenile
9. Constitutional
10. Constitutional/juvenile
Answer: Woodson v North Carolina and Roberts v Lousianna
Explanation:
In Boykin v. Alabama (1969), the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the death penalty for the first time.
By 1972, Furman v. Georgia ruled a Georgia death penalty law was cruel and unusual punishment, which is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. In 1976 there were five "Death Penalty Cases". While Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, and Proffitt v. Florida, confirmed the states´ death penalties, Woodson v. North Carolina and Roberts v. Louisiana overturned the mandatory death sentences.
Answer:
It supports individuals and agencies to understand the wider impact of social exclusion and discrimination on offenders with mental health problems, and how this may militate against early identification and appropriate and timely diversion.
Explanation:
