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
Answer:
Alice Paul
Explanation:
Alice Paul was the first to show the Equal Rights Amendment to Congress sometime in 1923
Answer: They do it because it might look like cocaine or LSD but that doesn't mean it actually is
Explanation:The prosecution must prove that a seized substance is indeed the illicit drug it claims it is by sending the evidence to a crime lab for analysis. The crime lab analyst then must testify at trial in order for the prosecution to make its case.
The answer is A special one year tac pays for building new schools
Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;
-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and
-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.
On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or
-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
To learn more about Testimony visit here ; brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults
#SPJ4
