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:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
Explanation:
The increasing population and urbanization have resulted into changes in the land use pattern. Large scale forests have been destructed to expand land for cultivation.
Honestly it’s not dangerous to live on credit unless you DON’T PAY YOUR BILLS because with cash you have a higher chance of your money being lost or stolen, and with debit you can only pay exactly what you have in your account penny for penny, but with credit you can over spend a little on Thursday if your pay check comes tomorrow.
Please mark brainliest
