cover costs

USAGE SUMMARY

"cover costs" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It can be used to refer to the expenses of something. For example, "We need to cover the costs of materials for this project before we can begin."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Medicare would cover costs beyond that.

The New York Times

That helps cover costs, Ms. Lewis said.

The New York Times

The comprehensive cover costs £130 a year.

The Guardian - Money

VW has set aside €6.5bn to cover costs.

Independent

"I started to work in a pub to cover costs.

Independent

It helps cover costs on the corporate side".

The New York Times

He said he's earning just enough to cover costs.

The Guardian

Tuition for these programs does not cover costs.

The New York Times

The city is already raising taxes to cover costs.

The New York Times

Sponsors in foreign countries also often cover costs.

The New York Times

The move was made in an attempt to cover costs.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When writing about budgets or projects, clarify which "costs" are being covered, such as materials, labor, or overhead. This adds precision to your writing.

Common error

Avoid vague sentences like "This will cover costs". Instead, specify the source of funding or the method used to "cover costs", such as "The grant will cover material costs" or "Increased sales will cover operational costs".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "cover costs" functions as a verb phrase within a sentence. It typically describes the act of financially taking care of expenses or liabilities. Ludwig AI examples show this phrase used across varied contexts, from business to personal finance.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

51%

Academia

19%

Formal & Business

10%

Less common in

Science

17%

Wiki

3%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "cover costs" is a versatile and widely used expression, signifying the act of meeting financial obligations or paying for expenses. As indicated by Ludwig AI, its grammatical status is correct, and it enjoys frequent usage across diverse contexts like news, academia, and formal business settings.

The phrase's neutrality makes it suitable for formal reports and casual conversations alike. While fundamentally simple, clarity is paramount: always specify which costs are being covered and by whom. Alternatives like "offset expenses" or "meet financial obligations" can add nuance to your writing, but “cover costs” remains a dependable and effective choice.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

offset expenses

Focuses on balancing out the financial impact of expenses.

meet financial obligations

Emphasizes the fulfillment of financial duties related to expenses.

reimburse expenses

Highlights the action of repaying someone for incurred costs.

handle expenditures

Focuses on managing the spending of money.

finance outlays

Highlights the aspect of providing funds for expenses.

pay for overhead

Specifically refers to covering general business expenses.

bear the financial burden

Emphasizes the responsibility of carrying the financial load of expenses.

shoulder the expenses

Similar to "bear the financial burden" but uses different imagery.

defray the charges

A more formal way of saying to pay for the expenses or charges.

liquidate liabilities

Focuses on converting assets into cash to pay off debts or expenses.

FAQs

How can I use "cover costs" in a sentence?

You can use "cover costs" to indicate that an expense is being taken care of financially. For example, "The fundraising event will "cover costs" associated with the new community center".

What are some alternatives to the phrase "cover costs"?

Alternatives include "offset expenses", "meet financial obligations", or "reimburse expenses", depending on the specific context.

Is it better to say "cover costs" or "covering costs"?

Both phrases are grammatically correct, but "cover costs" is the base form and might be preferable in general statements, while "covering costs" is used when describing an ongoing action. For example, "We need to "cover costs"" versus "We are currently "covering costs" with our current revenue stream."

What does it mean when something "doesn't cover costs"?

It means that the income or funding is not sufficient to pay for all the expenses associated with something. For example, "The current budget doesn't "cover costs" of the program, so we need to find additional funding."