less money for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "less money for" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a reduction in financial resources allocated for a specific purpose or item. Example: "Due to budget cuts, there will be less money for community programs this year."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

58 human-written examples

Less money for universities.

The New York Times

Less money for community groups.

The New York Times

That leaves less money for other things.

The New York Times

It means less money for their family.

The Guardian

But all have one dire weakness: less money for lawyers.

The Economist

With less money for food, even the uninfected grow weak.

The Economist

Less money for research, education, high-speed rail.

The New York Times

The change would mean less money for the elderly.

The New York Times

That means less money for teams and players alike.

The New York Times

But it would also mean less money for children.

The New York Times

Less exposure means less money for the blocos' offstage efforts.

The New York Times - Arts

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When discussing budget allocations, be specific about the area or program affected by the reduction. Instead of saying, "There's less money for services", specify "There's "less money for" community outreach programs."

Common error

Don't just state that there is "less money for" something without providing context or impact. Explain what the reduction means in practical terms, such as ""Less money for" education can lead to larger class sizes and fewer resources for students."

Linguistic Context

The phrase "less money for" functions as a prepositional phrase indicating a reduction in financial resources allocated to a specific entity or purpose. Ludwig confirms its correct usage in numerous examples.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

98%

Formal & Business

1%

Science

1%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "less money for" is a common and grammatically sound way to express a reduction in financial resources. Ludwig's analysis of numerous examples confirms its widespread use across diverse contexts, primarily in news and media. While simple, it's crucial to provide context when using this phrase, specifying the affected area and potential consequences. Alternatives like "reduced funding for" or "fewer resources for" can offer subtle differences in emphasis, but "less money for" remains a clear and effective way to communicate financial constraints.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

reduced funding for

Emphasizes the act of reducing funding, focusing on the financial allocation process.

decreased budget for

Highlights a smaller allocated budget, suitable when discussing formal financial planning.

less financial support for

Specifically addresses the decline in monetary assistance provided.

fewer resources for

Broadens the scope to include non-monetary resources, applicable when discussing overall support.

limited budget for

Indicates the budget constraints and restricted resources, in a specific scenario.

lower investment in

Suggests a decline in financial input, often used in the context of long-term projects or initiatives.

cutbacks in funding for

Emphasizes the negative impact of reductions, suitable when discussing adverse consequences.

scarce funding for

Suggests a great shortage of resources, highlighting that what is available barely covers the costs.

austerity measures for

Highlights strict financial constraints imposed on a particular sector or entity.

financial constraints on

Highlights the existence of financial barriers or limitations.

FAQs

How can I use "less money for" in a sentence?

You can use "less money for" to describe a situation where a budget or funding has been reduced. For instance, "Due to budget cuts, there is "less money for" schools."

What are some alternatives to saying "less money for"?

Alternatives include "reduced funding for", "decreased budget for", or "fewer resources for", depending on the context.

Is it grammatically correct to use "less money for"?

Yes, "less money for" is grammatically correct and commonly used to indicate a decrease in financial resources allocated to something.

What are the implications of having "less money for" a particular sector?

Having "less money for" a sector can lead to reduced services, fewer resources, and potential negative impacts on the beneficiaries of that sector. For example, ""Less money for" healthcare could result in longer wait times and reduced access to care."