All categories

2 years ago

Likely be covered under homeowners insurance but NOT by renter's insurance?

Business

2 answers:

Harrizon [31]2 years ago

6 0

Because it is no longer renters job to pay because Ur renting,whats the choices?

Alenkinab [10]2 years ago

4 0

Answer:

B is the correct answer. 100% on Edgen.

Explanation:

Renters insurance is different than homeowners insurance in that _____.

a. unlike homeowner’s insurance, renter’s insurance will not cover items lost in a burglary.

b. homeowner’s insurance protects the building of residence while renter’s insurance does not.

c. renter’s insurance only applies to apartments when homeowner’s insurance only applies to houses.

d. additional living expenses are covered by renter’s insurance by not by homeowner’s insurance.

You might be interested in

2. Roth retirement funds require you to pay taxes on your investment dollars up-front, while

leonid [27]

Answer:

The Pros and Cons of Roth IRA and the Traditional IRA or 401(K):

Roth IRA is not advantageous to those, who are starting to save late in their career. It favors the younger worker, who is starting out with low-paying jobs at lower-paying tax rates, who will later be earning more.

With Roth IRA, you suffer the tax burden upfront when you are active and while making your contributions, so that you can enjoy your retirement benefits tax-free. This is why the younger worker benefits more. In the prime of life with little responsibilities, you can settle the taxman so that you can be free of him later in older age. But, if you are in the high tax bracket, this category is not funny for you, anyway. The IRS has an income limit for this category, therefore, you must go for the traditional IRA.

The traditional IRA saves you the tax burden initially, but you can never be free of the IRS. It must take its share later, having allowed you to enjoy tax-free contributions. When the net is filled, the IRS cuts its percentage off.

You will never feel bad then, because your tax rate will surely be reduced in comparison with when you are making the contributions. So, it is just and right to allow the IRS, who generously helped you to grow the nest in the first place to take its just and lawful cut. It does not bleed too much then, afterall you are drying up with life's responsibilities, including reduced tax bracket, and many of your children have started answering to the IRS independently. This is the better time to deal with IRS, anyway.

Explanation:

The question has the explanation: ROTH IRAs are retirement funds that allow you to pay taxes on your investments into retirement funds as you are making the contributions, so that you are free to make your withdrawals after at least 5 years without paying additional taxes.

The traditional IRAs or the 401(K) encourage you to make your retirement contributions without paying taxes on them so that you can contribute more. Then the IRS will bounce on you to pay the taxes when you are making withdrawals having grown the investments.

IRAs mean Individual Retirement Accounts which individuals use to save and accumulate their retirement funds.

5 0

2 years ago

Which of the following is sold on a commodity market?

Bas_tet [7]

The answer is c because everything has to be processed

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Rhonda owns 50% of the stock of Peach Corporation. She and the other 50% shareholder, Rachel, have decided that additional contr

marin [14]

Answer:

Explanation:

The transaction is fully taxable because Rhonda, the sole transferor of property, does not have control immediately after the transaction. Therefore, all of the realized gain is recognized.

Amount realized—stock $200,000

Less: Adjusted basis of property transferred (15,000)

Realized gain $185,000

Recognized gain $185,000

b. With the change, Rhonda is trying to avoid recognizing the $185,000 gain. The plan involves Rachel becoming a transfer of property along with Rhonda so that together they would meet the 80% control test. If Rhonda is part of a group that meets the control test, she would avoid recognizing the gain. However, this plan will not be successful. Rachel’s interest cannot be counted since the value of the stock she would receive is relatively small compared to the value of the stock she already owns. In addition, Rachel’s contribution would be made primarily to qualify Rhonda for § 351 treatment.

c. The following alternatives would enable Rhonda to avoid gain recognition:

• Rhonda can transfer property that has not appreciated in value. For example, if she were to contribute $200,000 of cash to Peach, Rhonda would not recognize gain on the transaction.

• Rachel could contribute property of an amount that is not small relative to the value of the stock already owned. By doing so, she would be considered a transfer of property along with Rhonda, and together, they would have control. As a result, Rhonda would avoid gain recognition. For example, if the value of Rachel’s stock is worth approximately $200,000 prior to the contribution, a transfer of at least $20,000 would likely be sufficient to avoid the relative-small-in-value test.

5 0

3 years ago

Suppose the currency-to-deposit ratio is 0.25, the excess reserve-to-deposit ratio is 0.05, and the required reserve ratio is 0.

Lana71 [14]

Answer:

Money multiplier, MM = (1 + Currency-deposit ratio) / (Currency-deposit ratio + Excess reserve ratio + Required Reserve ratio)

(a) Initially,

MM = (1 + 0.25) / (0.25 + 0.05 + 0.10) = 1.25 / 0.4 = 3.125

(b) Currency-deposit ratio = 0.3

MM = (1 + 0.3) / (0.3 + 0.05 + 0.1) = 1.3 / 0.45 = 2.89

7 0

3 years ago

g A decrease in aggregate demand will cause prices to fall according to classical economists, and unemployment to increase accor

Mashcka [7]

Answer:

prices to fall according to the classical economists and unemployment to increase according to Keynes.

Explanation:

The classical economists believes that a decrease in aggregate demand for goods produced would being about fall in the prices of such goods. What this implies is that as more goods are produced, if such production is not backed by corresponding demand by consumers, the prices of such goods produced will eventually fall because supply is greater than demand.

For the Keynes, their argument is that a decrease in aggregate demand will cause unemployment to increase. This is because owners of businesses or employers would lay off their employees when goods produced exceeds the demand for such production by consumers. Here, owners of businesses pays their employees through sales of goods produced. So, when the goods produced are not purchased, then there will be excess availability of such goods; hence no sale or profit, from which salaries would be paid. The next step is to start laying off employees because employers cannot cover their running costs.

7 0

2 years ago