The problems with price gouging laws that keep prices low are:
- Price gouging laws do nothing to address the underlying issues that cause shortages after a disaster. In fact, they often make the problem worse.
- When prices rise after a disaster, producers are encouraged to produce more of the good and bring it to the disaster area; price gouging laws short circuit this effect.
Here are the options to this questions:
- Price gouging laws reduce shortages after a disaster by keeping prices low.
- Price gouging laws do nothing to address the underlying issues that cause shortages after a disaster. In fact, they often make the problem worse.
- When prices rise after a disaster, producers are encouraged to produce more of the good and bring it to the disaster area; price gouging laws short circuit this effect.
- When prices rise after a disaster, consumers are encouraged to consume less of the good and leave some for others to purchase; price gouging laws short circuit this effect.
- Price gouging laws keep prices low after a disaster. This forces producers to produce more of the needed goods
- Price gouging laws keep prices low after a disaster. This forces consumers to buy less of the good than they otherwise would
Price gouging is when the price of a good or a service is increased to very high levels when the demand for the product is higher than the supply of the product. Price gouging usually occurs after an event. For example, after a natural disaster.
In order to prevent price gouging, the government can set a price ceiling. A price ceiling is when the maximum price for a good or service is set by the government. When prices are prevented from rising above a particular price, this benefits consumers as they would be able to purchase goods at a cheaper price. But producers would be disadvantaged because their profit margins would fall. This can lead to a shortage problem as demand would exceed supply.
To learn more about price gouging, please check: brainly.com/question/10477659?referrer=searchResults
Answer:
The correct answer is A
Explanation:
A substantial understatement may occur when tax return is understated by an amount greater than 10% of the tax required to be shown on the tax return.
Example: If a tax payer that is suppose to report a $6000 tax due and choose to report a $2000 instead, to know if a penalty will be charged or not it has to be greater than 10% of the amount which is suppose to be reported (i.e $6000 x 10% = 600) . therefore in the case shown above the penalty will be applied
Answer:
1,000 shares
Explanation:
The 318 attribution rule states that stock owned directly or indirectly by a partnership is considered to be owned by any partner that owns 5% or more in the business.
This is relevant to family owned businesses and is a way to mark out principal owners of a business in order to avoid tax evasion and fraud.
In this scenario John directly owns 700 of the outstanding shares. But according to the 318 attribution rule, since he he is a 50% partner he owns half of the outstanding 2,000 shares. That is 1,000 shares.
