The potential risks that these three groups fall into the same category is that it is a low percentage and it is not a realistic proposition.
According to the theory of 50, 20, 30, a person's salary should be divided into 3 buckets that are:
- 50% of salary must go towards mandatory expenses (housing rent payments, utilities, medical care, basic food, and transportation).
- 20% of the salary must be used for savings and debt payments (programmed savings for old age or a special event, or the payment of debts such as card payments, bank loans, among others).
- 30% of the salary must be allocated for non-priority expenses (it is the expenditure of money on experiences, objects, or others that are not essential for the individual).
This income distribution is unrealistic because most people spend more than 50% of their salary on compulsory expenses, reducing their economic capacity for other purposes.
In this way, the 20% destined to savings and payment of debts would be a minimum amount of the salary, which could have serious consequences such as:
- Inability to pay debts
- Inability to save for the future
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/12198015
Answer:
The correct answer is (d)
Explanation:
The first amendment has given political parties the right to speak and do political campaigns, and it had restricted government to stop them. Overall, the first amendment right is protecting political speeches and political campaigns. So, yes the first amendment right has demoted all the limits which restricted political parties to get funds from corporations.
Transfers Transfer payments.
Specialization Limiting production to fewer goods and services than consumed, perhaps those whose production entails lower opportunity cost.
c a type of marchandiser that buys merchadise from a manufacture
I 'm not sure but the answer might be A.
