Answer:
$1,305,600
Explanation:
Date of acquisition = Jan, 1 2016
Cost of purchase = $1,904,000
Initial useful life - 15 years
Initial amortization - 1904000/14
= $126,933
Date of review of amortization policy -2019
Accumulated amortization before 2019 -126,933.33*3=380800
Remaining useful years at December 2019 7
Amortization in 2019 =1904000-380800/7 =217,600
Carrying value at December 2019 = 1904000 - (380800 +217600) =1305600 Please note that change in amortization policy can only be applied progressively and not retrospectively
Answer: Is useful to managers in planning and decision making.
Explanation:
The Contribution approach to the income statement helps the company understand better the behaviour of it's variable and fixed assets because the Contribution Margin approach first subtracts variable costs from revenue and then subtracts fixed costs.
This allows the company to know which of the costs are more taxing on the company thereby enabling the company to know which to work on. It is therefore useful to managers in planning and decision making.
Answer:
specialty
Explanation:
Specialty goods are goods with unique characteristics and brand identifications that will motivate a buyer to go to great length or special effort to acquire such a good. Specialty goods require high involvement as the buyer can show high level of brand loyalty to a product and pay a premium just to acquire the brand.
Byron does not visit another store to compare other vases because he already knows the unique characteristics he is looking for which he found in the first vase that he saw and bought. So he purchased a specialty good.
Answer:
$293,000
Explanation:
The computation of the product cost is shown below:
= Direct material + direct labor + factory supplies + factory depreciation + indirect labor
= $126,000 + $99,000 + $9,000 + $33,000 + $26,000
= $293,000
The factory supplies + factory depreciation + indirect labor = manufacturing overhead
All other cost are not relevant for the computation part. Hence, ignored it
1) Town of Bayport:
We have that the residents value the fireworks at
a total of 50+100+300=450$. That is the utility they gain. But they
would also have to pay 360$ for the fireworks. The total outcome is
450$+(-360$)=90$. Hence, the outcome is positive and the fireworks pass
the cost benefit analysis.
If the fireworks' cost is to be split
equally, we have that each of the 3 residents has to pay 360/3=120$. Let
us now do the cost-benefit analysis for everyone.
Jacques stands to gain 50$ from the fireworks but would have to pay 120$. He will vote against it.
Also, Kyoko will gain 100$ but would have to pay 120$. He will lose utility/money from this so he will vote against.
Musashi on the other hand, would gain 300$ and only pay 120$. He is largely benefitted by this measure. Only he would
We have that 2 out of the 3 would vote against the fireworks, so that the fireworks will not be bought. The vote does not yield the same answer as the benefit-cost analysis.
2) Town of River Heights:
We have that the total value of the fireworks to the community
is 20+140+160=320$. The total value of the fireworks is lower than
their cost so their cost benefit analysis yields that they should not be
bought.
However, let's see what each resident says. The cost to each resident is 360/3=120$. Rina is against the fireworks since she will only gain 20$. Sean and Yvette are for the fireworks since they gain 140$ and 160$ respectively, which are larger than the cost of the fireworks to each of them (120$). Hence, 2 will vote for the fireworks and one will vote against and fireworks will be bought.
Again, the vote clashes with the cost-benefit analysis.
3) The first choice is wrong. It is very difficult for a government to provide the exact types of public goods that everyone wants because that would be too costly; one cannot have a public good that everyone pays for so that only a couple of people enjoy it. In our example, we saw that in every case, a public good and its production would have sime supporters and some adversaries.
Majority rule is not always the most efficient way to decide public goods; as we have seen in the second case, the cost-benefit analysis yields that the fireworks are not worth it but they are approved by the majority nonetheless.
The final sentence is correct. The differing preferences of the people make a clearcut choice impossible and the government has to take into account various tradeoffs and compromises in order to determine which public goods to provide.
