Answer:
Base 98900 79000
tax excess 85525 40125
Excess 13375 38875
% 24% 22%
tax 1 3210 8552.5
tax 2 additional 14605.5 plus 24% of the excess 85.525
4617.5 plus 22% of the excess 40.125
total tax (tax1+tax2) 17815.5__13170
Change in tax
(17.815 - 13.170) / (98,900 - 79,000) =
4.645,5 / 19.900 = 23.34%
Explanation:
Base 98900 79000
tax excess 85525 40125
Excess 13375 38875
% 24% 22%
tax 1 3210 8552.5
tax 2 additional 14605.5 4617.5
total tax 17815.5 13170
Change in tax
(17.815 - 13.170) / (98,900 - 79,000) =
4.645,5 / 19.900 = 23.34%
Answer:
1.Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant] - The plaintiff is Henry Keller of H.K.Enterprises and the defendant is Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian individuals Central Bank of Nigeria, Paul Ogwuma, ?Alhaji Rasheed, Alhaji M.A. Sadiq.
2.Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case] - The case was filed by Keller against the defendants in United States. The case was filed under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as the plaintiff found himself a victim of fraud and financial scam.The scam occured when one of the defendants approached the plaintiff who was the sales representative of medical equipments for granting him the distribution rights for Nigeria. The expected amount of money was not transferred in the account of plaintiff inspite of his attempts of meeting the requirements of the defendants. The defendants acted on the behalf of Central Bank of Nigeria and as Nigerian individuals.
3.Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?] - The appeal was filed by the defendants Central Bank of Nigeria,?Paul Ogwuma, Alhaji Rasheed, Alhaji M.A. Sadiq. The lower court gave the decision that the claims of fraud and misrepresentation do not hold against the defendants as the plaintiff entered into an arrangement with them which is not legal and as per the rules. However the lower court ruled that immunity cannot be given under FSIA to the defendants as the commercial activity is an exception and claims for violation of RICO are applicable on them.
4. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns] - The case turns on the appeal of defendants to be granted immunity under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The ruling indicated that the defendants have sovereign authority. Also, the commercial activity clause did not apply in this case as the activity was not done in United States and did not meet the legal standards of a commercial activity.
5.Explain the applicable law(s). - Applicable laws are Common law fraud, violations of RICO(Rackteer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), Misrepresentation.
6.Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?] - The court resolved the issue by giving a decision in the favor of defendants by ruling that immunity is given to Foreign nationals under FSIA and dismissed any claims filed against them under RICO.
7.Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision] - The logic supporting the court's decision is that the arrangement between the plaintiff and defendants including the signed contract was not as per the laws and rules and was not legally compliant. Moreover the commercial activity was out of bounds for United states so the exception to FISA is not applicable. The defendants claimed that they did not enter into the contract with the plaintiff.
Explanation:
Answer: This is an example of Ethical imperialism
Explanation:
The given statement " If the CPI rises at 5% per year, then every individual in the country needs exactly a 5% increase in their income for their standard of living to remain constant" is FALSE
Explanation:
The CPI is also considered an indicator of cost of living, but varies from a full calculation of cost-of-living in important ways. A living-cost index will calculate adjustments over time to the value spent by households in order to achieve a given degree of utility or living standard.
Changes in the customer buying habits are taken into account in the new BLS process. When there is no improvement in customer behaviour, the simplistic analysis given would suggest that the CPI measured is 10%. It is the same outcome as the approach Williams uses with set baskets.
If buyers adjust their buying habits and replace FM absolutely with TS, however, the CPI is 0 percent. When buyers minimize their FM buy-out by 50% and then buy TS, the CPI computed by the BLS would be 5%.
If there was no inflation everyone would be making the same amount of money and there would be no motivation for people to make money.
