Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": Those who are unwilling or unable to pay for the good do not obtain its benefits.
Explanation:
The excludability feature of goods does not allow individuals to have access to them without having paid for them. Thus, non-excludable goods are those that no one cannot prevent its use. <em>Private goods</em> (clothing, vehicles, houses) are excludable but they are also considered rival goods since when one person uses it another individual cannot consume the goods.
Answer:
d. Debt holders get $0 mil. under the unlevered plan vs. 0.6075 mil. under the levered plan
Explanation:
interests paid to debt holders = $13,500,000 x 10% = $1,350,000
generally, interest revenue is taxed as ordinary revenue = corporate income tax rate (if debt holder is a business) or personal income tax (if debt holder is an individual).
under the first plan, debt holders get nothing because there is no outstanding debt since the company is an all equity firm.
under the second plan, if the personal tax rate on interest income is 55%, which is really high, the debt holders will earn $1,350,000 x (1 - 55%) = $607,500
Answer:
Explanation:
Yes, Disparate Impact Theory can be used in this case relating to the processes of subjective selection such as interrogations. If a discriminatory workplace practice has an unfair and aggressive impact on minorities, it may be in violation of Title VII. Professional individual employees who support on the basis of discretionary judgments without intending to do so are engaging in biased conduct.
The case of Watson V. Fort Worth Bank & Trust will be used to support my claim. Clara Watson turned down a promotion that was contingent on an interview under this scenario.
The U.s. Supreme Court Declared that a Title VII claim to a strategy of subjection enforcement can only be investigated under the unequal care principle. In the majority decision, the Court allowed the principle of (disparate effects) to apply to arbitrarily defined work practices.
