1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
seraphim [82]
3 years ago
13

Mest Company has 9 employees. FICA Social Security taxes are 6.2% of the first $118,500 paid to each employee, and FICA Medicare

taxes are 1.45% of gross pay. FUTA taxes are 0.6% and SUTA taxes are 5.4% of the first $7,000 paid to each employee. Cumulative pay for the current year for each of its employees follows.

Business
1 answer:
bulgar [2K]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Following are the solution to this question:

Explanation:

Please find the complete question and its solution in the attached file.  

You might be interested in
3 pros for pursuing kindergarten teacher?
Morgarella [4.7K]
Summer break, easy lessons, and fun kids and activities
8 0
3 years ago
Two firms, A and B, each currently emit 100 tons of chemicals into the air. The government has decided to reduce the pollution a
LekaFEV [45]

Answer:

It is likely that <em>C. Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200</em>.

Explanation:

  • So <em>two firms, A and B, each currently emit 100 tons</em><em> of chemicals into the air, and from now on each one will require </em><em>a pollution permit for each ton</em><em> of pollution emitted into the air</em>.
  • <em>Each firm gets 40 pollution permits</em><em>, which it can</em><em> either use or sell </em><em>to the other firm</em>. That means that if both firms choose to keep their respective 40 permits, they would still have to reduce the pollution by 60 tons (100 minus 40 is 60).
  • <em>It costs Firm A $200 for each ton of pollution that it eliminates</em><em> before it is emitted into the air</em>. Because it costs so much to eliminate a ton of pollution, it would make sense for Firm A to get as many pollution permits as possible, <u>as long as they get them for less than $200 each</u>.
  • It costs Firm B $100 for each ton of pollution that it eliminates before it is emitted into the air. Since here it costs less to eliminate a ton of pollution, it would make sense for Firm B to sell as many pollution permits as possible, <u>as long as they sell for higher than $100</u>.

With that in mind, the outcome that makes the most sense would be <em>Option C. Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200</em>. This way both firms spend the least amount of money while at the same time pleasing the government.

To demonstrate it, let's do some actual calculations for each case.

Case A) Both firms will use their own pollution permits.

In this case, each firm will have to independently reduce their pollutants by 60 tons, as noted before. That represents a high cost, as we will now determine:

For Firm A, the cost would be

60tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton}=12000dollars

For Firm B, the cost would be

60tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton}=6000dollars

Case B) Firm A will buy some of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost less than $100.

Since Firm B could spend $100 to reduce a ton of pollution, it wouldn't sell its pollution permits for less than $100 each: <em>If Firm B sold its pollution permits for less than $100 each, it would have to reduce even more tons of pollutants (spending $100 for each one), and </em><em>would end up losing money</em>! Let's say it sold 10 pollution permits for $90 each, so it would have to reduce 70 tons of pollutants instead of 60. Its total cost would be:

Cost for Firm B (Case B):

70tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton}-(10*90dollars)=6100dollars

Which is higher than the cost calculated for Firm B in Case A, so it's not worth it.

Case D) Firm B will buy all of Firm A's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200.

This is a similar case than Case B, in the sense that since it costs Firm A so much to reduce a ton of pollutant ($200 for each one), it wouldn't sell its pollution permits for less than $200 each, <em>or it would end up losing money as well</em>. Let's say Firm A sold all of its 40 pollution permits for $150 each, and so it would have to reduce 100 tons of pollutants instead of 60. Its total cost would be:

Cost for Firm A (Case D):

100tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton}-(40*150dollars)=14000dollars

Which is higher than the cost calculated for Firm A in Case A, so it's not worth it.

Finally, Case C) Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200.

As mentioned before, this one makes the most sense because both firms would spend the least amount of money. Let's determine the total costs for each one, knowing that:

  • Firm A would buy 40 pollutant permits from Firm B, for (let's say) $150 each.
  • Firm A would still need to reduce 20 tons of pollutants. And
  • Firm B would have to reduce 100 tons of pollutants, instead of 60.

Cost for Firm A (Case C):

(20tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton})+(40*150dollars)=10000dollars

Which is less than the $12000 Cost calculated in Case A.

Cost for Firm B (Case C):

(100tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton})-(40*150dollars)=4000dollars

Which is less than the $6000 Cost calculated in Case A.

<em>Since both firms each spend $2000 less in Case C than in case A, it would make sense for them to follow this option</em>.

4 0
3 years ago
Peter, a British citizen, and Keith, a U.S. citizen, are employees of an electronics manufacturing company headquartered in Lond
valina [46]

Answer:

The correct answer is option B.

Explanation:

An electronics manufacturing company is headquartered in London. It has a marketing unit in New York.  

Peter is a British resident, who works in the London office of the company. Keith is a US citizen and works in the New York marketing unit.  

Since the company is headquartered in London, its parent country is Britain. The US is a host country for the company.  

So Peter is a parent country national and Keith is host country national.

6 0
3 years ago
Dave Krug contributed $1,000 cash along with inventory and land to a new partnership. The inventory had a book value of $800 and
pav-90 [236]

Answer:

cash                 1,000 debit

inventory        2,000 debit

land                5,000 debit

note payable             3,000 credit

Krug capital Account 5,000 credit

Explanation:

The land and inventories will be accepted at his market value.

Along with cash this are assets which enter the partnership so they are debited.

The note payable decreases the Krug capital contribution. It is credited.

Krug capital account balance will be to complete the entry and make debit = credit.

6 0
4 years ago
eaver Chocolate Co. expects to earn $3.50 per share during the current year, its expecteddividend payout ratio is 65%, its expec
Agata [3.3K]

Answer:

cost of equity  = 13.36  %

Explanation:

given data

earn = $3.50

ratio = 65%

growth rate = 6.0%

common stock currently sells = $32.50

flotation cost = 5%

to find out

cost of equity from new common stock

solution

we get here cost of equity from new common stock that is express as

cost of equity  = \frac{D1}{Po-(1-f)} + g   ...................1

here D1 is expected dividend  and Po is current price  and g is growth rate and f is flotation cost and

D1 = 3.50 × 0.65

so from equation 1 we get

cost of equity  = \frac{3.50*0.65}{32.50(1-0.05)} + 6%

cost of equity  = 0.1336

cost of equity  = 13.36  %

5 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • The reason fast food restaurants often are found in close proximity to each other is a. they enjoy competition b. location clust
    9·1 answer
  • A flood damaged several vans belonging to a nongovernmental, not-for-profit organization. A professional mechanic repaired the v
    5·1 answer
  • Which is the best opening for an unsolicited job cover message?
    8·1 answer
  • When managers overlook or stifle the importance of core values in their business decisions, this is known as a.Leader-follower c
    8·1 answer
  • If there is a time limitation or any other restriction in a contract, a third-party beneficiary:
    11·1 answer
  • The Dorilane Company specializes in producing a set of wood patio furniture consisting of a table and four chairs. The set enjoy
    11·1 answer
  • Will this health insurance plan help me save money if I'm healthy?
    14·1 answer
  • hey bestie ily but u kinda smell like tuna u should wash ur Cooter she loves u too-a if u want me u eat her stop smelling like t
    9·1 answer
  • A manufacturer of electronics for environmentally conscious buyers has recently launched an online crowdsourcing campaign that i
    6·1 answer
  • Total dollar volume of U.S. travel agencies (including OTAs (online agencies)) over the past decade has ________________________
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!