₥Ɏ ₲Ø₳Ⱡ₴ ₳ⱤɆ ฿ɆⱧł₦Đ ɎØɄⱤ Ʉ₦ĐɆⱤ₴₮₳₦Đł₦₲.

I was paid $200 in advance for some hair coloring I will do in January he tells me that's a liability that doesn't make any sens

raketka [301]

Answer:

That is correct this is a liability

Explanation:

That is correct this is a liability. That is because a liability refers to being legally responsible for something. In this scenario, since they paid you $200 for hair coloring then you owe the client that. Meaning that you are legally responsible to provide hair coloring services to the client and until you do that you are liable.

7 0

4 years ago

Adjustment for Prepaid Expense The supplies account had a beginning balance of $3,690 and was debited for $1,700 for supplies pu

zysi [14]

Answer:

Dr supplies expense $4,100

Cr supplies $4,100

Explanation:

Supplies used in the year needs to be ascertained before any adjusting entry can be posted.

Supplies used=beginning supplies+purchases-ending supplies

beginning supplies is $3,690

purchases of supplies was $1,700

ending balance of supplies was $1,290

supplies used=$3,690+$1,700-$1,290=$ 4,100.00

The used portion of supplies would be debited to supplies expense while supplies inventory is credited with the same amount.

4 0

4 years ago

Why do most economists believe that the value for the government purchases multiplier is greater than the value for the tax mult

Rudiy27

Because taxes keep some of the original impact of the tax, unlike spending multipliers, the spending multiplier is always one bigger than the tax multiplier. Any changes in consumer spending that follow any real GDP expansion or contraction brought on by the application of fiscal policy are referred to as the multiplier impact.

Any shift in aggregate demand will typically be significantly increased with a high multiplier, making the economy more unstable. Contrarily, with a low multiplier, changes in aggregate demand will not be amplified by a large amount, leading to a tendency for the economy to be more stable.

To learn more about tax multiplier

brainly.com/question/28140364

#SPJ4

8 0

2 years ago

PLEASE HELP ASAP!!! HAVE TO PASS THIS!! WILL MARK BRAINIEST!!! Which of the following is true of temp agencies?

Jet001 [13]

The third option is correct

8 0

3 years ago

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Sales $ 282,880 $ 270,800 $ 252,600 $ 234,560 $ 150,000 Cost of goods sold 128,200 122,080 115,280 106,

zhuklara [117]

Answer:

Sales

2019 Net Sales = 188.59%

2018 Net Sales = 180.53%

2017 Net Sales = 168.4%

2016 Net Sales = 156.37%

Cost of Goods Sold

2019Cost of Goods Sold = 191.34%

2018 Cost of Goods Sold = 182.21%

2017 Cost of Goods Sold = 172.06%

2016 Cost of Goods Sold = 158.87%

Accounts Receivable:

2019 Accounts Receivable = 201.11%

2018Accounts Receivable = 192.22%

2017Accounts Receivable = 182.22%

2016Accounts Receivable = 168.89%

Explanation:

Computation forn trend percents for the above accounts, using 2015 as the base year:

FOR SALES:

2019:

Net Sales = Sales 2019 / Sales 2015*100

Net Sales = $282,880 / $150,000 * 100

Net Sales = 188.59%

2018:

Net Sales = Sales 2018 / Sales 2015*100

Net Sales = $270,800 / $150,000 * 100

Net Sales = 180.53%

2017:

Net Sales = Sales 2017 / Sales 2015*100

Net Sales = $252,600 / $150,000 * 100

Net Sales = 168.4%

2016:

Net Sales = Sales 2016 / Sales 2015*100

Net Sales = $234,560 / $150,000 * 100

Net Sales = 156.37%

COST OF GOODS SOLD:

2019:

Cost of Goods Sold = Cost of Goods Sold 2019 / Cost of Goods Sold 2015 *100

Cost of Goods Sold = $128,200 / $67,000 * 100

Cost of Goods Sold = 191.34%

2018:

Cost of Goods Sold = Cost of Goods Sold 2018 / Cost of Goods Sold 2015 *100

Cost of Goods Sold = $122,080 / $67,000 * 100

Cost of Goods Sold = 182.21%

2017:

Cost of Goods Sold = Cost of Goods Sold 2017 / Cost of Goods Sold 2015 *100

Cost of Goods Sold = $115,280 / $67,000 * 100

Cost of Goods Sold = 172.06%

2016:

Cost of Goods Sold = Cost of Goods Sold 2016 / Cost of Goods Sold 2015 *100

Cost of Goods Sold = $106,440 / $67,000 * 100

Cost of Goods Sold = 158.87%

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE:

2019:

Accounts Receivable = Accounts Receivable 2019 / Accounts Receivable 2015 * 100

Accounts Receivable = $18,100 / $9,000 * 100

Accounts Receivable = 201.11%

2018:

Accounts Receivable = Accounts Receivable 2018 / Accounts Receivable 2015 * 100

Accounts Receivable = $17,300 / $9,000 * 100

Accounts Receivable = 192.22%

2017:

Accounts Receivable = Accounts Receivable 2017 / Accounts Receivable 2015 * 100

Accounts Receivable = $16,400 / $9,000 * 100

Accounts Receivable = 182.22%

2016:

Accounts Receivable = Accounts Receivable 2016 / Accounts Receivable 2015 * 100

Accounts Receivable = $15,200 / $9,000 * 100

Accounts Receivable = 168.89%

8 0

3 years ago