Answer:
either B or C.. but I'm really strong on B sorry if im wrong this is just my opinion
Explanation:
I think the answer would be B because if you co-sign and that person don't pay their part.. it falls on you because toy are the second party and the co-signer
but I also think it would be C a little too because if that person not paying they part it could put a dent in yours credit score because y'all co-signed together
Generally, the more allowances the employee claims on a Form W-4, the lower the withholding tax. Withholding tax applies to income earned through wages, pensions, bonuses, commissions, and gambling winnings. Dividends and capital gains, for example, are not subject to withholding tax
Answer:
a(I).Q4, (ii). W3.
(b). Q4.
(c). (i) and (ii). Check Explanation
Explanation:
Note: Kindly check the attachment for the graph. The solution to the question is given below;
(a). Using the labels from the graph above, identify each of the following.
(i) The optimal quantity of labor Larry’s Lumber Mill will hire will be at a point in which marginal cost = marginal revenue which is point Q4
(ii). The wage rate Larry’s Lumber Mill will pay is at a point in which the Marginal revenue = marginal cost that is at point W3.
(b). Using the labels from the graph above, the number of workers Larry’s Lumber Mill would hire if the labor market were perfectly competitive is Q4.
(c). (i). Larry’s Lumber Mill’s demand for labor increase which will cause a shift to the right on the demand curve. This is so, because as the demand for housing increases, the demand for lumber will increase too.
(ii). The supply is lesser than the demand which will cause a shift to the left on the supply curve.
Divergent thinking is a thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions. It is often used in conjunction with its cognitive opposite, convergent thinking, which follows a particular set of logical steps to arrive at one solution, which in some cases is a ‘correct’ solution.
The United States Constitution prohibits legislative bills of attainder. Which is indicated in federal law under Article I, Section 9, and in state law under Article I, Section 10. Being banned under state law reflects the significance that the framers are connected to this issue.
The clauses that are prohibiting attainder laws serve two purposes within the U.S. Constitution. They strengthened the separation of powers by means of prohibiting the legislature to execute judicial or executive functions, because the result of any such acts of legislature would take the form of a bill of attainder. Additionally, they incorporate the conceptualization of due process, that was relatively reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". Moreover, the constitution of every state clearly progibits bills of attainder as well. For instance, the Wisconsin's constitution under Article I, Section 12 states that, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.” On the contrary, the Texas version under Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws, Impairing Obligation of Contracts states that, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made". It is not clear though whether a contract that calls for heirs to be denied of their estate is permitted under this law.
