Based on accounting principles, a $1 per unit tax levied on consumers of a good is equivalent to "a $1 per unit tax levied on producers of the good."
This is based on the idea that the market reaches the exact equilibrium price irrespective of who is accountable for paying the money to the government.
In other words, when the government levies a tax on a good, producers are not exempted from the tax levy because that money will be recouped from the producers' sales or revenue.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that tax on goods is inevitable to consumers and producers.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/22680521
Explanation:
In this case, the ideal is to reject a task that is not mandatory in your contract. The boss's attitude in this situation was somewhat sexist, as it reduced the professional skills of a female investment analyst to having to be liked and serving coffee to bankers, since the professional was there to make a great professional presentation.
These unprofessional attitudes can be combated with an assertive attitude, without the professional feeling cornered by the possibility of suffering reprisals, but it is by maintaining an ethical, professional attitude and imposing respect, that it is possible for such unethical acts to be combated and not accepted any more. formal work environment.
Answer:
B) $125,000
Explanation:
Price discrimination strategy refers to charging each customer the maximum amount of money he/she is willing to pay for a product.
In this case, the concert promoters should charge $150 per ticket to 1,000 die hard fans = $150,000 in revenue.
Then it should charge only $50 per ticket to 500 casual fans = $25,000 in revenue.
Total revenue = $150,000 + $25,000 = $175,000
<u>minus total costs = ($50,000) </u>
Net income = $125,000
A price floor is the mining price that can be charged for an item. A binding price floor is a price set above market average pricing. Since the government regulates this and will not let them sell below the average market price, the price is set in stone for the products price in the market.
Answer:
Mitigate his damages
Explanation:
By law, mitigation involves making effort to reduce losses. Now, an individual claiming damages or losses due to break in contract or a wrongful act by another individual has a duty under the law to mitigate those damages. That is to say, the plantiff is under a duty under the law to reduce the loss by taking advantage of any opportunity arising that may help.redice the losses or damages. However, in this case, the plantiff, who's the landlord Henry did not mitigate the loss by not attempting to or renting the accommodation out for the remaining six month. Thus, the damages would likely be reduced because he failed to mitigate his damages as he should have done as required under the law.