Answer:
704076 $
Explanation:
Exact statement of the question is:
<em>May 3, 2007, Leven Corp. negotiated a short-term loan of $685,000. The loan is due October 1, 2007, and carries a 6.86% interest rate. Use ordinary interest to calculate the interest. What is the total amount Leven would pay on the maturity date? (Round your answer to 2 decimal places. Omit the "$" sign in your response.)</em>
Solution:
Fro 3rd May to October 1st. 2017 there are 151 days
But 365 days = 1 year
==> 151 days = 151× 1/365 =0.414 years
But we use 1 year as one term
==> 1year = 1T
==> T = 0.414
R= 6.86
P= 685000
A=?
We use formula for the term:
A= P
Where A= ammount at the end of term
P= Loan amount
R= Rate of interest
T= No. of terms
Putting values in this formula;
==> A= 685000×
==> A= 685000 × 1.02784938489=704076 $
Answer:
$315
Explanation:
The before-tax cost of the wood stove would comprise of 100% sales price plus 5% sales tax as hinted.
If 5%=$15=sales tax
before-tax sales price=100% sales price+5% sales tax
before-tax sales price=105%
sales tax of 5%=$15
1%=$15/5
1%=$3
105%=$3*105
105%(before tax sales price)=$315
Answer: Federal income tax equal to that withheld from employees.
Explanation:
Federal Income Tax equal is a withholding Tax that the employer takes from an Employee's salary and pays it directly to the Government in form of income taxes.
It will therefore count towards the Income Taxes that the person is to pay during the year.
This is an Employee Payroll Tax because it comes from the Employees's salary.
Answer:
Escalation of commitment or commitment bias.
Explanation:
Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative outcomes from a decision, action, or investment nevertheless continues the behavior instead of altering course; meaning the individual or business continues to invest additional resources in an apparently losing proposition, influenced by effort, money, and time already invested. The group/individual maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions. Economists and behavioral scientists use a related term, sunk-cost fallacy, to describe the justification of increased investment of money or effort in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk cost") despite new evidence suggesting that the future cost of continuing the behavior outweighs the expected benefit.
