Personally, I would choose to save that money. The reason why is you never know - maybe something bad is going to happen and you will need that extra cash. So instead of splurging it on material things, it's better to save it for a rainy day, in my opinion. Investing is not safe, given that you may lose a lot more than you invest.
Answer:
Texas will be a better option as the net pay after income tax is higher than the other cities.
Explanation:
To consider the after-tax wages we must subtract the income taxes from the salaries:
Pennsylvania after tax income: 62,000 x (1-3.07%) = 60,096.6
Texas after tax income: 64,000
New York after tax income: 68,000 x ( 1 - 6.85%) = 63,342
Answer:
Explanation:
the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful decision is with a successful decision you would be successful and make profit since this is the subject of business and an unsuccessful decision will make you lose profit and make you lose into Investments. there is no luck vs skill this is all skill actually. skill has to do with this because you need to have certain experience in a certain thing to be having a successful decision.
Out of the roughly 142 million filers, people under the age of 35 account for 35 percent of all returns but just 17 percent of total AGI. By far, the largest number of filers are between the ages of 35 and 55, and they account for nearly half of total AGI
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
