ihollywoodchina.com

I have some stock in Franklin Credit Management (FCMC) and they are talking about selling the company. If thats the case what should I do? If they sell to a bigger company, how would that affect it? Or what if someone else took it over? Obviously if another person was running it they would run it different and revenue would vary. For example if they sold to Bank of America, would FCMC per share go up because Bank of America is huge? Kind of a stupid question, but I am just getting into stocks, am an economics major, still in the learning process. Thanks!

Usually, if they are selling to another organization (not merging), then the buyer generally offers a price that is higher than the current share value.

In essence, each share is entitled a vote about the sale of the company, and naturally, you don’t want to sell your shares for less than what you paid for them. The buying organization will tender an offer for each share value, they will negotiate, and eventually present the offer to the shareholders at large to vote for approval or disapproval.

In a move to block designation of $8.5 billion in economic stimulus funds, Republicans on a House committee released a report calling for a criminal investigation of ACORN, the community activist group tied to numerous charges of voter fraud nationwide.

The 88-page report asks whether ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is intentionally structured as a criminal enterprise.

Commissioned by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the report charges ACORN "hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate."

The report expresses concern that ACORN would channel $8.5 billion in economic stimulus funds through a criminal corporate structure designed to mask the distribution of public money to partisan activities, including voter fraud to advance the campaigns of radical Democratic politicians.

"It is undisputed that ACORN engages in politically partisan activity," the report declared, noting ACORN was paid $832,000 by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts. One-third of the 1.3 million voter registration cards turned in by ACORN in 2008 were invalid, the report said, noting a series of criminal actions involving voter fraud have been taken against ACORN in Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Nevada since 1998.

"ACORN cannot be receiving government money," Issa told Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel in his first interview after releasing the report. "ACORN should lose its tax-free status."

Since 1994, ACORN has received more than $53 million in federal funds, according to the report.

Specifically, the report made the following criminal allegations:

ACORN has evaded taxes, obstructed justice, engaged in self-dealing, and aided and abetted a cover-up of embezzlement by Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke.

ACORN has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in racketeering affecting interstate commerce.

ACORN has committed a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using taxpayer funds for partisan political activities.

ACORN has submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor, in addition to violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ACORN falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related parties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

I think Pelosi will stop any investigation of ACORN.

A study by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday backs up the view that undocumented immigrants sap more tax dollars than they provide, especially in education, health care and law enforcement.

The study pulled together reports from the past five years, using data from sources including the Pew Hispanic Center, the Rand Corp., the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and various universities. The Congressional study also incorporated facts from states, including Arizona, but its authors acknowledged there was no aggregate estimate that could be applied to the entire country.

The report says that in 1990, 90 percent of undocumented immigrants primarily were in six states: California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas.

By 2004, undocumented immigrants had increased tenfold in other states, most notably Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee, according to statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center.

The report estimates there are 12 million undocumented immigrants nationwide. Of those, 60 percent are uninsured and 50 percent of the children are uninsured. Again using 2004 statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center the average income of undocumented immigrants was $27,400 while Americans earned $47,800. The difference puts undocumented immigrants in a lower tax bracket, thus reducing the amount of federal and state income taxes generated.

The study also showed that while undocumented workers represented just 5 percent of state and federal service costs, their tax revenue did not offset the amount spent by government. The authors of the study stated that, "the general consensus is that unauthorized immigrants impose a net cost on state and local budgets. However, no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost at a national level."

In education, which the study notes is the largest single expenditure http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/12/17/daily19.html

I say a study wasn’t needed, its pretty much common knowledge, lets just admit that the amount of illegals has gotten out of hand and quit talking about it and start doing something about getting them all back to Mexico.

HARRISBURG – Gov. Ed Rendell on Tuesday threatened to withhold state aid to help doctors and other health care providers pay for their medical malpractice insurance unless lawmakers also act on his proposal to expand state health insurance for adults.
"I believe the best and highest use … is to link (the surplus) to health care for all Pennsylvanians," Rendell said during a news conference.

"Disrupting a program designed to retain and attract doctors is a very poor policy choice when we are deeply concerned about health care access and quality," Sen. Gib Armstrong, R-Lancaster.
"Equally disturbing is the governor’s effort to target the MCARE fund as a revenue source for the universal health care proposal," said Don White, R-Indiana, chairman of the Senate’s Banking and Insurance Committee. "The approximately $400 million surplus in the fund is obviously attractive, but raiding MCARE to pay for the universal health care plan raises several red flags.

I think he is trying to do something that is not lawful. If the money was being collected to promote doctor availability in the state, how can he use it to extort the legislature???

I heard if you pay taxes here and prove it, you then get that percentage reduced from Canadian taxes.

You get the proof for your taxes paid in Korea by providing a copy of the notice of tax assessment on your Korea tax return from the Korea Tax Administration. If you are a Canadian resident for tax purposes and has cdn taxable income and taxes paid, the Canada Revenue Agency (formerly known as Revenue Canada) will give you foreign tax credit to reduce your cdn tax liability for your Korean taxes paid.

can the state D.O.R take my federal return as payment without me knowing it?

The short answer is yes.

The longer answer is that they must file a lien with the Financial Management Services (FMS) Their number is 1-800-304-3107 you can call and see if there are any claims filed against you.

Hope this helps.

1)sales tax 2)tariffs 3)property taxes 4)all of these

this is for a business class I’m taking and it isn’t easy plz help

2 TARIFFS
The imposition of tariffs is a function granted only to the Federal Government.

I’m looking for a free software to keep track of revenues and collections.

You download a free version of Microsoft Business Accounting here: http://www.ideawins.com/downloads.aspx

Thanks for asking,
Rod

How to fire your boss and start your own home-based
business in just 17 minutes…
http://www.sendoutcards.com/Rod_The_Card_Man

For a Free Copy of
How to Get Rich Without Winning the Lottery
just call me at 360-707-4158. Be sure to leave
your name & postal mailing address.

In the budget 2008-09, it was said that the projected revenue and fiscal deficit was 1% and 2.5%. I was not sure about what these two terms meant and what is the difference between the two.

What is fiscal deficit?

Fiscal deficit is essentially the difference between what the government spends and what it earns. It is expressed as a percentage of GDP.

This is done as it may not be appropriate to compare the deficits of different years in absolute terms. This percentage though can be misleading. The revised estimates for the financial year (FY) 2004-05, suggest that the government earned Rs 366,560 crore (Rs 3,665.60 billion) and it spent Rs 505,791 crore (Rs 5,057.91 billion). The fiscal deficit stands at Rs 139,231 crore (Rs 1,392.31 billion), which is equivalent to 4.5 per cent of the GDP.

Similarly, in the year 2005-06, the government hopes to earn Rs 363,200 crore (Rs 3,632 billion) and plans to spend Rs 514,344 crore (Rs 5,143.44 billion).

The deficit the government plans to run is Rs 151,144 crore (Rs 1,511.44 billion), which is equivalent to 4.3 per cent of the GDP.

What this shows us is that in the year 2004-05, the government spent a whopping 38 per cent more than what it earned. In the year 2005-06, this percentage might go up to 41.6 per cent. This is very large but the same when expressed as a percentage of GDP sounds less.

Expenditure

The expenditure of the government can be classified into plan expenditure and non-plan expenditure.

Plan expenditure is an expenditure that the government plans to incur on a scheme to be implemented in a given year. For example, in the year 2003-04 (as per the revised estimates for that year), the government had allocated Rs 2588.62 crore (Rs 25.886 billion) for construction of national highways. This expenditure that was incurred for construction of national highways came in as a part of plan expenditure.

Non-plan expenditure is defined as expenditure committed by the expenditure. Interest payments, pensions, salaries, subsidies and maintenance expenditure are all non-plan expenditure.

Non-plan expenditure is generally an outcome of plan expenditure. For example, the national highways the government constructed in the year 2003-04 and before, need to be maintained. All the expenses going towards this is treated as non-plan expenditure.

The budgeted allocation for the maintenance of national highways in the year 2004-05 stood at Rs 746.70 crore (Rs 7.467 billion).

Expenditure on both plan and non-plan front can be categorised into capital and revenue expenditure. Capital expenditure includes that expenditure which leads to creation of assets whereas revenue expenditure does not involve asset creation and is recurring in nature.

The construction of the national highways in the year 2004-05 would involve expenditure on aggregate, bitumen or cement (depending upon the nature of the road) and certain machinery.

This expenditure would be classified as capital expenditure. The labour charges would be classified as revenue expenditure. Once the plan expenditure is over the maintenance of the road would start.

The expenditure on this would be non-plan and can be further categorised into non-plan capital expenditure and non-plan revenue expenditure.

The devil is in the detail

The government fails to match its expenses with what it earns and thus has to resort to deficit financing. It makes good of this gap by borrowing in various ways. On this borrowing, the government has to pay a certain amount of interest. The interest payments as explained above are a part of non-plan expenditure.

If we take a look at figures starting from 1994-95 till 2002-03, non-plan expenditure has been steadily rising from 9.2 per cent of the GDP to 12.1 per cent of the GDP. Of that the interest payments have steadily risen from 4.3 per cent of the GDP to 4.8 per cent of the GDP.

The plan expenditure varied from 4.6 per cent of the GDP in 1994-95 then steadily fell to 3.8 per cent of the GDP in 1998-99 to rise gain to 4.6 per cent of the GDP in 2002-03.

The actual estimates for the year 2003-04 puts interest payments at Rs 124,088 crore (Rs 1,240.88 billion) — 4.53 per cent of GDP. The plan expenditure for the same year stood at Rs 122,280 crore (Rs 1,222.80 billion) — 4.46 per cent of GDP.

The revised estimates for the year 2004-05 puts interest payments at Rs 125,905 crore (Rs 1,259.05 billion) — 4.07 per cent of the GDP. The plan expenditure for the same period stood at Rs 137,387 crore (Rs 1,373.87 billion) — 4.44 per cent of the GDP.

The budgeted estimates for the year 2005-06 put interest payments at Rs 133,945 crore (Rs 1,339.45 billion) — 3.82 per cent of the GDP. The plan expenditure for the same period is Rs 143,497 crore (Rs 1,434.97 billion) — 4.08 per cent of the GDP.

From 1995-96 till the year 2003-04, the component of interest payments in the annual Budget has been greater than plan expenditure though in the financial year 2004-05 plan expenditure was greater than the interest payments. Non-plan expenditure other than interest payments (like subsidies, pensions, salaries, etc) has also been going up.

This shows that India is spending more on interest payments and other non-planned expenditure than on development.

The government wants to invest in infrastructure, power, primary education, health and water supply to put India on the fast track to growth. But it simply doesn’t have the money to implement its strategy. The deficit is essentially servicing current consumption and not financing capital investment, which should be the case.

The current situation leads to a very interesting conclusion. We all know that deficit financing involves the government financing its excess expenditure over revenue through borrowing.

Conventional wisdom tells us that money that is borrowed needs to be invested in areas where the return generated is greater than interest to be paid on the debt (i.e. the return generated should be greater than the cost of capital).

But the government cannot always work with the profit motive in mind. The government is not earning enough to pay back the interest on its debt. So what is it doing? It is taking in more debt to repay its earlier debt and the interest that is to be paid on the existing debt. Not a healthy sign one must say.

Low interest rates

From December 1997 to Jan 2004, the average bank rate fell from 12 per cent to 6 per cent. The prime-lending rate of banks fell from a peak of 15 per cent to 11 per cent. The interest rates were brought down substantially, apparently with the objective of boosting business activity.

But what happened makes one think that the government wanted to finance its deficit at lower interest rates rather than encourage business lending. Ironically, lending by banks to industrial clients did not really pick up.

The falling interest rates gave very little incentive to banks to lend to industrial clients, as the returns were not high enough to compensate for the risk involved. Given this, it made more sense for banks to invest in government securities where the risk involved was minimal.

Banks invested much more than what was statutorily required. (Banks have to invest a minimum of 25 per cent of their net banks deposits in government securities). And this helped the government finance its deficits at lower interest rates.

Apart from the government, large corporates also benefited as they could replace their earlier high cost loans with cheaper loans.

This scenario encouraged banks to concentrate on the retail segment. Banks gave out loans to finance expenditure, which did not help in capital formation. Charitable trusts, poor pensioners, senior citizens and widows saw the value of their savings come down considerably.

The fact that India does not have a social security system in place did not help.

Revenue Deficit and Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act (FRBMA)

Revenue deficit is the difference between the revenue expenditure and the revenue receipts (the recurring income for the government). When a country runs a revenue deficit it means that the government is unable to meet its running expenses from its recurring income.

The FRBMA was notified on July 2, 2004 and came into force on July 5, 2004. This Act requires the reduction of fiscal deficit and elimination of revenue deficit by March 31, 2009.

The FRBMA requires the Government of India to reduce fiscal deficit by a minimum of 0.3 per cent of the GDP every year and revenue deficit by 0.5 per cent each year, so that the fiscal deficit is not more than 3 per cent of the GDP by March 31, 2009.

The idea seems to be that deficit, if any, should be used to finance capital expenditure that leads to asset formation and not on revenue expenditure, the benefits of which do not go beyond that particular year.

The FRBMA has certain loopholes. It does not require capital expenditure leading to a deficit to recoup its cost of capital (i.e., the return generated on the investment done through capital expenditure need not be greater than the interest to be paid on it). This might lead to the overall spending and deficits to be quite unconstrained.

For the year 2005-06, Finance Minister P Chidambaram has chosen to overlook the requirements of FRBMA. The fiscal deficit for the year has been budgeted at 4.5 per cent of the estimated GDP, which will be 0.1 per cent less than the required reduction.

The revenue deficit target for the year 2005-06, if FRBMA requirements were followed, had to be at 1.8 per cent of the GDP. But it has been budgeted at 2.7 per cent of the GDP.

Given the strong growth experienced by the Indian economy better progress could have been made on this front. One reason for ignoring FRBMA for this year is the fact that the government has increased grants to the states in line with the recommendations of the Twelfth Finance Commission.

The government might miss its revenue deficit target of 2.7 per cent of the GDP in the coming year on account of a likely undershooting of tax revenue collections, as highly

Why do liberals have such a hard time understanding how Bush tax cuts actually helped INCREASE tax revenue? Do they just not seem to understand that when you lower taxes you make it easier for companies and corporations to expand? Hire more people? Increase their revenue? And thus pay MORE in taxes? Or do liberals actually think that 30% of $1 million is more than 25% of $2 million?

You need to catch up on a lot of reading over how damaging Bush’s 2001 massive $1.3 trillion is.

unemployment numbers from 4% in 2001:
http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2001/index.html
to
7.6% in 2009: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99151718

According to recently released IRS data, “the average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2% through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million.” Much of their income came from capital gains resulting from the Bush tax cuts:

The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to ex-President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.

Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans’ adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ar5uxG_wV87A&refer=us