Discussions responses
SandyRicou188
discussion_responses_06252016.docx1) John Halstead
Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 1:32 am
Sandra,
Interesting comments! Should corporate tax rates be reduced? Why or why not?
Dr. Halstead
Like 's comment · Reply
Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm
The Social Security Act of 1935 was passed by President Franklin Roosevelt during the Second New Deal, the President's attempt at preventing and reversing some of the devastating effects of the Great Depression (Dodaro, 2015). The social welfare benefit, labeled a tax, is actually synonymous with required retirement savings plans. While it became effective immediately, those that initially began receiving benefits from the legislation did not pay into the "honey pot." The tax that was removed from existing workers was used to pay benefits to those receiving benefits, despite them not actually contributing. Effectively, the United States government created the country's largest Ponzi scheme and passed it through Congress.
Essentially, because the current generation of workers are paying for those currently applying for and receiving social security benefits, we have created a vicious circle of those currently working bearing the increasingly heavier burden of this social welfare program. Those who are recently applying for retirement have not paid the same over their years of work (because the social security maximum keeps increasing and the percentage has increased over time to account for cost of living increases). Those in the future will also bear a heavier burden than those currently employed, as their benefits will likely decline (increased applicable ages and increases in percentages required for payroll tax deduction).
3) Conrad Loyd
Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 2:23 pm
The Social Security system is not as beneficial to retirees or future retirees today as it was for retirees at the beginning of the Social Security system. The early generations of social security got a better deal mainly because payroll taxes where very low (Associated Press, 2012). It appears that the longer Social Security is around the less beneficial it is to future retirees. A person who retired in 1960 could get up to seven times more benefits than they paid into Social Security (Associated Press, 2012). A person who retired in 1985 received less but could still get more than they put in but the current generation will be the first to receive less when they retire (Associated Press, 2012). A reason for concern with Social Security is that the baby boomer generation is retiring. This will result in fewer workers paying into Social Security (Associated Press, 2012).
1) Pratik Patel
Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 10:04 am
This week I am going to pick everyone’s beloved online retailer Amazon.com. Everyone here has bought something on amazon.com this year or last year. they have become one of the biggest online retailers in the world right now shipping almost everything that you can think of.
|
Period Ending |
Dec 31, 2015 |
Dec 31, 2014 |
Dec 31, 2013 |
|
Net Income |
596,000 |
(241,000) |
274,000 |
|
Total Stock Holder’s Equity |
13,384,000 |
10,741,000 |
9,746,000 |
|
Total Revenue |
107,006,000 |
88,988,000 |
74,452,000 |
|
Total Assets |
65,444,000 |
54,505,000 |
40,159,000 |
|
Return on Equity |
2015 |
2014 |
2013 |
|
Numerator |
596,000 |
(241,000) |
274,000 |
|
Denominator |
13,384,000 |
10,741,000 |
9,746,00 |
|
Ratio |
4.5% |
-2.2% |
2.8% |
|
Net Profit Margin |
2015 |
2014 |
2013 |
|
Numerator |
596,000 |
(241,000) |
274,000 |
|
Denominator |
107,006,000 |
88,988,000 |
74,452,000 |
|
Ratio |
.6% |
-.2% |
.4% |
|
Total Asset Turnover |
2015 |
2014 |
2013 |
|
Numerator |
107,006,000 |
88,988,000 |
74,452,000 |
|
Denominator |
65,333,000 |
54,505,000 |
40,159,000 |
|
Ratio |
163.8% |
163.3% |
185.4% |
The total income generated off the shareholders investment is located in the return on equality for Amazon.com. Return on equality seems to follow the same pattern as the new profit margin from year to year. Seems like the return of equality has somewhat coloration to the net profit margin. Seems like the ratios were high in 2015, dropped in 2013, and went negative in 2014. This company is not hat profitable then other companies but they have high stock prices. They are not know to make a lot of money right now since they are trying to grown the brand.
2) Ahmad Alflaj
Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 10:27 am
3) Walmart Stores, Inc
ROE = (Net Profit/Equity) = (Profit margin) * (Asset turnover) * (Equity multiplier)
= (Net profit/Sales) * (Sales/Assets) * (Assets/Equity)
2014: (16,022/76,255) = (16,022/476,294) * (476,294/204,751) * (204,751/76,255)
= 21.01% = 3.36% * 2.68 * 2.32
2015: (16,363/81,394) = (16,363/485,651) * (485,651/203,490) * (203,490/81,394)
= 21.10% = 3.34% * 2.44 * 2.50
2016: (16,694/80,546) = (16,694/482,130) * (482,130/199,581) * (199,581/80,546)
= 20.73% = 3.46% * 2.42 * 2.48
Note: The zeros have been dropped
Based on the ROE values above, for the period 2014 to 2016 through 2015, the company has been effectively managing its assets to produce profits. Owing that the main of assets of any company is to generate revenue and produce profits, the above ROE values are suggestive that Walmart is satisfactorily converting its investments in assets into profits. There is only a slight improvement between the 2014 in the ROE value although this value decreased in 2016. The decline between in 2016 could be possible because of lower makeup by the company. The decrease of the company’s ROE value in 2016 could be understood since this has been the period the world is experiencing tough economic crises, therefore, the company’s performance is satisfactory.
Overly, the company is profitable.
1)
John Halstead
Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 1:32 am
Sandra,
Interesting comments! Should corporate tax rates be reduced? Why or why not?
Dr. Halstead
Like
's comment
·
Reply
2)
Donelle DeCouto
Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm
The Social Security Act of 1935 was passed by President Franklin Roosevelt during the Second New Deal, the
President's attempt at preventing and reversing some of the devastating effects of the Great Depression (Dodaro,
2015).
The social welfare benefit,
labeled a tax, is actually synonymous with required retirement savings
plans.
While it became effective immediately, those that initially began receiving benefits from the legislation did not
pay into the "honey pot."
The tax that was removed from existi
ng workers was used to pay benefits to those
receiving benefits, despite them not actually contributing.
Effectively, the United States government created the
country's largest Ponzi scheme and passed it through Congress.
Essentially, because the current
generation of workers are paying for those currently applying for and receiving social
security benefits, we have created a vicious circle of those currently working bearing the increasingly heavier burden
of this social welfare program.
Those who are rec
ently applying for retirement have not paid the same over their
years of work (because the social security maximum keeps increasing and the percentage has increased over time to
account for cost of living increases).
Those in the future will also bear a h
eavier burden than those currently
employed, as their benefits will likely decline (increased applicable ages and increases in percentages required for
payroll tax deduction).
3)
Conrad Loyd
Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 2:23 pm
The Social Security system is not as beneficial to retirees or future retirees today as it was for
retirees at the beginning of the Social Security system. The early generations of social security
got a better deal
mainly because payroll taxes where very low (Associated Press, 2012). It
appears that the longer Social Security is around the less beneficial it is to future retirees. A
person who retired in 1960 could get up to seven times more benefits than they paid i
nto Social
Security (Associated Press, 2012). A person who retired in 1985 received less but could still get
more than they put in but the current generation will be the first to receive less when they retire
(Associated Press, 2012). A reason for concern
with Social Security is that the baby boomer
generation is retiring. This will result in fewer workers paying into Social Security (Associated
Press, 2012).
1)
Pratik Patel
Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 10:04 am
This week I am going to pick everyone’s beloved online retailer Amazon.com. Everyone here has bought
something on amazon.com this year or last year. they have become one of the biggest online
retailers in the
world right now shipping almost everything that you can think of.
Period Ending
Dec 31, 2015
Dec 31, 2014
Dec 31, 2013
1) John Halstead
Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 1:32 am
Sandra,
Interesting comments! Should corporate tax rates be reduced? Why or why not?
Dr. Halstead
Like 's comment · Reply
2) Donelle DeCouto
Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm
The Social Security Act of 1935 was passed by President Franklin Roosevelt during the Second New Deal, the
President's attempt at preventing and reversing some of the devastating effects of the Great Depression (Dodaro,
2015). The social welfare benefit, labeled a tax, is actually synonymous with required retirement savings
plans. While it became effective immediately, those that initially began receiving benefits from the legislation did not
pay into the "honey pot." The tax that was removed from existing workers was used to pay benefits to those
receiving benefits, despite them not actually contributing. Effectively, the United States government created the
country's largest Ponzi scheme and passed it through Congress.
Essentially, because the current generation of workers are paying for those currently applying for and receiving social
security benefits, we have created a vicious circle of those currently working bearing the increasingly heavier burden
of this social welfare program. Those who are recently applying for retirement have not paid the same over their
years of work (because the social security maximum keeps increasing and the percentage has increased over time to
account for cost of living increases). Those in the future will also bear a heavier burden than those currently
employed, as their benefits will likely decline (increased applicable ages and increases in percentages required for
payroll tax deduction).
3) Conrad Loyd
Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 2:23 pm
The Social Security system is not as beneficial to retirees or future retirees today as it was for
retirees at the beginning of the Social Security system. The early generations of social security
got a better deal mainly because payroll taxes where very low (Associated Press, 2012). It
appears that the longer Social Security is around the less beneficial it is to future retirees. A
person who retired in 1960 could get up to seven times more benefits than they paid into Social
Security (Associated Press, 2012). A person who retired in 1985 received less but could still get
more than they put in but the current generation will be the first to receive less when they retire
(Associated Press, 2012). A reason for concern with Social Security is that the baby boomer
generation is retiring. This will result in fewer workers paying into Social Security (Associated
Press, 2012).
1) Pratik Patel
Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 10:04 am
This week I am going to pick everyone’s beloved online retailer Amazon.com. Everyone here has bought
something on amazon.com this year or last year. they have become one of the biggest online retailers in the
world right now shipping almost everything that you can think of.
Period Ending Dec 31, 2015 Dec 31, 2014 Dec 31, 2013
