Roles of For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations in EconomyEssay Preview: Roles of For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations in EconomyReport this essayBusiness plays significant and important role in the growth of an economy. Small businesses are vital in todays economy, because many of the revenue obtained by the government are from business taxes (Androgen, 2009). For instance, a countrys economy depends upon the employment provided by big and small businesses (Dunning & Lundan, 2008).
Apart from this, businesses pay taxes to the government and allow the government to function on the tax collected from them. Hence, business is the pivotal part of economy. In addition, business contributes to the society by selling their products to customers that people need. (Rundle & Steffen, 2011).
Additionally, business also provides employment opportunities to people and reduce the unemployment rate of a particular country. Business also plays a virtual role in the GDP (Gross domestic product) (Androgen, 2009). For instance, according to Dr. Chad Moutray (Chief Economist of the Office of Advocacy), small and large business drives the American economy. It is because; business creates the jobs to the people and increases the standard of living. For instance, in the American economy, small businesses create 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs and also create more than half of the private non-farm gross domestic product. Additionally, in America, business makes up 97 percent of exporters and produces 29 percent of all export value. Hence, it is stated that business plays several important role in an economy (Dunning & Lundan, 2008).
•
While the above claim is probably true, it fails to account for the true meaning of economic research to understand real-life situations in an effort to understand how businesses drive economies. In this case, it means that economics is the study of the real reality-based economic interactions that occur between individuals, businesses, countries, and societies (Eisner, 2009). To illustrate the economic importance of economic research and the results of such research, the present report focuses on a large scale survey of companies in the US; the American business community has often had problems implementing research from local banks and insurance companies. In order to give a sense of the role of the US as a large market participant, I will assume that every single company employs 100+ employees and that their employees are paid over 15% of their gross business income. Because of the large scale size of the companies, I am assuming that the US would be ranked as #1 and that their workforce of more than 50 million people would be well over 100 million each year, which means they would actually create 1-2 million jobs each year by producing 1-2. While this may not sound very impressive by conventional standards, let us look at some of the other aspects the US has to face when creating jobs in its small business economy: • The size of U.S.-owned and operated businesses • The U.S. was once known as a top 10 economy in the world. This is a very significant fact because with the emergence of the global financial system and especially to make it better over the years, the US became the richest country in the world. This fact is also what allowed U.S. businesses to stay relatively small (for example, US-owned and operated) for more than the last decade. In order to see the US economic impact of big business operations, let us take a look at the following list (Dunning & Lundan, 2008): US private non-farm employment • Corporate/Professional Services/Sales – 934,000 Total employment in 2004, which included US employees (24.4% of all private non-farm employment) • Business – 1.9 million Employees on the government payroll of $6,074,200 • Corporate/Professional Services/Sales Tax – 1.01 million Government Sales Tax for business in the country of citizenship • Corporate/Professional Services/Sales Tax – 2.38 percent • Professional Services/Sales Tax / Taxation – 2.31 percent • Business Tax – 5.33 percent • Government Tax – 5.35 percent • Tax / Taxation – 5.37 percent • Administrative/Business Tax – 5 percent • Private sector – 2.75 percent • Administrative/Business Tax – 1.3 percent • International Public Sector – 0.3 percent • State/Countries – 0.2 percent • State and Tribal Employees/Citizenship – 0.1 percent . • Federal Taxation – 0.2 percent • Other Government Spending – 5 percent It is important to note that the US economy has been under the IMF’s monetary management for over 200 years. When the IMF came out with their
If businesses are not responsible for those jobs created, the government’s policy of employment-related tax revenue cannot be implemented to save taxpayer money. Also, we cannot know whether a U.S. government funded private business will provide more jobs before the tax revenue is realized.
A possible approach to saving taxpayers’ money is public consumption. However, one need only look at how large the deficit is and compare the projected GDP to the actual economy’s actual tax revenue. An example of the public consumption argument would be, for instance, the consumption of gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, tobacco products to the U.S. as a whole, so that the private sector is only about 2 percent of the economy.
Here is a chart that shows the average annual consumption of some gasoline and alcohol by the average U.S. state:
The consumption for the general population is $6,600.
So, if the consumption of gasoline and alcohol in the U.S. is 1.34 billion dollars a year with a population of 1.24 billion and a consumption of 1 billion gallons, then the consumption for the general population is $8,000/year. Of course, it is a different figure for alcohol consumption as a percentage of U.S. total. When comparing consumption numbers to total GDP, it is quite clear that there is no change even with a slightly higher GDP. Therefore, we should save the government money through the private consumption argument over tax revenue. The U.S. deficit of $19 billion for 2010 represents the largest tax revenue reduction from any economic sector since 1928 in the United States. Of this, $11.9 billion was from $4.1 billion in income tax returns. A large portion of this came from the taxes on tobacco, wine, and alcohol. The remainder was from the tax on cigarettes as a percentage of total revenue. This represents an effective 4.1 percent deficit for 2010, which is the largest tax revenue reduction in U.S. history. (Androgen, 2009)
Moreover, because income tax rates are set based on what government estimates to be the average income of a household, we are not looking at a tax rate change as a cost-effectivity measure due to the effect that the government is having on consumer spending. If we compare the average American household disposable income in 2011 to the average American household disposable income in 2012, it simply represents an increase in disposable income for the total income of the U.S. households. But since these two figures are not comparable compared to each other, it becomes difficult to calculate the change in expenditures for each person. It’s as simple as that.
What can taxpayers do about the consumption of certain beverages? This case, of course, depends on what beverage has come under the public health threat of being taken or consumed in a manner similar to the public health threat. Because the amount of sugar in beverages is so large with the amount of sugar added, the cost of the beverage will be almost twice as much than from eating a beverage that is high in saturated fat. The alcohol intake in the U.S. is therefore far higher than a similar case where eating a beverage is considered an eating disorder even though we still have the public health crisis caused by it (Lasse, 2004).
Finally, the cost of drinking a beverage is
If businesses are not responsible for those jobs created, the government’s policy of employment-related tax revenue cannot be implemented to save taxpayer money. Also, we cannot know whether a U.S. government funded private business will provide more jobs before the tax revenue is realized.
A possible approach to saving taxpayers’ money is public consumption. However, one need only look at how large the deficit is and compare the projected GDP to the actual economy’s actual tax revenue. An example of the public consumption argument would be, for instance, the consumption of gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, tobacco products to the U.S. as a whole, so that the private sector is only about 2 percent of the economy.
Here is a chart that shows the average annual consumption of some gasoline and alcohol by the average U.S. state:
The consumption for the general population is $6,600.
So, if the consumption of gasoline and alcohol in the U.S. is 1.34 billion dollars a year with a population of 1.24 billion and a consumption of 1 billion gallons, then the consumption for the general population is $8,000/year. Of course, it is a different figure for alcohol consumption as a percentage of U.S. total. When comparing consumption numbers to total GDP, it is quite clear that there is no change even with a slightly higher GDP. Therefore, we should save the government money through the private consumption argument over tax revenue. The U.S. deficit of $19 billion for 2010 represents the largest tax revenue reduction from any economic sector since 1928 in the United States. Of this, $11.9 billion was from $4.1 billion in income tax returns. A large portion of this came from the taxes on tobacco, wine, and alcohol. The remainder was from the tax on cigarettes as a percentage of total revenue. This represents an effective 4.1 percent deficit for 2010, which is the largest tax revenue reduction in U.S. history. (Androgen, 2009)
Moreover, because income tax rates are set based on what government estimates to be the average income of a household, we are not looking at a tax rate change as a cost-effectivity measure due to the effect that the government is having on consumer spending. If we compare the average American household disposable income in 2011 to the average American household disposable income in 2012, it simply represents an increase in disposable income for the total income of the U.S. households. But since these two figures are not comparable compared to each other, it becomes difficult to calculate the change in expenditures for each person. It’s as simple as that.
What can taxpayers do about the consumption of certain beverages? This case, of course, depends on what beverage has come under the public health threat of being taken or consumed in a manner similar to the public health threat. Because the amount of sugar in beverages is so large with the amount of sugar added, the cost of the beverage will be almost twice as much than from eating a beverage that is high in saturated fat. The alcohol intake in the U.S. is therefore far higher than a similar case where eating a beverage is considered an eating disorder even though we still have the public health crisis caused by it (Lasse, 2004).
Finally, the cost of drinking a beverage is
If businesses are not responsible for those jobs created, the government’s policy of employment-related tax revenue cannot be implemented to save taxpayer money. Also, we cannot know whether a U.S. government funded private business will provide more jobs before the tax revenue is realized.
A possible approach to saving taxpayers’ money is public consumption. However, one need only look at how large the deficit is and compare the projected GDP to the actual economy’s actual tax revenue. An example of the public consumption argument would be, for instance, the consumption of gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, tobacco products to the U.S. as a whole, so that the private sector is only about 2 percent of the economy.
Here is a chart that shows the average annual consumption of some gasoline and alcohol by the average U.S. state:
The consumption for the general population is $6,600.
So, if the consumption of gasoline and alcohol in the U.S. is 1.34 billion dollars a year with a population of 1.24 billion and a consumption of 1 billion gallons, then the consumption for the general population is $8,000/year. Of course, it is a different figure for alcohol consumption as a percentage of U.S. total. When comparing consumption numbers to total GDP, it is quite clear that there is no change even with a slightly higher GDP. Therefore, we should save the government money through the private consumption argument over tax revenue. The U.S. deficit of $19 billion for 2010 represents the largest tax revenue reduction from any economic sector since 1928 in the United States. Of this, $11.9 billion was from $4.1 billion in income tax returns. A large portion of this came from the taxes on tobacco, wine, and alcohol. The remainder was from the tax on cigarettes as a percentage of total revenue. This represents an effective 4.1 percent deficit for 2010, which is the largest tax revenue reduction in U.S. history. (Androgen, 2009)
Moreover, because income tax rates are set based on what government estimates to be the average income of a household, we are not looking at a tax rate change as a cost-effectivity measure due to the effect that the government is having on consumer spending. If we compare the average American household disposable income in 2011 to the average American household disposable income in 2012, it simply represents an increase in disposable income for the total income of the U.S. households. But since these two figures are not comparable compared to each other, it becomes difficult to calculate the change in expenditures for each person. It’s as simple as that.
What can taxpayers do about the consumption of certain beverages? This case, of course, depends on what beverage has come under the public health threat of being taken or consumed in a manner similar to the public health threat. Because the amount of sugar in beverages is so large with the amount of sugar added, the cost of the beverage will be almost twice as much than from eating a beverage that is high in saturated fat. The alcohol intake in the U.S. is therefore far higher than a similar case where eating a beverage is considered an eating disorder even though we still have the public health crisis caused by it (Lasse, 2004).
Finally, the cost of drinking a beverage is
If businesses are not responsible for those jobs created, the government’s policy of employment-related tax revenue cannot be implemented to save taxpayer money. Also, we cannot know whether a U.S. government funded private business will provide more jobs before the tax revenue is realized.
A possible approach to saving taxpayers’ money is public consumption. However, one need only look at how large the deficit is and compare the projected GDP to the actual economy’s actual tax revenue. An example of the public consumption argument would be, for instance, the consumption of gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, tobacco products to the U.S. as a whole, so that the private sector is only about 2 percent of the economy.
Here is a chart that shows the average annual consumption of some gasoline and alcohol by the average U.S. state:
The consumption for the general population is $6,600.
So, if the consumption of gasoline and alcohol in the U.S. is 1.34 billion dollars a year with a population of 1.24 billion and a consumption of 1 billion gallons, then the consumption for the general population is $8,000/year. Of course, it is a different figure for alcohol consumption as a percentage of U.S. total. When comparing consumption numbers to total GDP, it is quite clear that there is no change even with a slightly higher GDP. Therefore, we should save the government money through the private consumption argument over tax revenue. The U.S. deficit of $19 billion for 2010 represents the largest tax revenue reduction from any economic sector since 1928 in the United States. Of this, $11.9 billion was from $4.1 billion in income tax returns. A large portion of this came from the taxes on tobacco, wine, and alcohol. The remainder was from the tax on cigarettes as a percentage of total revenue. This represents an effective 4.1 percent deficit for 2010, which is the largest tax revenue reduction in U.S. history. (Androgen, 2009)
Moreover, because income tax rates are set based on what government estimates to be the average income of a household, we are not looking at a tax rate change as a cost-effectivity measure due to the effect that the government is having on consumer spending. If we compare the average American household disposable income in 2011 to the average American household disposable income in 2012, it simply represents an increase in disposable income for the total income of the U.S. households. But since these two figures are not comparable compared to each other, it becomes difficult to calculate the change in expenditures for each person. It’s as simple as that.
What can taxpayers do about the consumption of certain beverages? This case, of course, depends on what beverage has come under the public health threat of being taken or consumed in a manner similar to the public health threat. Because the amount of sugar in beverages is so large with the amount of sugar added, the cost of the beverage will be almost twice as much than from eating a beverage that is high in saturated fat. The alcohol intake in the U.S. is therefore far higher than a similar case where eating a beverage is considered an eating disorder even though we still have the public health crisis caused by it (Lasse, 2004).
Finally, the cost of drinking a beverage is
Roles of For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations in EconomyProfit organization also has a positive impact on the economy. For instance, profit organization gives the corporation tax on the company profit to the governments. In addition, profit organization provides several billion pound of tax revenue per year to the government. For example, in UK, profit organization gives the corporation tax rate to the government that is 20%.
Additionally, profit organizations also provide insurance for an unexpected downturn, such as recession or rapid appreciation in the exchange rate. Apart from this, profit organization also attracts new firms into the industry for the growth of the economy (Powell & Steinberg, 2006).
In contrast, nonprofit organizations supply services that are considered good for the community as a whole or for specific community members (Jegers, 2008). In addition, they also provide goods and services that are considered to be universally desirable (such as national security or infrastructure). Nonprofit organization also develops different systems for the community service. So, it is estimated that for-profit and nonprofit organizations contribute economic growth in a country (Powell & Steinberg, 2006).
Impact of Fiscal and Monetary Policy on the EconomyFiscal policy is a strategy or tool by which a government adjusts its levels of spending in order to monitor and influence a nations economy (Jegers, 2008). The current fiscal policy of the US is also known as government spending policies that influence macroeconomic conditions of the economy. This policy also affects tax rates, interest rates and government spending in order to control the economy. In addition, the current US fiscal policy decisions have a widespread effect on everyday decisions and behavior of individual households and businesses (Langdana, 2009).
In addition, fiscal policy of the US has also microeconomic effects on the economy. For example, the fiscal policy influences the taxation and work incentives, pattern of demand, labor productivity and business investment decisions (Jegers, 2008). For example, the US government has introduced a lower starting rate of income tax for lower income earners to provide an incentive for people to work extra hours and keep more of what they earn. The changing tax structure and benefit system also reduce the risk of the poverty trap – where households on low incomes see little net financial benefit from supplying extra hours of their labor.
Strategy for Accessing Global MarketsIn order to access different global markets for the Fanta product, the company can use different types of strategies in the International market. For instance, the company can use exporting, licensing, joint venture, direct investment; merger & acquisition strategies to enter in to global market (Lowe, 2008). But, the company should focus and use merger and acquisition strategy, because Coca-Cola is one of the biggest and larger