SNCC :: essays research papers

SNCC The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, was created on the campus of Shaw University in Raleigh in April 1960. SNCC was created after a group of black college students from North Carolina A&T University refused to leave a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina where they had been denied service. This sparked a wave of other sit-ins in college towns across the South. SNCC coordinated these sit-ins across the nation, supported their leaders, and publicized their activities. SNCC sought to affirm the philosophical or religious ideal of nonviolence as the foundation of their purpose. In the violently changing political climate of the 60’s, SNCC struggled to define its purpose as it fought white oppression. Out of SNCC came some of today's black leaders, such as former Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry, Congressman John Lewis and NAACP chairman Julian Bond. Together with hundreds of other students, they left a lasting impact on American h istory. John Lewis was an influential SNCC leader and is recognized by most as one of the important leaders of the civil rights movement as a whole. In 1961, Lewis joined SNCC in the Freedom Rides. Riders traveled the South challenging segregation at interstate bus terminals. In 1963, when Chuck McDew stepped down as SNCC chairman, Lewis was quickly elected to take over. Lewis' experience at that point was already widely respected--he had been arrested 24 times as a result of his activism. In 1963, Lewis helped plan and took part in the March on Washington. At the age of 23, he was a keynote speaker at the historic event. He stepped down from his position in 1966. Stokeley Carmichael, a fellow Freedom Rider, was elected chairman of SNCC and soon after raised the cry of "black power." Some were alarmed by the concept of black power and many were critical of Carmichael's new approach. In the summer of 1964, SNCC organized the Mississippi Summer Project, which was an urgent call to action for students in Mississippi to challenge and overcome the white racism of their state. The Mississippi Summer Project had three goals: registering voters, operating Freedom Schools, and organizing the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) precincts. SNCC organized Freedom Days where they gathered black people together to collectively try to register to vote and Freedom Schools where they taught children, many of who couldn't yet read or write, to stand up and demand their freedom.

Benefits of computing gross profit on sales in contrast to contribution margin Essay

The computation of gross profit on sales, which can be derived under the absorption costing approach, is a profitability measure normally conducted under financial analysis.   This accounting ratio outlines the gross profit generated from every $100 of sales.   Such measure is highly useful in financial analysis, because it provides indications on the profitability potential and cost efficiency of the company.  Ã‚   For instance, if there was an increase in sales of 10%, but the gross profit margin declined by 4%. This indicates that the cost efficiency of the organization deteriorated during the period.   Such analysis cannot be conducted under the contribution margin approach, because gross profit is not present.   However, under the contribution margin approach one can calculate the contribution to sales ratio which indicates the contribution determined from every $100 of sales.   This would also provide indications on the control of variable costs once compared over time. Difference in Net Income arising from different approaches. In the example of ABC Company the profit under the two methods is the same.   However, this is not always the case.   Profits under the two methods differ whenever there is movement in inventory.   This is due to the fact that since under the absorption costing technique fixed manufacturing costs are included in the cost of goods sold, a proportion of fixed costs will be included in inventory leading to such a difference. Contribution margin approach not allowable for external reporting. The contribution margin approach, despite being highly useful to provide valuable information for decision making, is not acceptable for external reporting.   This is due to the fact that it does not comply with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). For example, under the GAAP the income statement layout should clearly outline the gross profit made by the company.   Under the contribution margin method this is not highlighted.   Another important reason why the absorption approach is allowable for external reporting and not the contribution approach is due to the way in which the income statement is classified. The GAAP state that the income statement is classified by function, like under the absorption method.   In the contribution approach it is classified by cost behavior.   Indeed separation between fixed and variable costs is made under such method. This conflicts with another requirement of the GAAP. Reference: Drury C. (1996). Management and Cost Accounting. Fourth Edition. New York: International Thomson Business Press.   

Outline the concepts of just war and pacifism Essay

Outline the key concepts of Just War and Pacifism. A01 [21] The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the nature of humans, force is a necessary action to be used to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, since the Second World War, people have turned their attention to Just War again establishing rules that can serve as guidelines to a just war- the Hague and Geneva conventions. Many Christians had taken the view that war may be justifiable under certain circumstances, and only if fought observing certain rules of conduct. Wars against the Muslim control of Jerusalem in the 11th-13th centuries were sometimes seen as holy wars which were popularly regarded as Crusades. Some philosophers based their justifications on the stories in the Bible. For example, St Paul in Romans 13:4 wrote that rulers are servants of God ‘†¦for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil’. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas gave an outline (the first three criteria of a just war) on the Justification of war and the kinds of acts that are allowed in a war in Summa Theologica. His ideas became the model of later scholars such as Franciso Suarez and Francisco de Vitoria. The first three conditions necessary for a just war were listed by Aquinas which included right authority, just cause and just intention. These and the three additional conditions that were later included, were referred to as ‘Jus ad Bellum’-rules about when it is right and just to go to war. Aquinas asserted that just authority meant that war could only be started by legitimate authority: ‘the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged’. He wrote that sovereign authority which has been elected legitimately has the sole authority to declare war. This meant that, there can be no private armies of individuals who can start a war and, equally, an incompetent government or sovereign does not have the authority  to initiate war. Just cause, is considered to be one of the most important conditions of jus ad bellum. Aquinas once stated that, ‘†¦those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault’. It was considered that self defence against physical aggression was the only sufficient reason for just cause. Finally, Aquinas wrote that the war fought with just intention, was to be for ‘the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil’. Kant once said that sovereigns could not fight wars for immoral intentions only for good motives. During a state of conflict, right intention should mean for peace and reconciliation. Therefore, soldiers cannot use or encourage a hatred of a minority in war. Their intentions must always be virtuous. In the 16th and 17th century, Suarez and de Vitoria added three additional conditions: proportionality in the conduct of war, only entering war as a last resort, and only fighting when there is a reasonable chance of success. Hence when dealing with proportionality, a state should never wage war that causes relatively more suffering and destruction than the actual wrong done by the enemy. Therefore, in any case, excessive violence, death and damage should be avoided. For example, it was not proportionate for the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan that were conducted by the United States during the final stages of World War II in 1945. Additionally, all peaceful attempts at resolution must have been exhausted before violence is used. War cannot be chosen as a first response but as the last resort. Also, there should a reasonable chance of success during a war. It’s immoral to enter into a hopeless war, thus magnifying the suffering and loss for no constructive reason. There have always been rules of conduct in war, although such rules have often been ignored. In Christian tradition, there are conditions of conduct that limit the degree of destruction and who may or should not be killed. These conditions were referred to as Jus in Bello- rules governing how war should be fought. The principles include: only legitimate targets should be attacked, proportionality and that, agents of war should be responsible for their actions. An act of war aimed indiscriminately using chemical/biological weapons at the entire cities or of extensive areas along with their populations, is not only a crime against God but one against humanity and should be condemned. Also, it is unfair and unjust of attack non-combatants (civilians, or innocents) because it is against their right  and therefore they cannot be justly attacked. However, the Just war theory comes under criticism from those who advocate pacifism. They maintain that war is always wrong. Pacifism is described to be the opposition of all forms of violence as a means of settling disputes, either between individuals or between countries. The Christian argument for pacifism is based on Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount where he rejected the option to use physical force even in defence of himself against unjust aggressors. An example includes the incident at Gethsemane where Jesus ordered Peter to drop his sword and not to resist the authorities (Matthew 26:52). Mennonites and Quakers are two groups that emphasise pacifism. Members of this group conscientiously object to violence and have been often persecuted as a result. They believe that Just war theory ignores the essential pacifist stance taken by Jesus. An absolute pacifist claims that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence. They believe that peace is intrinsically good and should be upheld whether as a duty or on that it is better for humans to live at peace than war. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. These pacifists claim that they would prefer to die rather than raise their fists to protect themselves. This is because; killing in self-defence is ‘an evil that makes the moral value of the victim’s life less important than our own’. They rely on the fact that there can be no justification for killing which stems from the scriptures of the bible ‘thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically argue that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence in other words, there can never be any good that comes out of war or violence. On the other hand, Conditional Pacifists offer a more flexible approach which allows the use of violence under certain circumstances. Pacifism is a word defined by Martin Caedel to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace. Conditional pacifists usually base their moral code on Utilitarian principles – it’s the bad consequences that make it wrong to resort to war or violence. These pacifists accept that sometimes our duties to uphold peace and non-violence may conflict with the duty to save or defend lives against aggression.  Utilitarian pacifists claim that wars generally do not produce favourable results but in certain circumstances, they can be acceptable. Such examples may include wars to protect people from genocide. To conclude, the Just war theory accepts that human nature is evil and most often use force to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, past philosophers and the present generation have offered moral guidelines that serve as justifications for the act of war. Whereas, pacifism which firstly originated from Christians believe that war and the act of violence is intrinsically evil and that peace should be the resolution of all conflicts in the society. Comment on the views that a pacifist can never accept the principles of Just war A02 [9] Pacifism can never accept the principles of Just war due to their firm belief that, all violence or force should be forbidden. Additionally, some pacifists would argue that the advantages of the just war theory does outweigh the disadvantages simply on the ground that there is no morality towards violence and that there is no place for ethics in war. Firstly, the criteria for a just war is considered to be unrealistic and pointless because, once the combatants have gone into battle the results of the war are unpredictable and such soldiers are unlikely to adhere to any conditions of a just war making the moral guidelines irrelevant. Pacifists argue that the results of war will always be bad since there can never be any positive outcome in war because; it leaves more damage on peoples’ lives. For example, the holocaust that occurred during the Second World War left more harm on the victims rather than the justice the so-called Nazis were supposed to achieve. A pacifist would argue that it will be inhumane to the point of cruelty to suggest such an incident like the Holocaust was just to serve for the greater good. Therefore a pacifist would argue that war is a waste of resources given by God, a cause of immense suffering, including suffering of innocent people and they believe that war encourages greed, hatred and prejudice. Secondly, Pacifists believe that life has an absolute value. They argue that the indiscriminate mass destruction brought about by the use of nuclear and biological weapons violates the sacredness of human life. It is though that the social and moral damage caused by war is too great, and that it should be abandoned. They maintain that non-violence and non-resistance will change the minds of, or disarm those who use violence. Hence, Pacifists encourage non-violence  resistance will goes against the principles of a just war. However, the deontological objection to a just war is favoured by absolute pacifists. Similar to Reihnold Neibuhr’s (1932) claim; it is inevitable that humans are prone to violence or the act of violence simply because , human nature is evil(imperfect). This means that most Pacifists are most likely to have a consequential approach towards the matter. Jeff McMahan once pointed out that Pacifism is difficult to maintain as it places extraordinary limitations on individual rights and self-defence which, in an era of weapons of mass destruction and the practice of genocide, may ultimately appear unacceptable. For this reason, Pacifists may claim that wars generally do not produce more favourable results, in specific examples. They can be acceptable. Additionally, most Pacifists accept that if someone is threatened by a dangerous person then the use of violence can be permitted since it would be considered to be self-defence. Therefore, due to the inconsistencies evident in Pacifism, most Christians still accept that the use of violence can be justified in the society. To conclude, Pacifists do believe that the weaknesses of a just war theory does outweighs its strengths simply because, it lacks purpose and morality. However , others do have different views; which means that they actually accept the principles of the just war theory.

Free Essays on Financial Statement Lease Disclosure

SUBJECT: Disclosure of Lease in Wheeling Ironworks’ Financial Statements As a shareholder of Wheeling Ironworks I am concerned about the disclosure of the non-cancelable warehouse lease that was signed at the end of 2001 to provide storage for excess inventory. In order for the financial statements to fulfill their purpose as the principal means of communicating accounting information they must disclose information such as this lease. The signing of such a lease is important in determining the approximate the value of the company because of the future expenses that will be incurred as a result of the lease and because the reason the lease was signed gives valuable information about the amount of inventory the company holds. The non-cancelable ten year lease is a material change and it is important that the shareholders are aware of it. In order to appropriately disclose this information the lease should be disclosed in a footnote to the 2001 financial statements detailing both the term and cost of the lease. In 2002 and the following years the rent expense should be recorded as usual and a similar footnote should be included. The lease will not be reflected on the December 31, 2001 balance sheet because no expense has been incurred at that point in time. The balance sheet accounts that will be affected by the lease are cash and prepaid rent. These accounts will reflect the lease on January 1, 2002 when the rent for the year will be paid. However, by disclosing the lease in the footnotes, decision makers are provided with important information about planned expenditures as well as the company’s increasing need for inventory storage. The lease of the warehouse for $10,000 a year for the next ten years is important because it is a significant set of future expenditures which could influence the company’s future success. Also, the fact that the warehouse was needed to store excess inventory gives shareholders usef... Free Essays on Financial Statement Lease Disclosure Free Essays on Financial Statement Lease Disclosure SUBJECT: Disclosure of Lease in Wheeling Ironworks’ Financial Statements As a shareholder of Wheeling Ironworks I am concerned about the disclosure of the non-cancelable warehouse lease that was signed at the end of 2001 to provide storage for excess inventory. In order for the financial statements to fulfill their purpose as the principal means of communicating accounting information they must disclose information such as this lease. The signing of such a lease is important in determining the approximate the value of the company because of the future expenses that will be incurred as a result of the lease and because the reason the lease was signed gives valuable information about the amount of inventory the company holds. The non-cancelable ten year lease is a material change and it is important that the shareholders are aware of it. In order to appropriately disclose this information the lease should be disclosed in a footnote to the 2001 financial statements detailing both the term and cost of the lease. In 2002 and the following years the rent expense should be recorded as usual and a similar footnote should be included. The lease will not be reflected on the December 31, 2001 balance sheet because no expense has been incurred at that point in time. The balance sheet accounts that will be affected by the lease are cash and prepaid rent. These accounts will reflect the lease on January 1, 2002 when the rent for the year will be paid. However, by disclosing the lease in the footnotes, decision makers are provided with important information about planned expenditures as well as the company’s increasing need for inventory storage. The lease of the warehouse for $10,000 a year for the next ten years is important because it is a significant set of future expenditures which could influence the company’s future success. Also, the fact that the warehouse was needed to store excess inventory gives shareholders usef...

June 6 SAT Takers Heres How You Can Retest for Free

June 6 SAT Takers Here's How You Can Retest for Free SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips The College Board is going to allow students who were affected by the mistake on the June 6, 2015 administration of the SAT to re-take the test for free in October. Read on for more information and to see what your options are. A Bit of Background: What Happened on June 6th? June 6 was the final SAT testing date for the 2014-2015 school year, and hundreds of thousand of students across the country registered to take the test. On test day, many were surprised to see that instead of the standard 20 minutes allowed for Section 8 or Section 9, their test booklets instructed they should be allowed 25 minutes. The proctors' instructions, however, still stated the time allowance should be 20 minutes. Therefore,some students got the correct amount of time on both sections, others were given 25% extra time, and still more were given something in between,which overall created a very confusing situation for everyone involved. Of the hundreds of thousands registered, almost all students were affected, apart from those taking the SAT with accommodations. (International test takers were not affected.) For a full breakdown of what happened, see our article here. The Aftermath and the Demand for a Retest After the test, students were very concerned about what would happen with their test results. They were worried that their scores would be invalidated,because the test was no longer standardized compared to other administrations of the SAT.Many worried that colleges would not accept their scores as equal to those from other testing dates. In the days following the exam, the College Boardgave a lot of conflicting information to different people.It told some thatthere would be a retest,but told others thatthe affected section of the exam would be thrown out. Two days later, they finally released an offical statement, in which they announced that they would proceed with scoring the exams,with the TWO affected sections removed.They claimed that they would be able to do this and still provide"reliable scores." Understandably, many students were angered by this response - it was obvious that this was decided on because it is theeasiest and cheapest way for the College Board to "fix" the situation, as opposed to the best way for students. It became clear that though the scores could be called "reliable," they would not necessarily be "accurate," especially for certain students. Students began to worry about how the test scores would affect admissions and qualifications for scholarships. Students began demanding anoptional retest for anyone who had been affected by the College Board's error.One student from Long Island has filed a lawsuit against the College Board, saying that scores of a test missing nearly 30% of its content cannot be considered valid. She has demanded unspecified monetary damanges and a re-test for anyone who wanted it. Another student started a change.org petition that quickly attracted over 1,000 supporters demanding another chance to take the test for free. The College Board Listened and Is Now Offering a Retest Late on June 15th, the College Board responded to unhappy students with an offer for a free retest - but maybe not in the way that they were expecting: â€Å"We remain confident in the reliability of scores from the June 6 administration of the SAT and don't want to cause undue anxiety for students by making them believe they need to sit for the test again. However, we have waived the fee for the October SAT administration for students who let us know that their testing experience was negatively affected by the printing error and we will continue to do so, through the September 3 registration deadline for the October administration.† You can see the full text here. Instead of offering students affected by the June 6th test their own makeup date, the College Board is giving free registration for the October test.This is going to mean that the retest will be too late for many students who need it, and it's only a useful offer for those students who were not relying on getting scores this summer. However, it's questionable how much the College Board really wants students to take advantage of the offer, even if they do have the time to get their scores later! For several days this past week, the informational banner with updated informationwas missing from the College Board web site, which meant that students who wanted more information about the retake would have beenunable to find it unless they had the link already.The College Board has now replaced the banner, but many were frustrated by what seemed to be a deliberate attempt to keep the information quiet. Additionally, on the June 6th FAQ page, the information for a retest is at the bottom, and is not emphasized. Many people would not know to look for the updated information. Fortunately for students (and unfortunately for the College Board), their mistake has received enough national attention that the retest is beingpublicized through various outlets, even though the College Board itself is trying to keep it quiet! I Called the College Board -Here Is How to Get the Retest Once again, there is a lot of misinformation going around abouthow to actually get registered for the retest.This is mostly because the College Board employees seem to know very little about it themselves. I called the College Board to nail down the information so that you don't have to. The first attempt... The first time I called them, the customer service rep I spoke to had no idea what I was talking about when I asked the process to be signed up for the retest. She insisted several times that there was not going to be a retest for students - this went on for about ten minutes. Finally, I verbally directed her to the appropriate section on their own web site and read it aloud to her. I was then put on hold for several minutes. Another rep picked up. I asked her what the proper procedure was to register for the retest. She told me (in quite an annoyed fashion) that Idid not need to take the retest. She said that theCollege Board was only dropping ONE section of the test, and that the scores would not be affected because they always drop one section as an "experimental section." As you know if you are at all familiar the SAT, there IS always an experimental section, but it is always one of the middle sections of the test - a 25 minute section. I said this to the rep and asked how it would be possible to swap in the experimental section for one of the final sections. Not only are they different lengths, but the whole point of the experimental section is to test out future questions and some of them may not be appropriate. She told me that the experimental section is always randomly selected out of all the sections, which is not true. I also asked how the other section would be accounted for, and was told thatthey are only going to drop one section. Both of these statements are in direct contrast to what has been said to other people who have called, and what has been said by the College Boarditself on its web site. This goes to show how unreliable the information is that they are giving out. If you call and ask for specific information, and it does not seem right to you, make sure to ask to speak to another person. Though we were 20 minutes in and I knew at this point that the conversation was going nowhere, I persevered and asked what I could do to sign up for the retest. I was told that I could wait to see my grades at the end of this month, and if I'm still unhappy to call back by the end of the month to register. The College Board has since updated its statement to specify that they will be accepting registrations through September 3rd for the October 4th test. Nevertheless, if you do want to take this retest, I recommend signing up sooner rather than later - see below for why. The second attempt... I called back a couple days later and had a totally different experience. As soon as I said that I wanted to register for the free re-take, the customer service rep agreed quickly and opened my account. I went though the security questions, she asked for my preferred test center, and waived the fee. In less than 4 minutes, I was signed up for the retest for free. The Takeaway In conclusion, here is how to sign up: The free retest hasnotautomatically been applied to your account. If you register for the test and pay, it will probably be more difficult to get your money back, so just call and register over the phone.Usually there is a fee for registering over the phone, but they are not charging this for June 6th testers. Call the College Board Customer Service line at 1-866-756-7346. Give yourself time to make this phone call. As you can see from my experiences above, how your conversation will go completely depends on which customer service rep you talk to. If the rep tries to give you a hard time about registering, ask to speak to another rep or a supervisor.Stay calm and say that you were affected by the College Board's mistake on the June 6th test, and you would like to take them up on the offer that is posted on the web site. If they still give you trouble, stay polite but firm: "This is not what the College Board is publicly offering. I was promised a free retest and I am calling to register for this. If the process remains difficult, I will contact press members to let them know that the College Board is not honoring its promise." You do not have to take the test at the same center where you took the June 6th SAT.This is great news for people like me who signed up for the June SAT late and had to travel quite far to take it. Usually when the College Board offers a retest it does have to be at the same center, so this is a big bonus. You will have to do all the things you normally do at registration time - including confirming your name, birth date, and high school. If you don't have any trouble with the rep, the whole process should take about 5 minutes. Afterwards, you will receive aconfirmation email and will be able to sign into your account to print out your admissions ticket. Can I See My Scores First? Yes, you can!The scores from the test you took on June 6th will be available around June 25th. You are welcome to look at your scores and decide if you want to take the test again. The College Board has done this intentionally, because they are hoping that many people will be satisfied with their scores and will decide to not take the test again.Remember, for each person who does decide to do the retest, they are losing out on potential registration money. Even if you sign up for the retest now, your scores will still be delivered on time. Remember, however, that these scoreswill not include sections 8 and 9, and youwill not have the option to see what your score would have been with those sections.So it will be difficult todetermine if you have beenpositively or negatively affected by the shorter test. Since they have now officially said that free registration will be available through September 3, you can feel comfortable waiting to sign up if you want to. But it might be a better idea to not wait.Since the College Board is not offering a separate test date for the retest,there will be many more people than usual signing up for the October test.Therefore, there is a very good chance that testing centers will fill up quite quickly. If you register now, you can always cancel later if you want to, and you do not have to risk potential disappointment at not getting a seat. Should I Take the Retest? For most students, signing up for the retest is a good idea if it's at all possible for your schedule. If you get your scores back and think that you were negatively affected, this is the best way to fix it - for free. And if it turns out that you did better than you were expecting to do, you can always cancel your registration. You will not lose out on any money from the registration costs because it's free. If this was your last chance to take the SAT for one deadline or another, then the retest will not really affect you. Though some schools are taking the "wait and see" approach for this test, it is very likely that most willhonor the results, especially for seniors or those who took the June 6th test on a tight deadline. If you feel that you have been significantly disadvantaged by the College Board's error, and cannot take the retest, it might be a good idea to keep an eye on the lawsuit mentioned above to see how it progresses. If they win, you may be entitled to some compensation. Last Words... If you do decide to retake the test, you should use the experience you have had with this test to help guide your studying. Set aside time this summer for dedicated prep so that you can smash it this fall. What’s Next? Worried that taking the SAT again this fall will be one time too many? Read our guide on how many times you should take the SAT. To prep for the re-test this fall, read our 11 top, must-read guides to prepare yourself for the next test. Learn our expert strategies to improve your SAT Math, SAT Writing, and SAT Reading scores to help push your scores above 600s in any section. Wanta top score on the re-take? Read our guide to getting a perfect SAT score. Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points?We have the industry's leading SAT prep program. Built by Harvard grads and SAT full scorers, the program learns your strengths and weaknesses through advanced statistics, then customizes your prep program to you so you get the most effective prep possible. Check out our 5-day free trial today:

Taxation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words - 4

Taxation - Essay Example is leaves the income tax and capital gains taxes as the two most important taxes to any household in UK, with huge implications on the consumption and investment patterns in the country. However, the taxation policy in the country does not observe neutrality in that it may discourage deferment of consumption and investment by taxing savings and returns on investments more into the future than now. The income tax is paid per any tax unit that is beyond the personal tax free allowance. The tax is charged from diverse types of savings and is charged at a basic rate of 25% or a higher rate of about 40% (OECD 2007, 13). On the other hand, capital tax operates much similar to the income tax above; there lacks a clear distinction between income and capital gains tax in UK. Any investor with a capital gain of  £5800 or below per annum is exempted from this tax. However, any income above this level is taxed based on the gains at marginal rate of the income tax. In U.K, today, any transaction on savings is treated differently under the taxation policy; the mode of taxing any savings is a vital feature of the UK tax base and leads to an understanding of the comprehensive income tax. In most cases, the comprehensive income tax refers to a case where the income from savings, the labour tax and any other elements that make up the tax base are taxed equally. On the other hand, in expenditure tax, the returns from taxes are not taxed until the individual uses the savings for consumption, at which the tax is known as an expenditure tax or consumption tax (Mirrlees, 283). The major difference between the two taxes is in the treatment of savings. Taxation of savings has an impact on the investment and consumption choices of individuals and companies in UK today. According to Mirrlees report, several effects were identified resulting from the taxation of savings. One, there is an attempt to design a carefully leveled taxation system that seeks to equalize the tax burden of the

PR Advertising or Social Media Campaign Dissertation

PR Advertising or Social Media Campaign - Dissertation Example Companies have now begun to realize the sheer scope and outreach of social media and the Internet in general as a highly effective communication platform. Thus using the various social media platforms to launch their social media campaigns has become integral for them since it enables the organizations to leverage their marketing practices in the most cost-effective way possible. The effective use of social media to market the products or services could prove to be highly profitable resulting in the delivery of measurable business results. However, if not executed effectively, it may lead to disastrous results. Starbucks is a case in point. This report â€Å"PR Advertising or Social Media Campaign† aims to discuss the recently launched and highly controversial social media campaign – Race Together, launched by Starbucks. The Starbucks’ â€Å"Race Together† Campaign: Critical Analysis Starbucks, the Seattle based multinational coffee giant launched one of its most ambitious social media campaigns, â€Å"Race Together† in association with USA Today, on March 18, 2015. The key aim of this campaign was to get its customers and the world around them, talking about a highly sensitive issue in American history – Race. The company took out full-page newspaper advertisements and encouraged open discussions about race on open forums (USA Today, 2015).