Amount Of Net Pay Into: Fill & Download for Free

“Net Income”If we define spending as the transfer of ownership of money, from one person or entity to another, for a purpose…… And we define income as the amount of money the recipients of that spending obtain in the transaction.This means that, for a given time period, all the income that is created in the whole economy equals all the spending that occurs in that economy.Net income for individuals and entities is the amount of income they are given, minus the amount of spending those individuals or entities do.Since for the entire economy all the income equals all the spending, then in the macroeconomy, Net Income, must equal Zero. Because net income is income minus spending. Therefore, if income equals spending, Net Income equals zeroThis is not true for the microeconomy which studies firms and individuals who clearly can have income and spending be different, and therefore have a “net income” that is not equal to zero.Edit: This edit is added in response to the comment by Kush G.First,I consider spending and wealth as being calculated on different axes.They are independent variables.Spending is the transfer of ownership of money from one person or entity to another. The spender gives the money to the recipient of the spending, and that amount of spending becomes income for that recipient. In the macroeconomy total spending equals total income so that net income equals zero. In this model the spending we are talking about is gross spending. In other words when we are accounting for spending we are accounting for all the spending, all the transfer of ownership of money.The spending must be done for a purpose. That is, to acquire some good, service. some labor or some other desired outcome.All of the above mentioned outcomes have some value to those who spent to acquire that outcome. I consider wealth to be anything that has value.n.b., money itself has value, money is part of wealth, however, the spending of that money is not wealth, the spending of that money is the transfer of ownership of the money, and calculated on a different axis, that which I call the income axis. Wealth is calculated on the wealth axis, and income is calculated on the income axis.The spending of money does not, in and of itself, create wealth or change the level of wealth in an economy. Spending may be the reason that a particular type and amount of wealth is created, but the spending and therefore the income, is not a measure of that wealth.When spending occurs, normally, it is associated with some production of wealth. The wealth is produced directly in response to some spending or in anticipation of some future spending. The spending occurs to activate some labor or service that cause an increased production of wealth, or leads to the preservation of some amount of wealth. Spending , and its complement, income, is almost always associated with wealth production, or wealth preservation.If the amount of wealth created in an economy is greater than the amount of wealth depleted, destroyed, deteriorated or depreciated, then NET PRODUCTION of wealth is positive.If more wealth is depleted than is produced then NET PRODUCTION of wealth is negative.The accounting of the net production of wealth is done on the wealth axis. The spending and therefore the income earned in this time period is calculated on the income axis. They are variables that interact and affect each other but they are still independent variables. Different levels of net production can be associated with the same amount of spending. Different levels of spending can be associated with the same amount of net production. They are independent variables.To reiterate, spending in this model is gross spending, that is, when we are calculating the amount of spending and therefore the amount of income, we are accounting for all spending that is occurring. We are accounting for ALL transfer of ownership of money. Remember, in the macroeconomy, net spending (spending minus income), and net income (income minus spending) will always equal ZERO. The concept of overall net spending in the macroeconomy has no purpose. Only the amount of gross spending, all spending, can have any useful meaning, in a fully macroeconomic model.So you can see that spending (= income) can be associated with a positive net production of wealth. It can also be associated with zero net production, if the amount of wealth depleted equals the amount of wealth produced. It can also be associated with, in a given time period, negative net production of wealth. Examples of periods of negative net production of wealth occurring despite even large amounts of spending and income, might include times of war, or natural disasters when spending is occurring in large amounts but the destruction of wealth is far greater than the production of wealth.Most models presented in economics try to combine income and wealth production into one variable. What I am calling net production of wealth, those models call income. They also call income what I call income, the amount of money received by recipients of spending. For reasons I have explained, I do not think those models can accurately explain what is occurring in the macroeconomy. They are an attempt to explain a system that has at least 2 degrees of freedom, by creating a model that that has one degree of freedom.Now, and I think this gets to the heart of your question about debt, there is one kind of spending I have not mentioned. Borrowing. Borrowing is spending. Borrowing is spending by the lender to acquire an asset, an amount of wealth whose value is based on a debt obligation. The borrower agrees to a debt obligation in exchange for the cash. You will note that this transaction does NOT cause any net change in the level of wealth. An asset is created for the lender, who gives over money in the exact amount to the borrower creating a debt obligation in the amount of the loan. The spending is when the lender gives ownership of the money to the borrower. On the wealth axis, the lender has just acquired an amount of wealth with positive value, but it is matched by the debt obligation of the borrower (negative wealth), so the lending has produced no net increase in wealth. As time goes on, interest accrues. This interest is paying for the services the banks provide, and those services can, in and of themselves, be considered a form of wealth, paying for all the labor, supplies, infrastructure and other expenses needed to keep the process of lending a viable venture. That is the part of the lending process where some wealth production and maintenance does occur.I call this purchasing of a debt obligation, the purchasing of a “purely financial asset”. Other than those things interest and fees pay for, the transactions associated with purchasing a purely financial asset does not cause any change in the level of wealth.Strictly speaking, in this model, the dispensing of the loan is gross spending by the lender, and it becomes gross income for the borrower, and spending by the borrower to buy back part of all of their loan obligation is gross income to the lender.So if lending causes no increase in net production of wealth. What purpose does it have?The purpose of lending is to take money from where it is not being spent, and where it is not inspiring wealth production, and get it in the hands of* someone who will spend it in a way that does lead to an increase in wealth production, that is, to increase the amount of spending on goods, services, labor or other desired outcomes, (other than spending to acquire purely financial assets).*(cause to be owned by)

Today’s conversion rate 66.94 so you’re asking for a salary of $149376.35, let’s round it up to $150000. Now this amount can be easily paid in states like California or New York (Compare to other states). Having salary pay of $150K is very nice but you should understand that taxes are high in USA. With a salary of 150K Following will be the tax calculation and net pay (for california)Gross Pay 12500.00Federal 2861.48Fica 775.00Medicare 181.25State 1007.37SDI 112.50Net Pay 7562.41Yearly net Pay ~90K.Now after all the deduction, you’ll have to pay your house rent, your car’s EMI, insurance, utilities etc. If you’re living in decent location with a decent car, this cost will be around ~$4000–$4500 per month. So every month you’ll be having around $3000 to spend on leisure. So if you’re not thrifty, you’ll spend around $1000 on other stuff and at the end of the month you’ll be having $2000 per month in your pocket which is nearly 130K INR.PS - Thanks for the up votes guys.

I think it’s fascinating how few people actually understand the amount of money that goes into the federal budget.Let’s say you’re a millionaire. You have exactly one million dollars in your bank account.And let’s say your kid wants an ice cream cone. Would you ask “how will I pay for that?” No. The cost of an ice cream cone is irrelevant to your net worth. It’s not even one ten thousandth of one percent of the amount of money you have.You probably think “Paying for 125,000 refugees???!!! 125,000 is such a big number!!!!!!!!! That would cost a huge amount of money! How can the government ever afford that??!”Um, no.It wouldn’t even be a rounding error in the federal budget. Supporting them for a year would cost less than the government spends in one week on operations for one aircraft carrier. The riot at the Capitol cost more than supporting those refugees (fun fact: damage to the Capitol building is not covered by insurance; it’s the responsibility of the Federal government).There’s actually a name for this. It’s called “innumeracy”—a lack of understanding of, or ability to think about, large numbers.Numeracy - WikipediaThis article is about the ability to apply numerical concepts. For the academic journal, see Numeracy (journal) . Children in Laos have fun as they improve numeracy with "Number Bingo". They roll three dice, construct an equation from the numbers to produce a new number, then cover that number on the board, trying to get four in a row . Number bingo improves math skills LPB Laos Numeracy is the ability to reason and to apply simple numerical concepts. [1] Basic numeracy skills consist of comprehending fundamental arithmetical operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. For example, if one can understand simple mathematical equations such as 2 + 2 = 4, then one would be considered to possess at least basic numeric knowledge. Substantial aspects of numeracy also include number sense , operation sense, computation, measurement , geometry , probability and statistics . [ citation needed ] A numerically literate person can manage and respond to the mathematical demands of life. [2] By contrast, innumeracy (the lack of numeracy) can have a negative impact. Numeracy has an influence on career decisions, and risk perception towards health decisions. For example, innumeracy distorts risk perception towards health decisions [3] and may negatively affect economic choices. [4] [5] Greater numeracy has been associated with reduced susceptibility to framing effects , less influence of nonnumerical information such as mood states, and greater sensitivity to different levels of numerical risk. [6] Representation of numbers [ edit ] Humans have evolved to mentally represent numbers in two major ways from observation (not formal math). [7] These representations are often thought to be innate [8] (see Numerical cognition ), to be shared across human cultures, [9] to be common to multiple species, [10] and not to be the result of individual learning or cultural transmission. They are: Approximate representation of numerical magnitude, and Precise representation of the quantity of individual items. Approximate representations of numerical magnitude imply that one can relatively estimate and comprehend an amount if the number is large (see Approximate number system ). For example, one experiment showed children and adults arrays of many dots. [9] After briefly observing them, both groups could accurately estimate the approximate number of dots. However, distinguishing differences between large numbers of dots proved to be more challenging. [9] Precise representations of distinct individuals demonstrate that people are more accurate in estimating amounts and distinguishing differences when the numbers are relatively small (see Subitizing ). [9] For example, in one experiment, an experimenter presented an infant with two piles of crackers, one with two crackers the other with three. The experimenter then covered each pile with a cup. When allowed to choose a cup, the infant always chose the cup with more crackers because the infant could distinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumeracyLet me give you a quick reality check: During the war in Iraq, the US Army spent $20 billion a year just in air conditioning for tents.Among The Costs Of War: Billions A Year In A.C.?The figure comes from a former Pentagon official who now sells energy-efficient technology to the Department of Defense. And it highlights the nuances of U.S. war spending.https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioningThe money spent on those refugees? It’s nothing. It’s dimes to a millionaire.