"Yes, it can be done.  See ""Scenario 4"" at Isolating 401(k) basis - Fairmark.com.  Though that article is primarily about getting after-tax 401(k) money into a Roth IRA, Scenario 4 applies to the scenario you are asking about. At a high level you do exactly what you say -- transfer the pre-tax money from your trad IRAs to a 401(k) (btw, a solo 401(k) will work for this also -- doesn't have to be your employer's -- but then you need to be eligible to set up a solo 401(k)).  This is allowed because qualified plans can't accept after after-tax traditional IRA money, so the transfer overrides the usual pro rata rules and ""strains"" the basis out and leaves it in the trad IRA.   However, there's a mismatch between the intent of Congress (as indicated by the Joint Committee on Taxation report on the law) and the actual text of the law as detailed in the Fairmark article which while it doesn't stop you from doing this adds a couple of hoops to jump through if you want to be in total compliance with the law."


Another option is the new 'innovative finance isa' that allow you to put a wrapper round peer to peer lending platform investments. See Zopa, although I don't think they have come out with an ISA yet.


As you are in UK, you should think in terms of Tax Free (interest and accumulated capital gains) ISA type investments for the long term AND/OR open a SIPP (Self Invested Pension Plan) account where you get back the tax you have paid on the money you deposit for your old age. Pensions are  the best bet for money you do not need at present while ISAs are suitable for short term 5 years plus  or longer.


You think having to pay to get on a road is preferential to the government collecting money and letting anyone use the road?  So, I'd have to pay a toll every time I went to the grocery store, or pay for a monthly driving pass?  What if a company bought out the company that owned the road to my house and doubled the toll?   What it was no longer profitable to maintain the road to my small neighborhood?  I'd have to move?  That doesn't sound like a good idea *at all*.


The company that's apparently going to pay this rent wants to treat it as a business expense.  They are asking for your SSN because they expect to issue a 1099-MISC. (They probably gave you a Form W-9? It's not mandatory but it's common to request a taxpayer ID on this form.) There are a couple of issues at play here:


Actually, that does make sense. If the government has less influence over domestic economics, then big business will have no reason to infiltrate it.  Now if we can manage to do that and then re-purpose those subsidies to social reform, that could be nice.


"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money?  Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors.  This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds.  It can also decide the other way.  In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields.    Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: ""Does the FED want rates to rise?"" and ""Can the US government afford rising rates?""  The answer to these two questions is no.  However, the FED may be pressured to ""stop the presses"" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices.  So far this hasn't been the case."


For manual conversion you can use many sites, starting from google (type 30 USD in yuan) to sites like xe.com mentioned here. For programmatic conversion, you could use Google Calculator API or many other currency exchange APIs that are available. Beware however that if you do it on the real site, the exchange rate is different from actual rates used by banks and payment processing companies - while they use market-based rates, they usually charge some premium on currency conversion, meaning that if you have something for 30 dollars, according to current rate it may bet 198 yuan, but if he uses a credit card for purchase, it may cost him, for example, 204 yuan. You should be very careful about making difference between snapshot market rates and actual rates used in specific transaction.


You can receive funds from US Client as an individual. There is no legal requirement for you to have a company. If the transactions are large say more than 20 lacs in a year, its advisable to open a Private Ltd. Although its simple opening & Registering a company [A CA or a Laywer would get one at a nominal price of Rs 5000] you can do yourself. Whatever be the case, its advisable to have seperate accounts for this business / professional service transactions. Maintain proper records of the funds received. There are certain benefits you can claim, a CA can help you. Paying taxes in Advance is your responsibility and hence make sure you keep paying every quarter as advance tax. Related questions Indian citizen working from India as freelancer for U.S.-based company. How to report the income & pay tax in India? Freelancer in India working for Swiss Company Freelancing to UK company from India How do I account for money paid to colleagues out of my professional income?


How is putting a gun to a persons head and saying give me your money or else I will cuff you and put you in jail not stealing?  If a person can't muster up enough enough skill (I.e showing up showered) to work an entry level job and they aren't disabled then they are just lazy. We should not be encouraging laziness.


If you just buy a few lotto tickets normally, then no, it's not going to be a good investment, as @Jasper has shown. However, there are certain scenarios where you can get a positive expected value from a lottery. In 2012, it was revealed that some MIT students found a scheme to game the Massachusetts state lottery.  The game, called Cash WinFall, had a quirk in the rules: the jackpot prize was capped at $2 million.  Any money in the jackpot beyond $2 million would increase the payout of the consolation prizes.  Thus, the game would sometimes have a positive expected value.  The return on investment was 15% to 20% — enough for the participants to quit their jobs. This specific loophole is no longer available: a cap was placed on the number of tickets sold per store, then the game was discontinued altogether. Another possible strategy is to buy enough tickets to nearly assure a win, as one investment group did in 1992.  Given a large enough jackpot, this strategy can yield a positive expected value, but not a guaranteed profit. Caveats include: Or, you might be a genius and exploit a flaw in the lottery's pseudorandom number generator, as one statistician did in an Ontario scratch-off lottery in 2011.


The idea of a stockmarket is multiple people betting on the value of an asset and then getting paid the difference between their bet and the real value of the asset.  The goal being to keep the value of the stock as accurate as possible so capital is allocated to companies that will use it most efficiently.  The reward for people making these bets is a portion of that capital.    What you are suggesting is just a graph of the average happiness.  The difficult part of turning this into a market, is being able to assign value to happiness, value that you can gain or lose by choice.      Ironically, money is a indicator of happiness.  When apple came out with the iPhone, people saw it and decided it would make them happier if they owned it creating demand.  Investors noticed that people believed owning an iphone would make them happier so they bid up the price of AAPL stock.  People are happier with their iPhones and investors benefitted from this happiness and got cash allowing them to spend money on things to increase their happiness.    In order to extract happiness from the stock market a lot of other things come into play.  A biotech company curing cancer would be a solution to something that drastically decreases happiness.  Increasing alcohol sales might be a result of people trying to offset the sadness in the short term but in the long term it is a depressant and doesn't make you happy.  An individual might be happier with an extra $10B but overall 1 million people getting $10k each would increase average happiness much more.  But somebody like buffet can invest in companies that can generate way more happiness than just handing out cash.    The happiness report is an annual report of happiness.  Looking at these results next to the Gini coefficient (income inequality), and industry growth by country might start to give you an idea of what affects happiness.  For instance in Africa income inequality could sky rocket while the stock market plummets and happiness could still increase because of public health investments made years ago, causing the infant mortality rate to plummet.  If you want to think about this topic I recommend reading the great escape by Angus Deaton.


Yeah, reddit is full of ppl just trying to push their side/story (usually liberal vs conservative), I figured that it's best to take just a moderate/rational approach and figure out what's best in each situation.   from a purely economic standpoint racism is extremely irrational (there are some specific examples where it can be rational, but that is always due to other external factors making it rational in that specific situation, not because it is actually rational).   Yes, you're right that there is a huge growth potential. Africa tends to have a ton of natural resources per capita and a young population (lots of time left to work/produce) that can produce a lot in their lives. The issues are that they need to cut corruption, focus on educating their citizens, and encourage economic production (stronger property rights really help here!). The battle between religions (specifically strict adherence to Sharia law & Islamic religious doctrine with Al-shabab, ISIS, and Boko Haram) is a huge issue there as well.


Go through the IRS Publication 521. Generally, relocation assistance is given either as : or


"I have seen Dave Ramsey give extremely bad retirement advice in the past. For example, he turned fund fees into a political issue and said people who worry about mutual fund fees are [""from a liberal political perspective...""](https://youtu.be/zR64-Ea_r5U?t=214) They are *actually* concerned about the [compounding returns of investors ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZvu_h3x1A) and how higher fees will eat at them, rather than the amount of money that investment companies will get in fees. There's no politics involved at all, he's just a blabbering idiot.  I don't see any reason to follow his advice."


"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say ""diversify"" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked ""why diversify at all?"", and that is entirely a different question from your original ""what diversification is?"". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time."


"Yeah that's the big global wealth redistribution scam of it. China already has hive cities like something out of Sci-Fi movies. But it's still a ""developing economy"" so doesn't have to cut any emissions apparently lol. It's no wonder they were happy to sign along with every other 3rd world nobody who loses nothing by doing so."


I wouldn't choose any of the above. Buying stocks and staying long in my case is the cheapest way to go (retail brokerage commissions have just been getting cheaper and cheaper. )   The added costs of trading options make it even dicier for me, a retail investor, to take risks. To understand how to make money with options, I'd have to be much more sophisticated investor.


Sorry, I didn't mean to knock your post.  I do think you have valid points.  I think it's great to see discussions on the pros and cons on the VC/Start-up world.  My previous work experience was at a start-up that made it big (sold 90% to News Corp at $400mm valuation), but was funded by angel investors, so it was a different situation.  I'm currently getting my MBA now so am looking at the space from both the VC perspective and the Start-up perspective.  VCs can provide real value to start-ups, and they can also harm them.  However, no one is forcing the start-ups to take VC money; most do because it provides a higher probability for a faster path to success.  The investment doesn't come free obviously, as you pointed out.  The hours are horrible and you lose significant control.  In many situations founders are taken away from the main leadership role.  That doesn't seem fair.  However, if someone sold the voting shares of their company, they are opting in for that risk.  The truth of the matter is that a lot of the people who are amazing at the ideas that birth the start-ups are horrible at the day-to-day management.  Sometimes VCs step in and make the necessary changes to ensure the best chance at company profitability.  Is it fair? Yes.  Does it suck for the person ousted, absolutely.  It's an oversimplification to say this is all bad or all good.  It all depends on the situation.  However, yes, there are VCs who are predatory and use their superior knowledge of how business, financing, and whatever else work to extract as much as they can from their portfolio companies.  Yet there are also some who honestly love the industry and want to help companies grow.    Your article's stance is good because it prompts a discussion.  However, as I originally felt, it does not do it as effectively as it could in my opinion.  That's awesome you got a ton of re-tweets, but as you say on your blog, it's about substance, not the glitter and rainbows.    Edit: Voting brigades don't count as glitter and rainbows?


I wasn't arguing that people shouldn't be able to have sex or that it should be restricted in any way, so I'm not sure what strawman you are arguing.  All I did was ask a question and point out the obvious which is that if you have an irresponsible person, giving them free condoms isn't likely to prevent unwanted pregnancies because an irresponsible person isn't likely to *use* them. They have to have a certain level of responsibility to even have the foresight to consider the long-term consequences of getting pregnant first (and obviously Fran failed at that... *twice!*).  For teenagers, the availability of condoms/contraceptives may help since the problem for them may be the embarrassment of going to the store to buy them, but this isn't the same as not being able to *afford* them.


One of the links showed: Specifically, for 2013, your child can contribute the lesser of: her earned income for the year or $5,500. This is correct. And while I have no issue with fool.com in general, I am a strong believer that when one cites numbers like this, the article should also state the year involved. As I quoted above.  Littleadv's answer was pretty comprehensive. All I'd add is that for a child who is likely in the zero bracket for earned income, the Roth is preferable.  Last, not to nit-pick, but the deposit does not need to be their money. My daughter earned $2300 in 2012, her $2000 Roth deposit can be from my gift to her. Or from any source. No paper trail as to the source of income is required, only that the income exist.  On re-reading I see I left out - the deposits can be spread over as many accounts as you wish, and the total is for IRA/Roth IRA total. It's silly to take small sums and create multiple accounts. Until the value is above a certain level, just find the one broker who can cover what you want to invest in.


Buy a home. A home is the first and best investment, u can own a home with as little as 3% down and as u pay for your living u pay it off.....also banks will always give you equity loans in case you need your money


Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.


"> ...from McConnell's POV, that's where the amorphous ""spirit of the system"" was broken.   I don't see how.  Scalia's nomination happened in a Republican controlled Senate.  Bork's nomination happened in a Democrat controlled one.  Also twice before, with Haynsworth in 1969 and Carswell in 1970, a Democrat Senate rejected a Republican appointment so Bork was not unprecedented.  Since that same time, a Democrat Senate has approved 7 Supreme Court justices appointed by a Republican president.  The last time a Republican Senate approved a Democrat appointment?  1895.  Even if you're right about McConnell's opinion, then he should have brought the nomination to the floor and insured it failed as that would have been an equal violation of the spirit of the system.  He went beyond that.  > The topic at hand is healthcare...  Agreed, and a bipartisan healthcare bill is not possible while the Republican party acts without integrity.  > As many times as it takes to find someone on the other side to work with to actually accomplish anything.  I understand the perspective and embraced it twenty years ago.  Today I see this as purposefully bringing a knife to a gunfight.  > No GOP senator who failed to Repeal is going to want to talk about health care at all come re-election time...  If it is a hot-button issue, I disagree.  They will either blame the Democrats for obstructing real reform or blame Democrats for the compromise Republicans had to make.  Think about the ACA.  Republicans have made it an incredibly divisive issue despite the fact that the core is a Republican solution and most of the talking-point problems are either illusion on Republican caused.  > Deeper trenches just lead to a longer war.  Bill Maher has a joke I like: ""The left has moved right and the right has moved into the loony bin.""  I think the Democrats generally don't dig in and as a result ended up digging new trenches further to the right of where they were.  Republicans now push mantras like ""Government is the problem, not the solution"", ""Freer markets lead to more opportunity"", ""You will get more money by letting the rich keep more of theirs"", and ""Immigrants and the poor are taking your job.""  This narrative is toxic and is only emboldened with Democrat willingness to keep communication open.  Thanks for your well thought out reply, /u/BigKev47."


Sounds about right. Also note that you're usually at the mercy of your job for what's available; if all your choices are terrible (high fees and or low interest), that should figure into your calculations.


"to me, the most relevant question after reading article is ""does Google get more information from me by using Chrome instead of FF? assuming google.com is my default search anyway."" I've always been wary of Chrome just because of this question. ??"


Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.


"Actually no. People were independant long before the concept of a ""modern"" school came into being. People are able to teach themselves. Why should I go to another country to be happy? Why can't I buy a piece of land and stay on it and take care of myself without being extorted?"


Just take it to a bank that will count it and give you cash or put it in your account.  Don't bother counting it and rolling it.  They will just break the rolls and throw it into a change counting machine.  I did that once and never will again after I saw that years ago.  The local bank I used for this offered it as a free service. You could also use those coinstar machines found in many grocery stores and various outlets, but they take like 8 or 9%.  Unless time/hassle is of concern, why do that when there are possible free options?


I like the one about writing several versions. I think that is key. If I find myself stuck, sometimes I just say to myself “what are you trying to say?” and then I write down the answer. Then I can take that and hone it. Nice article!


No, I did not get upset or went overboard. Sorry if you got that impression.  I am discussing this topic with you.  To summarize: the future is exchangeable battery because no battery today and in the near future can be used for a very long drive.  You will pay only for the electricity you consumed from the battery. You will pay more per KW than you pay for KW consumed at home because you have to pay for additional costs and profits by Tesla.  You will not pay for the battery because you don't own the battery. It's exchanged every time.  If you want, and you mostly do short drives, you can buy a car with a fixed set of batteries, costing a lot of money, but you will not have to pay the fees for KW you charge into it at your home.


What I did not understand when I first called is that margin able account means the ability to borrow margin, but not the necessity of borrowing. Like I was saying, it is something I am going to do a lot of due diligence on before I plunge in. I have a general vague idea of futures, and thus why I was asking for info on the matter.


I've seen this approach to buying/funding cars described in a couple of different ways over the years. Random thoughts:


Depending on your income, you may owe AMT instead of the taxes from the regular code.  Even if you don't do that, you may hit the place where you have to at least check if you owe AMT. As you probably know, AMT was established early on to catch the wealthiest of tax payers who were able to use various loop holes in the code to pay much less tax than one would expect.  Over time the limits on AMT have not risen with the rising wage gap, and AMT catches an increasing number of tax payers each year.  If the limit is not raised at all for 2010 then it will catch even more people this year.   AMT has worked it's way into the upper-middle class fairly solidly, especially if you exercise stock options whose strike price is significantly different than the current sale price.


You should fund the 401(k) and get the 4% matching because it's free money. When you leave the US, patience is a virtue to get the money penalty-free: Or you can take the 10% penalty and take out the money all at once. You'll still owe income tax in either case, something to keep in mind if an early withdrawal would put you into a higher tax bracket. Also see this article: Can Foreigners Withdraw 401(k) Funds Early? Another thing to keep in mind is that you never know what might happen -- you could fall in love with the US (or someone in the US, [smiley face]), apply for residency, decide to stay a long time, and that 401(k) with the 4% matching might turn out to have been a very nice thing when you retire.


There are two common filings under the bankruptcy code. Chapter 11 provides for the company to be reorganized and prevents the creditors from suing for their debts for a period. Hopefully the company becomes profitable and can pay the creditors later, possibly negotiating a reduction in debt, or an exchange of stock for debt. Chapter 7 is liquidation, in which the company is sold with the proceeds going to the creditors. (I may have some of this wrong, as I am just writing this off the top of my head.)


Social contract is what makes a society work.  I don't see how it is rooted in theft.  If an individual doesn't want to honor it, I suppose the proper thing to do is to leave and find a place that better suits them.  One story I've read of people renouncing their US citizenship was about expatriates who can't afford to pay US taxes on top of local taxes.  I can empathize with a situation like that.  At least they're not trying to have it both ways by not paying taxes and remain US citizens.


Okay let's try this a different way. Completely forget about what the bond is with. Here is how a bond works:   * You get paid interest for holding the bond (5% interest means a coupon of $50 assuming one coupon a year)    * At the end of the bond term (maturity) you get paid $1000.     In your scenario, you get paid the $50 as an interest payment and the $1000 final payment.    If you only had the bond for one year, your total payment will be $1050.     Try drawing a timeline to visualise it a bit better


"An international Outlook (in this case Sweden in European Union). According to laws and regulations large cash transactions are considered conspicuous. The law makers might have reasoned is that cash transactions can be used in as example: - financing terrorism - avoiding taxes - buying or selling illegal goods such as drugs or stolen items - general illegal transactions such as paying bribes Starting there, all banks (at least in Europe) are required to report all suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities (in Sweden it is Finanspolisen, roughly the Financial Police). This is regardless of how the transactions are performed, in cash or otherwise. In order to monitor this all banks in Sweden are required to ""know the customers"", as example where does money come from and go to in general. In addition special software monitors all transactions and flags suspicious patterns for further investigation and possibly notification of the police. So, at least in Sweden: there is no need to get permission from the FBI to withdraw cash. You will however be required to describe the usage of the Money and your description will be kept and possibly sent to the Financial police. The purpose is not to hinder legitimate transactions, but to Catch illegal activities."


The thing you get wrong is that you think the LLC doesn't pay taxes on gains when it sells assets.  It does. In fact, in many countries LLC are considered separate entities for tax properties and you have double taxation - the LLC pays its own taxes, and then when you withdraw the money from the LLC to your own account (i.e.: take dividends) - you pay income tax on the withdrawal again. Corporate entities usually do not have preferential tax treatment for investments. In the US, LLC is a pass-though entity (unless explicitly chosen to be taxed as a corporation, and then the above scenario happens). Pass-through entities (LLCs and partnerships) don't pay taxes, but instead report the gains to the owners, which then pay taxes as if the transaction was their personal one. So if you're in the US - investing under LLC would have no effect whatsoever on your taxes, or adverse effect if you chose to treat it as a corporation. In any case, investing in stocks is not a deductible expense, and as such doesn't reduce profits.


"The first thing you should visit a store that has a good selection. If there are only one or two choices, how can you possibly know you've bought the right one? If you want to Soccer ball for kids, then you can visit our online store ""Best Soccer Balls"". We have a wide selection of the best soccer balls. It also helps if the store has knowledgeable salespeople, so it might be a good idea to ask around."


I'm pretty sure it's merchant-dependent.  If a credit card transaction doesn't go through, PayPal will automatically charge your bank account.  Some merchants may want that extra insurance.


Why do all this work yourself? Pay a modest price to have a professional do this for you. Look at the tickers PUTX, PUTW.


That is kinda my point. I can also secure my machine 100%, but it makes me unhappy to do so. But in fact the human component is still a large weak spot, for any network. So no matter how secure you make it, as long as you have humans interacting, you have vulnerabilities. And making your employees unhappy seems like a poor way to deal with that.


The US spends more on its military than the next 8 countries combined. This level of expenditure is insane and completely unnecessary. Mostly as a result of the relevant businesses buying off politicians.   Europe will never spend such amounts because it's just stupid to do so


It is a good opportunity for those people who want  to spend the vacation and make rememberable events, You should find the good rated great escapist team inside escape rooms. We have the fabulous event which is unforgetable services. It is good pleasure things for us that we get the chance to serve you. Escape rooms diversions as in Corporate team building escape rooms fort Lauderdale plan to test your critical thinking and analyst aptitudes. If you want to come here with your family, you can bring your family without hesitation. We provide the full security and corporate with our customers. There is no more place so beautiful and attractive.


One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.


A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account.  If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it.


Sure:  http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/YourMoney/story?id=129651 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ cbo.gov and a dozen other sources are just one short google search away.  That's true. Then I guess we should start charging fees for their use instead of taxes for police and courts. Fine by me.  Mandatory public healthcare can't be financed without introducing excessively progressive tax rates for a more wealthy minority. We agree on the subsidies though.


"I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement.  In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time.   When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition.  While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property.  Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies.  If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer.  Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this.  If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should.  Emma can rent from Clayton.  That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero.  If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date.  If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway.  Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat.  Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost.  Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market.  In that case, both parties lose.   So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly.  There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play ""house"" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried."


I have shoes in 10, 10.5, and 11 in my closet right now.   I think sizing between the same _types_ of shoes tends to be reasonably consistent (ex trainers from Nike and Adidas, though I did have an issue with that recently)- but you'll be different comparing say, boots to dress shoes to those trainers.   FWIW I generally tend to size down 0.5-1 for boots depending on their last, actual size for dress shoes, and up half a size for athletics.


"Increase in A/R in balance sheet includes the A/R of acquired businesses. Change in A/R in cash flow statement might say ""excluding effects of business acquisitions""."


No. There is no good option. They can't release the whales cause they will die and the can't do the shows because people will be upset. Now I guess the whales get to sit in a tank until they die with little to no interaction from people.


>Cost him? The juicing was what earned him the money in the first place.  *citation needed*  The only evidence of juicing to come out after years and years of tests showing up clean was Armstrong getting tired of arguing with critics and constantly having to defend himself. **This** is the only evidence of juicing on his part.


"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the ""earnings"". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year."


(Sourced from my rectum.)  A good salesman doesn't just sell software, they sell themselves, more specifically, they sell themselves to the company.  They will sell the company they are with that they are worth it, and that they should be compensated appropriately.  If the programmers had the same savvy in the same nature, odds are they wouldn't be making the program, but, the company would likely note their ability to sell themselves, and prefer them on the sales team.  Sure, without the programmers, they wouldn't have as much to sell, but, the right salesman would be able to pull in more profit for the company than having the right product would.


That actually sheds some useful light on the whole matter. As long as $client gets the paperwork in order, all will likely be well.   Had a discussion with $client today about their recurring practices, just to establish a baseline for their understanding of the same. Not because I know there is or is not a concern, but because their business is risk management and that is a risk worth managing. Or at least worth understanding the scope of the risk and potential exposure.


Dividends yield and yield history are often neglected, but are very important factors that you should consider when looking at a stock for long-term investment. The more conservative portion of my portfolio is loaded up with dividend paying stocks/MLPs like that are yielding 6-11% income. In an environment when deposit and bond yields are so poor, they are a great way to earn reasonably safe income.


What a coincidence! This was an exam question for my business law class.  The main reason why individuals are not allowed to deduct expenses is because income tax revenue would be zero.  The reason being, if an individual is allowed to deduct expenses he/she would spend 100% of their income and deduct it all on their tax returns, which would mean he/she would pay virtually no income tax. This is bad for the gov't and the economy.  It's bad for the gov't because they loose tax revenue, and it's bad for the economy because people would not have any savings for tough times, which can send the economy into a negative spiral.


In the world of searching a proper taxi service around Australia, Limo Rental and Limousine Hire is a unique posture to have sustain an identity and enjoy the proper ride. A certain web portal is available to sort people's problems and provide them high classified Rental.


I like Trader Joe's, but I first noticed these aspects of the business model in about 1984. Some of what they sell is good, some is bad, and all of it is put in the most romantically humble packaging. Service is excellent.  If only Saab understood the affluent pseudo-hippie market as well as TJ's does.  Boy, some of the prepared meals they sell really suck. Those burritos: gack! And the produce has the power to turn you off food entirely, if you catch them on a bad streak - for a while, the nuts were virtually inedible.Still, the cheddar popcorn is more addictive than heroin.


So what? Everybody knows that labor statistics go well beyond a single metric (funny how the article ends up focusing only on one). The US Bureau of Labor statistics already provides different measurements of unemployment.  The 23.3% figure comes from shadowstats, which is well know to be entirely bullshit.


There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds.  Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice.  Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions.


This page and this page on the ATO website provide some information on tax rates. They're rather lengthy and there's a few exceptions, but essentially, your entire foreign income, even if held overseas, is taxable. Australians are taxed worldwide.


>  I think it's a caste thing.   That sounds like upward mobility... and market clearing (people finding their true worth in the marketplace)... the opposite of a caste thing, surely? Or maybe I as a European just don't understand the caste system.


"So, um... **what's the big fucking deal?**  He works for the Port Authority, so any of you getting your panties in a bunch because you think ""OUR TAX DOLLARZ"" are going to pay his salary are just wrong.  He works 80 hours a week, so he's basically got two $110k jobs.  And he works in New York City, where $100k a year doesn't really even go that far unless you live in the ghetto and commute in every day.  Really not sure what there is to be outraged about in this report.  Clearly a lot of people here are just broke and jealous."


this is exactly why we need to enact legislation that counters that mentality.   if McDonald's had to pay that $15/hr for each employee fired for automation into a fund for works who are unemployed due to automation i think they might reconsider.


"You are not wrong: in 6 years on reddit, this is the biggest circlejerk I've witnessed, other than Sagan.  It's really sad that you're getting downvoted, because it would be nice to see a back-and-forth discussion of the future of the company.  I happen to think that Tesla is doing something admirable, but, yes, they're doing it with substantial subsidies, and they're simply not providing an affordable product. They're doing the right thing, but they're not working miracles: they're producing a low-volume niche product that will help how people think of cars.  This reminds me of a discussion of Leica lenses, in which somebody smarter than I am simply wrote: ""Any number of lens manufactures can produce a superlative 50mm f/2 lens for $1500.""  Come on, folks. Elon Musk is not working miracles. He's just doing the right thing. Tesla is not some genius-ubermensch-paradigm-exploding supercompany."


Um, where did I say the ends justifies the means?  What I am saying, for the tenth time now, is that these animals are born, raised and killed to be our food.  Period.  Thats it.  What does it matter if he is mean to a turkey, that is going to be eaten in a few weeks?  Its that simple.  Its our food.    What, am I not supposed to be rough with my carrots as I pull them out of the ground?  They are living, they are food, they are under the same circumstances as the turkey is.    Again, how you can eat turkey, then complain how the turkey is raised, is amazing to me.  More over, spend the energy worrying about how our food is raised on something that effects everyone, such as education or health care, both of which deserve more of our attention than a turkey, raised to be slaughtered.  Again, you are putting words into my mouth and changing the situation to meet your argument.  We are not talking about dogs in Korea, or Gorilla poaching, or gall-bladder draining.  We are talking about a turkey, that is raised to be killed.  No where did I mention ends justifying the means or anything along those lines.


First, you can never trust what USPS says about the status of your package. I have had tracking numbers that said they were pending receipt of the package up to and including the day I received the package myself. It's a nice feature, but nothing to rely on.  Second, she cancelled the order after not receiving it in 6 days?? I've shipped things New York to California (or vice versa) that took 10 business days to arrive before. A few times because of bad weather in between, and several times because they attempted delivery and I was not available, or because the shipper wasn't able to get it to the post office 3 or 4 days later than they said they would when they filled out the label. Cancelling your order after 6 days is jumping the gun a bit.  I don't blame the company for initially saying they couldn't refund her purchase since their records showed it was fulfilled. I WANT to jump on the bandwagon disliking the company for their response, but let's be honest here - ars technica did not reproduce her communications to the company verbatim like they did the company's messages to her. She could have written much more crazy that would make the company's response seem tame and level headed in comparison.  Trying to collect the $250 is ridiculous, you're allowed to have an opinion about a company and espouse that to others. But let's not grab our pitchforks over how horrible this company was to treat this lady this way for not getting her iPhone case to her in 6 days.


The economic effect of a CFD from your point of view is very close to the effect of owning the stock. If the stock goes up, you make money. If it goes down you lose money. If it pays a dividend, you get that dividend. You'll typically pay commission for buying and selling the CFDs in a similar way to the commission on stock purchases, though one of the advertised advantages of CFDs is that the commission will be lower. They also often have tax advantages, for example in the UK you don't have to pay stamp duty on CFDs. In theory you are exposed to credit risk on the CFD issuer, which you aren't with the real stocks: if the issuer goes bankrupt, you may lose any money you have invested regardless of how well the stock has performed. It's certainly similar to a bet, but not much more so than investing directly in the stock. In practice the issuer of the CFDs is likely to hedge its own exposure by actually buying the underlying stocks directly, but they can aggregate across lots of contracts and they would tolerate some unhedged exposure to the stock, so they can cut down on the transaction fees. You also won't get the same voting rights as the underlying stock would grant you.


If you would like to use linux I suggest you to use KMyMoney http://kmymoney2.sourceforge.net/ It is based on gnucash but it is easier to use IMO


The simple answer should be easy to find: Call your local place, inquire about the price, and then divide that cost by the cost of shaving supplies per year (don't forget to account for your time!) to get the number of years it would have to last to reach the break-even point. Some have indicated that laser hair removal does not last forever; if it does not last at least as long as the break-even point, then it is not more economical. If it does, then it is.  This is only one data point in the decision, but it should be fairly straightforward to calculate. Like all grooming services, I expect there is a range of prices, so you may want to call more than one location.


You write loaded statements. Force is probably gunna be the only way. Current banking structure is complete fuckery. Too big to fall, consequence free institutions and you speak of them as if they will treat, you or anyone fairly.


The Truths about BlueHost Reviews in addition to Discounts When analyzing BlueHost reviews as well as price cuts, one can discover value-for-money hosting services. For those that have services and desire complete functionality with a reasonable expense, BlueHost is the complete. It supplies limitless disk storage area, drag as well as decrease site professional, worldwide domain support, cPanel control, FTP accessibility and also a whole lot a lot more.


How can I maximize profits? How much money do I need to invest in tax liens? The fact that you are asking this questions means you are not ready for such investments. These are very risk and time consuming investments. Investopedia has a good article on this.


You are talking to the wrong people.  Debt collectors are not intimidated by anything you say. Call and tell them that, before you pay the debt, they need to get the paperwork from the company to verify that you actually owe them the money and the amount.  You need copies of the original paperwork. This alone may resolve the issue.  If not, then call the client company and explain that THEIR debt collection agency is talking to the wrong person.  Explain why you are not that person. It may be necessary to tell them that your lawyer advised you that they will be personally held responsible for any damages that you may incur from this debt collector's actions.  The client is the one who needs to be intimidated.


"You can accept almost anything mutually agreeable to you and the other party as payment. That's the definition of ""barter"". If you agree to trade manufactured goods for livestock, as long as both parties agree on the terms, I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit it. I hedged with ""almost"" because of course you can't accept something that is explicitly illegal. Like you can't say you'll accept cocaine as payment. Less obviously, there are laws regulating the sale of guns, nuclear fuel, agricultural products, etc. You'd still have to pay taxes, and it can get complicated to determine the taxable value of the transaction. Sorry, but you can't avoid taxes by getting your income in something other than cash."


"Awesome news! Securing one for this last year will really help your case.  That way you can put the extracurricular stuff you've outlined above as well as the two internships.  Network like crazy. The sad reality is with such limited work opps, it's really more of a ""who do you know"", so I highly suggest connecting with alumni from your school and get feed back on what else you can do to start off on the right food in your career track. LinkedIn is a huge amazing tool and I recommend shelling out some $ for the premium (think you get pretty good discount as a student).  When I was looking for jobs recently, I'd literally send InMails to alumni that worked in the companies/fields I want to go into, and the responses were very positive.  Shamelessly ask for referrals when it comes time to apply, or at least ask questions about culture so you can ace that part of the interview.               We didn't mean to knock those down, it's just that the job market these days really wants to see legit experience and preferably for a steady amount of time (so 1 year carries more weight than 1 summer)"


"You are opening up a large can of worms with how you are doing this.  In very positive years, you'll have taxes based on your income, potential Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), etc. Each of the family members may be in a lower bracket, perhaps even needing to pay zero on capital gains.  Even if you are 100% honest, if you are subject to a lawsuit, these funds are all in your name, and you'd be in a tough situation explaining to a court that these assets aren't ""really"" yours, but belong to family.  And last, the movement of large chunks of money needs to be accounted for, and can easily run afoul of gifting rules.  As mhoran stated, a Power of Attorney (POA) avoids this. When my father-in-law passed, I took over my mother-in-law's finances, via POA. I sign in to my brokerage account, and her accounts are there. I can trade, deal with her Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) each year, and issue checks to her long term care facility. It's all under her social security number - our money isn't intermingled."


">The right answer is probably a mixture of two.  Agreed 100%. We need a smart approch to spending and cutting spending on deadweight projects that don't help the economy. Many Congressmen from both parties have been spending on crap to get reelected for many years and clearly aren't getting much done with it. My dad is an administrator in state government and gets so fed up with the useless ""pork"" spending that we at the state and national level. Fuck these guys looking good to their constiuents and get some real bang for the buck. That is the only way we will get through this."


"to answer the question in the title of your post...  + convince your fellow Euro nations to accept austerity,  + convince them to elect responsible governments,  + demand transparency from your leaders, and...  + make sure this never ever happens again.   Alternatively, build a time machine and go back in time to either...  + immigrate to another part of the world,  + sabotage the corruption of the PIGS nations,  + prevent the formation of a shared currency, or finally,  + do something to ensure Germany didn't lose WWII, as letting them be in charge of everybody's money would appear to be a sound financial decision.   That is how you negate the impact of the Euro collapsing.  Now, on to the details of your question...  I believe your initial assessment is correct. If one accountable nation were responsible for the solvency of its currency, it could be trusted indefinitely. As is the case with the Euro, as no one country is directly responsible for it, the less responsible governments are in a race to exploit it as much as possible.  Remember, ""Spain no es Zimbabwe!""  I think Euro zone nations will be lucky if all that comes of this is the fall of the Euro. Wars between nations have been fought over less significant developments than what Greece, Italy and Spain have done to the financial stability of their Euro zone counterparts.  Foreign gold trusts, possession of physical precious metals and precious metal ETFs (GLD is one stock ticker of such a fund, although I would look to a similar fund issued by a company with better physical gold audits) can hedge your currency risk. Check with local laws regarding physical possession of gold. In the USA when we left the gold standard for our currency, the government confiscated all privately owned precious metals and raided customer bank security boxes. Assess your own risk of that sort of thing happening."


"I am very skeptical of the claims that self-driving vehicles will change behaviors. I am on-board with them replacing drivers in taxi/Uber, buses and freight. I don't see them changing the convenience or ""pride of ownership"" for individuals at all. Especially in mid-sized and small cities and rural areas.  We can already see this with things like city bikes. They haven't reduced the rate of ownership for bicycles at all. People want their own stuff. That won't change just because a car can drive itself."


I would like to open a bra shop, since where I live we have Victoria's Secret and nothing else.  I have a name and logo thought out, and always keep an eye out for reasonable locations.  I've talked myself out of moving forward with it, because it seems any time there's talk of a store fancier than a Walmart/Dollar store coming to town, everyone gets on about it being a working class/blue collar town, and how no one can afford x/y/z.  Good bras aren't cheap.  I'd also need to hire staff, because I'm not keen on being that close to people.  I've daydreamed about bars and restaurants, with questionable, kitschy themes.


These 'issues' don't exclusively relate to the 'sharing economy', the challenge of uncertainty would exist for any small business / independent contractor. It's not as if people didn't work as independent contractors in these industries before, it's just now the industries are being enhanced and overhead lowered, from technology.  For example:  Uber driver vs Medallion [Leasing] Taxi Driver  AirBNB landlord vs Apartment landlord, vacation rental landlord, or traditional bed & breakfast owner.  PostMates messenger vs traditional bike messenger


Workers have the ability to do this anytime they wish - by pooling their capital and buying or creating a company.  Wall St. is not the only way to do this, though it's usually the most efficient way.  What this really is is a thinly veiled defense of Syndecalism (a fav of that chimp Chomsky's)  which, in turn, is a variant of Marxism.  What's important about these degenerate worldviews is that they want the workers to own the means of production *without* having to pony up their own capital.  It's all very sophisticated, you see and it worked out really well in China, the USSR, Cuba, Mongolia, and host of other socialist workers' paradises ...


Until there is a significant price pressure, it’s always going to be cost prohibitive to build high in earthquake prone zones.  Those mitigation measures don’t come cheap at all.  As for the skyline, eh, that’s subjective. If the local culture values a “small town” or even bucolic feel, keeping buildings below tree lines isn’t regressive at all.


"Firstly, ""the government"" is the people. So should the Government be involved in Fire and Police departments, military services, roads/highways, water/sewer, the electrical grid, air transportation, trains, the National Parks, schools, libraries, state colleges, zoning and municipal bylaws? The government exists to serve the people's interests and not those of profiteering business lobbyists."


From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most   recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend,   multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per   year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter.


If you are looking for quality work on your basement or crawl space and you live in the Chicago Land area then you need to check out Concrete Crawlspaces Corp.  These guys are leading the way in their industry and they do great work.


The deal is expected to close sometime in Q4. The fluctuation though the day is just noise. The price will reflect a discount to the full takeover value, reflecting the risk of the deal falling through.  Cashless exercise is a good idea if you don't wish to own any QVC shares.


3:44 PM EDT happens when this comment is 4 hours and 23 minutes old.  You can find the live countdown here: https://countle.com/PIo16101q  ---  I'm a bot, if you want to send feedback, please comment below or send a PM.


People have to write that program.. and someone has to upkeep the program and make it interact with an os that is changing not to mention people have to actually use the program also there is always better and more complex programs to write i wouldnt be suprised if the jobs lost through software automation are replaced by programmers and technicians


great example of levered tracking error is any 2x/3x VIX etf. during periods of high volatility (like last week) you will be able to realize much higher returns on the underlying index as the levered and inverse ETFs are unable to replicate their intended performance using market securities.  it is not uncommon to see the VIX up ~30% with levered ETFs only netting ~10-12% as opposed to the intended 60 or 90%, for example


That is absolute rubbish.  Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so.  I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand.  The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc.  If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors.  In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year.  Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword.  Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return.  Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market.  As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund.  My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify.  If you do these things, congrats.  YOU ARE Warren Buffet.


"Not sure why CAGR is a problem for both directions. I used to be a physicist, and, when I taught classes in graduate school, students always wanted to use the terms ""accelerate"" and ""decelerate"" to describe ""speeding up"" and ""slowing down"". But acceleration is just a vector with magnitude and direction. There's nothing special about slowing down that it needs a special name. It's just acceleration in a direction opposite to the direction of motion. I think the same thing applies here. There's nothing special about negative growth rates that they need a special name. Just stick a minus sign in front of the number and you convey the required information."


Between now and October, your $3,000 will earn $30 in your savings account. If you are late on a payment for your 0% loan, your interest rate will skyrocket.  In my opinion, the risk is just not worth the tiny gain you are trying to achieve in the savings account. If it was me, I would pay off the loan today. A few more thoughts: There is a reason that businesses offer 0% consumer loans.  They are designed to trick you into thinking that you are getting a better deal than you are.  Businesses don't lose money on these loans.  The price of the loan is built into the cost of the purchase, whether you are buying expensive furniture, or a car.  Typically with a car, you forfeit a rebate by taking the 0% loan, essentially paying all the interest up-front.  Now that you have the loan, you might be ahead a few dollars by waiting to pay it off, but only because you've already paid the interest.  Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can come out ahead by buying things at 0%.  It's really not free money. In the comments, @JoeTaxpayer mentioned that fear of mistakes can lead to missed rewards.  I understand that; however, these 0% loans are full of small print designed to trip you up.  A single mistake can negate years and years of these small gains.  You don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish.


What the hell are you talking about?  The job requires some skills and the cost of living is really high in New York.  They should be able to live off of a full time job - plain and simple.  To put things in perspective I made 40k a few years back when I lived in Michigan - when looking at New York to keep my same standard of living I would of had to make 95k+ and would of had to give up my car.


Gosh, I don't know, maybe emergencies or unforeseen expenses like a car repair or maybe even just discretionary $ where you can buy new eyeglasses/frames or, get the fuck outta here, this is going to blow your mind, be impulsive and get on a plane and book a hotel for  3 or 4 days?  Let me guess, your answer to all that is charge it! And since you don't keep $1k in savings pay the minimum balance.  Also:  * https://meetbeam.com/ * https://www.ally.com/bank/savings-account-rates/ * https://www.synchronybank.com/banking/high-yield-savings/


Tbonds are on nobody's books when they are bought back.  Feds or Treasury department credits your account plus any interests when you sell the bonds back to them.  The Tbonds are then destroyed.  The govt is forever solvent when paying Tbonds.  They just click a few buttons and bam!! A check is written to you or your checking account is increased for turning in the matured bonds.


If you decide you need the extra money, you can always go refinance and get more cash out.  At the end of the day, though, if you pay off your house sooner you can invest more of your income sooner; that's just a matter of discipline.


The internet lends itself to the formation of tribes. We can all easily surround ourselves in echo chambers of like-minded people. It's incredibly dangerous.   When we had nothing but television, our tribes were much closer to centrist beliefs. No we have fringe movements that really don't know they're fringe because they're all smoking the same ideology.  Take the example of the wingnut  Berkely leftists that shut down Richard Dawkins lecture. (Seriously. Richard Dawkins?) They honestly believe they're correct, and the Internet helps them feel comfortable in that belief no matter how totally insane it is.  This is only going to get worse. More violent. More extreme. And eventually more dangerous and radicalized.  Fake news is really just the very tip of the iceberg. Right here on Reddit are thousands of groups who share utterly fringe ideologies and think they're widely shared.


This is not about finding IT staff, this is about finding STEM talent (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).   These are not easy jobs to fill, trying to convince someone with 10+ years experience to move across the country? Not that easy. Even if you can get a college graduate and train him up, in todays workforce he's unlikely to stick around for 10 years and you need to get experienced staff in the meantime from somewhere - foreign workers are the only sensible solution.  The stupid solution is to offer the US citizen with 10 years experience twice what he's worth to get him to move - this won't last long term, tech companies are all competing for the same talent so if salaries go up, all US employees will jump ship for higher salaries, H-1B salaries go up soon after to stay at 'market rates', other areas of the US raise salaries so they don't lose their employees - in the end the problem hasn't gone away and you've just driven inflation up like crazy and increased the inequality between areas of the US.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-adp-idUSKBN18S529?il=0) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast the ADP National Employment Report would show a gain of 185,000 jobs, with estimates ranging from 155,000 to 240,000.  > Zandi said with the U.S. economy growing at about a 2 percent rate, job creation of about 200,000 per month is much greater than labor force growth, which will make the labor market even tighter.  > The ADP figures come ahead of the U.S. Labor Department&#039;s more comprehensive non-farm payrolls report on Friday, which includes both public and private-sector employment.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6etbzy/us_companies_add_253000_jobs_in_may_way_way_above/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~134658 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **report**^#1 **labor**^#2 **month**^#3 **Employment**^#4 **payroll**^#5"


They would be making a huge assumption. Like when they thought people would buy Z71 trucks that weren't four wheel drive. And guess what! They were right.   They're only going to be making cars right now I'd almost guarantee. Maybe some light SUV's and maybe a large SUV but only as an option along with combustion engines continuing. EV's are definitely being aimed at urban commuters and are best used for that purpose right now.   But before long they will be making $$$ selling all that torque to workers/enthusiasts.


If you've got the money to pay off your credit cards, do it. Today, if possible. There is no need to pay another penny of interest to them.  They may or may not cancel your cards. That is up to them. We can't know what will trigger an individual bank to cancel your card. The answers you got on your other question offer some speculation on why some banks might cancel, but this is not something banks reveal. Anything you do on your own to try to keep the cards open is just a guess, and may or may not succeed.  But ask yourself: why do you want to keep these cards?  Is it for the convenience of the card? I agree that credit cards (paid in full monthly) are convenient, but when they start costing you money, they aren't worth it anymore, in my opinion. Debit cards have most of the same conveniences of credit cards, and are free.  If it is for emergencies, I recommend instead building up an emergency cash fund. That way, if an emergency arises, you won't be forced to borrow money at high credit card interest rates.  If the reason you want to hang on to the credit card is so you can spend more than you have, then you will find yourself in the same situation again. If I were you, I would pay off the cards ASAP. If the banks cancel your cards, just switch to a debit card and be thankful that you are no longer continuously leaking money to the banks.


That's not really true. Rather the US still has a kind of labor that is none existent in e.g Scandinavia or very small. The jobs of some guy packing your groceries in the store or someone shining your shoes for a dollar, those services do not exist in Sweden.


"I think that technology has had a huge impact on the salary aspect of ""unpaid weekend work"". It's so easy to fire off an e-mail in between links while fucking off on Reddit and watching T.V., that I have no problem ""working on the weekend"". I haven't heard of many jobs in the U.S. that don't compensate for every hour that you are on premise, however, and that would be a very disturbing trend to see emerging."


For what it's worth, 20 years ago I had a huge box of sheet-feed checks (3 or 4 per sheet) - After the divorce I kept the account, then ran the remaining checks through a Word doc that tidily blacked out the ex's name.  Never had a hitch, glitch, or rejected check.


"To be in the WH is not a constitutional right, its a privilege. Certain media platforms act like they are an all knowing press ""God"", unaware of their falling popularity. Two more red seats were picked up tonight. Going against Trump usually means you will lose. They normalize violence, spread Russian conspiracy theories, and gave Trump a 1% chance of winning election night. They are losers and I look forward to the media revolution."


"Judging from your comments, you seem to be confused about the way banking works.  Banks can only lend out money that they actually have: whether from deposits or investors or loans taken from other banks/government entities.  The rules on how this works varies from country to country, but the principle is always the same.  There is no magic money. Let's imagine a closed system.  There's only one town, and that town only has one bank.  There are 100 people total in town, and each has $10,000.  Everyone deposits all of their money in the bank. The bank now has $1,000,000 in total deposits.  You take a loan for $100,000 and buy a house.  The bank now has $900,000.  You make your payments of $965 per month: $833 of interest and $132 toward principal.  In this ideal world, the bank has no costs associated with doing business.  After one month, the bank has $1,000,000 in deposits, $900,965 in cash on hand, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit (from interest). Now here's the confusing part.  You bought a house from someone.  That person also lives in town.  He takes the $100,000 you gave him and... deposits it in the bank.  The bank now has $1,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. Assume 10 more people buy houses at $100,000 each, taking loans for that whole amount (for the same terms you did).  Assume those sellers then deposit the money back in the bank.  The bank now has $2,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $1,099,868 in loans, and $833 in profit.  The bank is taking in $10,615 per month ($965 x 11) in loan payments, making profit of $9,163 ($833 x 11) per month from interest. This process of loans and deposits and payments can go on forever without any outside influence.  This is the primary way money is created.  It's like printing money without the paper. Of course, we're not in a closed system.  Banks are limited in endlessly creating money, primarily by two things: Reserve Requirements are set by government agencies.  They might say banks can lend until their cash on hand (or liquid equivalent) is, at minimum, 35% of total deposits.  So a bank with $1,000,000 in deposits would have to keep $350,000 in cash at any given time. Capital Requirements work largely the same way.  It's more the bank saying, ""What happens if a bunch of people want their deposits back?""  They plan a reasonable amount of cash to have on hand for that scenario."


Precise in-store merchandising is critical to the success of your store or product. Gaps in execution can lead to wasted time, disorganization, a poor customer   experience, and lost sales. FreshSource specializes in the placement and line expansion of retail food products in supermarkets throughout the United States (Safeway,   Savemart, The Nugget, Raleys, etc, etc, etc). We represent Taylor Farms, Foxy, Green Giant and dozens of successful brands. if you need in store merchandising and   retail sales, look no further than FreshSource.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www2.gsu.edu/~ecobth/HMW_PuzzlingMultJobHolding_SEJ_2017.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Just as the United States displays substantial differences in MJH across states and regions, Zangelidis finds large variation in MJH rates across countries in the EU, ranging from less than 1 to 9%.6 Livanos and Zangelidis document large differences in MJH rates across regions of Greece with rural areas with large primary sectors having the highest rates, likely due to low labor demand and weak primary 6 Zangelidis also finds that mean weekly hours on the second job average 12.9 hours across the continent, with little variation across countries.  > A quick glance at state rates of MJH show Minnesota with among the highest MJH rates, while New York has a relatively low rate MJH rate as compared to other northern states.  > Our approach is to examine the extent to which controlling for a variety of detailed worker, job, and city attributes can account for differences across labor markets in MJH. To describe the magnitude of MSA differences in MJH, we calculate the mean absolute deviation of MJH across our 259 labor markets based on estimates from increasingly dense individual worker OLS MJH equations using the 1995-2014 urban sample.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6l4ana/the_puzzling_pattern_of_multiple_job_holding/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~158577 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **MJH**^#1 **Job**^#2 **rate**^#3 **work**^#4 **Labor**^#5"


"This is hysterical. Trickle down economics once again!  ""Hey guys, if we make them not be able to move to new firms in the state, they'll stay forever and we'll make money!!""  More like your educated students will go to school out of state to avoid this, and people will move states altogether for better paying jobs and lifestyle.  It's like Idaho is trying to get their citizens to leave Idaho. It's Idaho. They need to every incentive to keep citizens there."


Yeah, seriously. Cheating your customers has always been part of the core business of the major banks. How would they maintain their high CEO compensation without that extra money? They need to be competitive in executive level compensation to attract the kind of candidates that will keep their bank pulling in the money needed to pay themselves.


Why would you trade a lower interest rate over a higher one?  I wouldn't use the mortgage to pay off the car.  Also, you should have loan/lease payoff on your auto insurance, which if the car is totaled means your loan would be paid by insurance.  I don't think you'd be able to take advantage of that if your car payments become one with the mortgage.  Finally not all mortgage interest may be deductible. Also, I can't think of any way you'd be able to use the car loan to pay off the mortgage.  You wouldn't be able to borrow more than the car is worth, and for a new car it loses quite a bit of value immediately.


I was thinking down the road about what may happen as some countries pile on debt and others are more responsible. I've spent a lot of time oversea and talented people in the capital cities are really mobile these days.  Right now there's a small brain drain to the benefit of Switzerland which has some really innovative people moving there. What if a large country like Germany were to do on a larger scale? Educated workforce, innovative and if you overlook a really ugly period, a great history of innovation.   It seems they could bring in a lot of people from Japan and (increasingly) the US as they head slowly toward debt of 200% of GDP. Why would talented people who are highly mobile want to stay in a country where the debt will take 30 years to repay mostly on the back of the talented high earning people?


No matter how promising the gold market is, investing in gold bars still has risks. For this reason, before you buy gold bars, make sure you have carefully studied the ins and outs of this investment. Know where, when, why and how to buy gold bar assets. Know the common pitfalls of investing in gold bars and do all that you can to avoid them.


"If an offer ""is only valid right now"" and ""if you don't act immediately, it will expire"" that is almost always a scam."


littleadv's answer gives a concise summary of the system as it stands now, but much more changed than just the portion of the mandatory contribution that was diverted to the private plan. In broad terms, the balances of your accounts and your future benefit won't change. It's only the source of these benefits that's changing. The Bloomberg article describes the changes this way: The state will take over the amount of bonds that pension funds held as of end of Sept. 3 and turn them into pension liabilities in the state-run social security system... The state will assume control of 51.5 percent of pension-fund assets, including bonds guaranteed by the government and “other non-stock assets” After the change, Polish workers that held bonds in the private portion of their retirement portfolios will instead have more payments from the state-run pension system. The balances of your retirement portfolio and your future benefits shouldn't change, but the reality may depend on how the state pension system is managed and any future changes the government implements. The effect this change will have on future benefits isn't clear, because the change may simply delay the problem of high levels of outstanding sovereign debt, not solve it. The government stated that because increasing numbers of workers invested their money in private pension funds, less money went into the government's fund, which forced them to issue sovereign debt in order to cover the shortfall in their current pension liabilities.  The government's recent cancellation of government bonds in the hands of private pensions will decrease their overall outstanding debt, but in exchange, the government is increasing its future pension liabilities. Years down the road, the government may find that they need to issue more sovereign debt to cover the increased pension liabilities they're taking on today. In other words, they may find themselves back in the same situation years down the road, and it's difficult to predict what changes they might make at that time.


I thought this paragraph had a very interesting insight:   >How can you avoid a customer revolt? > >First, know the revolt risk factors: If your customers are media- or >tech-savvy, then they can draw attention to your actions and >coordinate plans for revolt. And if your product has close substitutes, >your customers can abandon you at low cost.


"Hahaha! I'm in the same boat!  I have been hunting for a well priced WRX wagon for a while now and whenever I call some place asking about them (which has inevitably sold a day or two prior of course), they always respond with ""But maybe we can find something here for you!"" Of course you can.... if you guys carry a manual AWD Hatchback ""performance"" car?  It's typically followed by silence."


One of the reasons is also general distrust to the government. Another one is that there exist special interest group which profits from the complicated scheme, keep adding special cases, and has stronger financial situation that the opponents of such complex scheme. People do not trust government, or companies, to act in their best interests. So they (we) waste huge amount of time and/or money to comply with byzantine income laws. In 2004 Democratic presidential primary, presidential candidate Wes Clark (who beyond being 4-star general has also master degree in economics from Oxford, and taught economics in West point) proposed similar scheme: for people with income under 50K, employer would do all the (simple) paperwork, if desired, and get return.  In the noise of the campaign, idea how to simplify taxes for half of the population was lost.  Funny how the only candidate in recent history who was both professor of economics (not MBA, which is about business and profits) and distinguished military hero, could not get any traction in Democratic party.


I don't know enough about international tax law to dispute what you say, but I would think that if it were illegal we would be seeing more repurcussions for nearly EVERY multinational company using these practices. How can you prove that the licensing deal between bluehat9 llc and bluehat9 lp (cayman) is illegitimate?


I recommend fixing the roof. You're going to pay for it eventually, either as an emergency repair or a concession at sale.


> Because if you are against Trump, you must(!) be for Hillary or the DNC or both.  Nope and I think this attitude is the core problem with American politics.  > Even if it's true, it's what Trump wanted, what he would have done, what he has done, and the GOP did it, for him.  By that logic, **I** killed the TPP because it is what I wanted and would have done but the GOP did it for me.  > Tell me of something that Trump did that you do agree to or do not like.  How about one issue that shows both?  Medicare Part-D was created to help cover the costs of prescription drugs to seniors.  This is the biggest drug market but by law Medicare can not use it's leverage to negotiate better deals for prescription drugs.  This effectively gives pharmaceutical companies a guaranteed customer regardless of price for any drug that has no equivalent competition, which means artificially high drug prices.  During the campaign President Trump said he would battle prescription drug prices and after he was elected.  [He specifically said he wanted Medicare to use its purchasing powers to negotiate drug prices](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-11/drug-stocks-plunge-as-trump-threatens-to-force-price-bidding). I was delighted to hear this because, in my opinion, it is low-hanging fruit for someone who wants to use the free market to benefit consumers.  Fast forward to the end of January and President Trump meets with big pharmaceutical company execs to discuss drug prices.  [When he came out of the meeting, not only was he now opposed to using free-market principles in Medicare to save tax-payer money but he promised these companies tax breaks, a gift of even more money](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14453740/trump-medicare-prescription-drugs).  I like that President Trump claims to be a champion of the common man but in this case his actions are that of a champion of the rich at the expense of the common man.


That would make it pretty impossible for teenagers to get first jobs.  Whole swathes of the economy  would have to be shit down as they were no longer viable. Still more would have to drastically automate to remain viable.  Jobs and employment would suffer.   I'm not sure who that would help.


You sound like a shitty employee who has no idea he's a shitty employee. Unplug the extension cord, and don't let your crew members drive around in a dangerous fucking forklift without their seat belt. No wonder your boss is mental. I can't even imagine all the other stupid shit you do all day that your boss has to remind you not to do, and you just chalk it up to having a dick for a boss.


"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't ""revenue"" until the interest is calculated for each month and ""accrues"" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured ""signature loan"" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider ""stores of value"" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the ""broken window"" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely ""distressed"" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called ""toxic assets""; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a ""strategic default""; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales."


considering people like him just wrecked the economy pulling bullshit tactics like this and got bailed out with taxpayer money all over the world, yes he did get it from my grandmother.  besides if it doesn't affect you, does it make it right?  where will the line get drawn?


"I don't know personally, but a few minutes spent on Google seem to indicate that such transactions are considered cash advances. I found a thread at fatwallet which states that buying chips on a credit card is considered a cash advance. If you want to research it yourself, I used the following search terms: casino chips credit card cash advance.  You could probably narrow down the search results by using casino chips ""credit card"" ""cash advance"" as the query."


An understanding of the risks involved in coronary heart disease, and the adopting of appropriate safety actions may reduce the probability of a heart attack stroke. If the pain of cardiac arrest does attack, immediate treatment greatly enhances the probabilities of success. Modern treatments enable most cardiac arrest sufferers to continue a complete, effective lifestyle, although some changes in daily lifestyle style probably will be required.


[Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik und Fallzahlen Politisch Motivierte Kriminalität 2015 vorgestellt](http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/05/pks-und-pmk-2015.html)  Bottom line: without migrants considered, crime rates in Germany would have remained roughly static since 2014. But, in fact, the country recorded an extra 402,741 crimes committed by migrants.


The difference is you were left with a better future than the previous generation. This isn't true for millennials. We never had a chance to stop massive deficit spending, growing entitlements like medicare and social security than we will bear the burden of, and insane tuition increases that leave us in massive debt the day we graduate. Boomers reached into the future to get theirs and it looks like we will be the ones to suffer for it. Until there is a change in age demographics we will keep getting screwed.


If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.


Obama sold health insurance reform since before he was president. He made enormous effort on its behalf to see it actually pass. His popularity is a huge reason why it passed at all.   Of course it was votes in Congress that mattered, but your statement just doesn't hold water.