"logically, yes. legally, no. any reasonable definition of an ""investment"" must include some types of gambling and insurance. lottery tickets specifically are really crappy high risk/high return investment.  obviously most people try to avoid investments with a negative average expected future value, but from a purely semantic perspective anything with a potential future value is an investment. conversely, anyone with a gambling problem should not pretend they are not gambling when making focused investments in high volatility stock options. that said, the irs taxes gains and losses differently depending on whether they are classified as ""gambling"", or just ""crappy investing"". so you will not be able to deduct your gambling losses from your earned income (unlike investment losses which can be deducted up to 3k$ per year)."


"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged.  This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs.  This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs.  Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become ""upside-down,"" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income.  Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates.  Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank.  Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate.  In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to ""eat"" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset.  If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value."


Determining how much you should budget to spend on any area of your budget is one of those hard topics to find good information about.  Part of the problem is that everyone has different priorities and needs, and incomes and expenses vary greatly depending upon where you live and your career choices. The best thing you can do is track your spending for 1-3 months (you can use the envelope system if you need to, to track and control how much you spend on miscellaneous things like lunches, coffee, etc).  The precision is important, though you probably dont need to measure to the penny, however you should capture all the areas where you spend money (even if you later gather them into more broad areas). Split your spending into three broad areas, and try to limit the spending for each of those areas to the stated percentages (adjust for your preferences). You state net Income $2600, and you stated you have $1731 of known expenses, so you are spending another $870 on groceries, debt payments, restaurants, unplanned expenses, and emergencies. Essentials (50%,$1300) - rent, transportation, food, utilites Total $972+groceries (you probably spend $400-600 on groceries, so your essentials are higher by $100-300 than you can afford.  You should try to cut your electricity usage ($30-50), and you may be able to find cheaper car insurance (save $20). Financial Priorities (30%,$780) - savings, debt payments Total $376, nearly 15% before you pay for credit cards and savings.  Please focus on paying off your debts (credit cards, window loan, student loans).  You are spending almost 10% of your income on student loans, and you cannot afford much other debt. Lifestyle (20%,$520) Total $279, over 10% of your income on communications!  Please try to cut cellphone, and DirectTV costs, at least until you have reduced debt. Since you have internet, your wife could use a voip provider (vonage, ooma telo, etc) or get an ipod touch and use skype or similar, at least until you get out of debt. You might consider trying to find a way to earn extra money, until you have paid off either the loan for windows, your credit card debt, or one of your student loans.


"Do I need to pay taxes in India in this scenario? For India tax purposes, you would still qualify as ""Resident Indian"". As a resident Indian you have to pay taxes on Global income. It is not relevant whether you transfer the money back to India to keep in US. The income is generated and taxable.  Depending on your contract, presumably you are working as a free lance; certain expenses are allowed to be deducted from your income, for example if you purchase equipment to help carry out the work, stay / entertainment costs, etc. Consult a professional CA who should be able to guide you on what is eligible and what is not. The balance along with your other income will be taxed as per tax brackets. There is exemption for certain category of workers, mostly in entertainment industry where such income is not taxable. This does not apply to your case."


I will be messaging you on [**2021-09-15 15:26:20 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-09-15 15:26:20 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/708rox/alphabet_is_reportedly_considering_investing_1/dn1namt)  [**CLICK THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/708rox/alphabet_is_reportedly_considering_investing_1/dn1namt]%0A%0ARemindMe!  4 years) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.  ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! dn1nba9)  _____  |[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/) |-|-|-|-|-|-|


In India, transferring to other banks is available mostly on Internet banking. Some banks are offering Transferring option within the bank in ATMs. You need to visit the bank branch to register and activate this Transfer option for intra-bank accounts.


So I recently had to help with the installation of 16 televisions and two were defective.  One would not stay powered on for more than a few seconds and the other had a bent frame/bezel.  Have always had good experiences with Samsungs previously but in this instance the bad sets were Sams and the few LGs purchased were flawless (one had questionable CEC support but that was easily resolved with an external IR blinker).  These were all purchased at a local store and while it was inconvenient to make trips back to the retailer and get grilled about the issues, it was resolved more quickly than it ever could have been with an online retailer (and this store was price competitive with Amazon, cheers to you Fry's).


If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why.


"Just gonna go out and say right now that I'm running uBlock Origin, PrivacyBadger, and Noscript, and either one of them or some combo of them has resulted in me not seeing an ad for fuck-all in pretty much forever.  The only time I see ads on anything are when I have to play ""guess what to unblock"" and make a mistake. Frankly, there's pretty much jack shit out there that can hold my interest well enough to make me do that anymore.  Point being, it's far from impossible that OriginalSimba isn't seeing ads."


Your local board of health will have all the guidelines in a neat package for you. Call the country health department for food related business requirements.   Be prepared to fill out a shitload of forms, pay a shitload of fees, and wait a shitload of days for processing.   Also, good luck!


"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP).  That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself.  Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out.  As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends.  You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due.  All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that.  It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start.  It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant.  I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this.  Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?).  A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information.  I just searched on ""ETF DRIP"" to check it out."


Sure, people should express dissent, but thoughtful dissent. It only takes a second to think about why your example doesn't hold water. By posting an alarmist unthoughtful comment, you cheapen the discussion and add no value, only noise. It's good to speak up, but think beforehand.


It sounds like they want to enter you into a contract in which they are allowed to charge a flat fee for filing contingent on money saving results from a tax review service, paid in full. Like those who answered before I have no legal experience.  IRS Circular 230 defines the ethics for tax practitioners and the definition of a tax practitioner is broad enough (effective Aug 2011) to include those who are not EAs, CTRPs, CPAs as long as the person is compensated to prepare or assist in a substantial part of the preparation of a document pertaining to a taxpayer's liability for submission to the IRS. Section 10.27 Fees: (b)(2)A practitioner may charge a contingent  fee for services rendered in connection with the  Service’s examination of, or challenge to — (i) An original tax return Paragraph c defines what a contingent fee is basically a fee that depends on the specific result attained, in this case saving you money. In the section above  'Service's examination'  is an audit in plain speak.  If your 2013 return has not been submitted and you have not received a written notice for examination, H&R block can not charge a contingent fee, period. Furthermore, H&R Block cannot hold your tax documents, upon your request, they must return all original tax documents like W2s and 1099s ( they don't have to return the tax forms an employee prepared). Like I said above, I'm not a lawyer, unless I missed a key detail, I don't believe they were permitted to charge you a filing fee contingent on saving you money.


No, do not file a Form 1099.  You should not issue a form to yourself and you have no separate entity to issue one.  The reporting obligation is Form 1040, plus Schedule C. You may have followed a wrong turn somewhere in the TurboTax questionnaire or it may not have picked up the subtleties of your situation.  The business income is already yours. Some writers use vehicles to hold their royalties and pay themselves.  The questionnaire may have been trying to get at this issue or may have wrongly assumed it.  There are special rules around such entities, so getting an adviser is a good idea. For now, just file Schedule C, remember to deduct your costs (e.g. cost to print the books), and pay your self-employment tax.


A letter of credit is commonly used by importers who want to ensure that their product is shipped before paying the exporter. The exporter has a guarantee that the payment for the goods will be received once the shipment has been made.  It is used to resolve a Game Theory type situation. For example, you are buying a car from China for $40,000 USD. The exporter of the car asks for the money before he will ship the car, but if you give him the money, then he has no incentive (aside from legal pressures) to ship the car. Instead you sign a letter of credit for the transaction, which basically sends your payment to the exporters bank, but puts a hold on it until the exporter proves that he has shipped the car and proved that he has insured the shipment against damages.


India and the United States have a tax treaty, so if you pay tax in the United States, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TAX IN INDIA OR VICE VERSA. Your father in law can wire the money back to your US bank account  if you provide him with your routing number and swift code. He might be charged a little fee depending on the amount he is sending(It is usually Rs.1000/-), but once the money comes back it is absolutely tax free. If it is a lot of money, you might get an inquiry, but assuming you have already payed taxes on it, it should reflect on your W2, so you do not have to pay any further taxes. Cheers!


Though non-resident Indians (NRIs) earn their living abroad, their obligation to file tax returns in India doesn't end. With the July 31 deadline for filing returns barely a month away, NRIs need to gear up to file their return if they have income in India that exceeds the basic exemption limit. How to Determine tax residency status: An NRI first needs to determine his tax residency status, that is, whether he falls in the category of resident or non-resident Indian (NRI) for tax purposes. While there may be no ambiguity regarding the status of an NRI who has lived abroad for a long time, those who have moved abroad recently or have returned to India after a long stay abroad need to ascertain their residency status properly.


This is just an addition to base64's answer.  In order to maximize your overall wealth (and wellbeing) in a long run, it is not enough to look only at the expected value (EV). In his example of always keeping $9850 or having $10000 99% of the time, EV in the second case is greater ($9900 > $9850) and if you are Bill Gates than you should not take an insurance in this case. But if your wealth is a lot less than that you should take an insurance. Take a look at Kelly criterion and utility functions. If I offer you to take 100 million dollars (no strings attached) or to take a risk to get 200 million dollars 60% of the time (and $0 40% of the time), would you take that risk? You shouldn't but Bill Gates should take that risk because that would be a very good investment for him. Utility functions can help you choose if you want an insurance or not. Maybe you want to insure your house because the value of the house is a large percentage of your wealth but on the other hand you don't need to insure your car if it is very easy for you to afford another one (but not easy to afford another house). Lets calculate what your wealth should be in order not to take this $150 insurance on a $10000 item. If you pay $150 for an insurance you have guaranteed $9850. But choosing not to take an insurance is the same as betting $9850 in order to gain $150 99% of the time. By using Kelly criterion formula fraction of the wealth needed to make this bet is: [p*(b+1)-1]/b = [0.99*(150/9850+1) -1]/ (150/9850) = 1/3.  That means that if your wealth greater than $29950 you don't need an insurance. But if you want to be sure it is advised to use fractional Kelly betting (for example you could multiply fraction by 1/2) and in that case if your wealth is more than $59900 you don't need an insurance for this item.


As per JohnFx's comment above, consider whether it's worth more to you to just write this off. If not, if you feel that your son will be able to consider this without taking it personally, or you're willing to risk that relationship, then talk to him about it. Lay out the reasons why you need the money. If there are other children, it might be a simple matter of fairness to them. Based on your idea of deducting the money from his inheritance, I assume that the value you're docking from his inheritance will go somewhere else. Offer alternatives. You say that you can't take any money from him now, but letting him know that he can pay you in the future in lieu of loss of inheritance might be worthwhile. Be prepared with an idea of what to suggest if he says he can pay you some amount of money. Figure out what might be an acceptable payment plan and how to handle it if, at some point, he can't make payments for a time. This is a potentially ugly situation, and I can't guarantee that it will turn out better, but the more you prepare for the questions he's going to ask, the better off you're going to be.


Well, no, it's not. Government is reactive. We didn't decide to give non-citizens education before there was a class of people living among us who couldn't get an education. We didn't decide to give them drivers licenses before there was a serious issue of unlicensed/uninsured drivers getting in accidents that they could not be held liable for.


Sounds like you're having cold war flashbacks, though I haven't watched the Olympics for a long time.  Are there any recent cases of Russian athletes being any more genetically manipulated than any other country or USA baseball players and bicyclists?


what are my options for raising the funds? Assuming you have decent credit, you can either mortgage your home or apply for a land loan in order to purchase the land. Since both your home and the land have value, either one can act as collateral in case you default on your loan. Land loans tend to have a higher interest rate and down payment, however. This is because banks see land loans as a riskier investment since it's easier for you to walk away from an empty plot of land than your own home.


I know you don't want to hear this, but your life is anecdotal. What you have lived applies to you and no one else.   It's easy to make decisions based on emotions and your story is an emotional one. But if you read my words and look at my links we are not that far apart.  A single grandmother with a disabled daughter raising her grandson is the definition of moving the process along. You would be hard pressed to find someone in a very poor country that would object to helping that scenario and certainly not in the Western World.  The real question is how did she end up in that situation. Much like the $22 Trillion spent on poverty, the aid she received before you came along did not help her or her daughters. The system in place did not work. The fact that you somehow clawed out of there while people around you were doomed to a much different fate shows that you are the exception to the system helping, not the rule.   Now let's move on to FUCKING SOLUTIONS, no slogans (as you aptly put it).  1.Baltimore has been going down hill for 50 years. What needs to change?  2.Detroit same. What needs to change?  We can agree that trickle down is not the answer (although pure free market would be Fantastic)...


With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine.  You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter.  Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties.


Sometimes the simple ways are the best:


That is true but a double major has much more clout than the minor. I only say this because I thought a double major would only be slightly better than a minor in the same subject when I was in undergrad and later found this to be incorrect.


Go to the states on vacation. Get a virtual (or friend's) address. Get an ITIN from the IRS. Open a bank account. Get a secured credit card on your next trip from Capital One – add as much money as you can afford. One year later, you should have a decent credit score.


Well as you can guess economic growth has a positive effect on the economy as a whole and tends to be measured in the change of a countries GDP ([Gross Domestic Product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product))   [Unemployment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment) is the rate of people unemployed who should be working currently. High unemployment is bad as it shows there are people who could be making money (who would then spend it thus boosting GDP and inflation) and adding to a countries economy.  [Inflation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) is an increase in the price of goods and is measured by a standardized 'basket' of goods. As people spend more and the economy heats up prices rise. You want a low but positive level of inflation, target rate in most developed countries is about 2% per year. At this level demand for goods is high and people are spending but too much higher and prices will pass the level people are willing to pay for the goods and the economy could overheat and have a downturn.  Read the wikipedia articles I linked, they'll help a lot. Feel free to ask any more questions you have!


"It sounded like a loud flapping long wet fart from ageing sagging white buttocks  and amounted to a statement of ""Do all to achieve Fuck all"" and has started an era of name calling international diplomacy.   The world leaders looked at each other not knowing to wrinkle their nose or clap.  Nethanyahu came up from inside Donald's ass to applauded loudly and vigorously before he went back to mining Israeli virtue in Donald's colon  The Ayatollah decided his knob was shiny enough    The Saudi's decided that perhaps it was time to invite a Pakistani Brigade along with their tactical toys over, they were after all good friends."


>and tobacco ($6-8.50) are quite expensive.  :-/ Tobacco is usually $15-$20 here (for 20-25). Used to be more like $8-$12, before we introduced our incredibly heavy tobacco tax.  Edit: Also, a $11 crate of beer is incredible. You literally cannot buy a six-pack anywhere in this country for that price, barring occasional specials on pisswater.


As for a formula, there isn't a simple one that you can apply to every type insurance. I'll try my best for a simple answer. Is the event devastating enough to change your lifestyle (looking at life necessities, not wants and nice to haves)? Is the event very likely to happen? Do you have enough emergency funds to cover such an event? Once that emergency fund is utilized, how long does it take you to restore that fund to be ready for the next event? If the event is devastating enough and is very likely to happen and you do not have the cash to cover the event, and/or it would take too long to restore that emergency fund, then it makes sense to consider insurance. Then you would have to examine if the benefit(s) outweight cost of the premium paid for the insurance. If it is pennies of premium for a dollar of benefit, then it makes sense.


Dollar cost averaging is a method of regularly investing money as it is available.  For example, $100 from each paycheck.  It has been shown to bet better, on average, than collecting the money and investing it all at once.  It is not intended to be used when you have the entire amount up front.  See this link. Dollar cost averaging a lump sum would only be beneficial if the market was just as likely to go up as is to go down.  Since, over time, the market (historically) has always gone up, your best bet is to invest all of your money right away.  Anything else is just trying to time the market.


The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio.  So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%.  Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth.  The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return  is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as  in money-market funds.  In fact, some money market funds which  found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio  fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price.  Personally,  I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.


I'd like to take a moment to point out:  I cannot find a bank that charges customers with a checking account fees for withdrawing from an atm owned by that same bank. It is a cornerstone of most banks now to encourage online and atm banking. You should definitely research the validity of the claim that you're associate cannot withdraw from their own account through their own bank's atm without fees. A second scenario I can think of, is that this person uses a bank that does not operate in your region.  Then they cannot find an atm owned by their bank.  If this is the case, they should simply go to the bank the check is drawn on, and cash it there.  So far I only know of Chase bank charging non-Chase customers to cash a check drawn on a Chase account (this is a crap policy that makes me hate that bank). **disclaimer - I am not familiar with all banks, but a quick Google search of banks that operate in your region should reveal which ones if any charge their customers for use of their atms.  you may or may not find the check cashing charge policy without attempting to cash the check.


When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits.  You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.


Like how the Great Instagram Purge of 2015 saw large accounts lose millions of followers? Haha. I can only imagine people stopped paying so much for followers after that. I’m not sure what algorithm they use to find fake users but I’m sure it can’t be hard to trick with a bit of randomizing content. I’m sure bringing Instagram to the web didn’t help there either.


Amazon's online retail end-game is clearly for them to be the platform that all other retailers use to sell goods online, as in Amazon manages the inventory, delivers the goods, collects the payment, takes their cut and gives the rest to the retailer. At a certain point that efficiency gained from managing and delivering inventory directly at such scale will make it literally impossible for anyone to compete without using Amazon's retail services.  UPS/FedEx will not like that new reality where they won't be able to compete with a company delivering their own goods directly from fulfillment centers and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see anti-trust/monopoly suits filed.


I agree, I buy 90% of my stuff on Amazon, but still find reasons to need to go to Home Depot. Pretty much Home Depot and the grocery store are the only two places I shop besides Amazon. I've tried finding what I need on Amazon instead of going to HD but with some things you just can't.   I go to HD a lot with an idea of something I want to create but not knowing exactly what I need to buy. Amazon can't replace that experience...yet.


I agree with you for the most part, but to add on there is no right to have a Family or get married. You can survive working on subway if you want that to be your job and support yourself. It won't be glamorous but it's possible.


Happy to help.   I always recommend you try and solve these types of problems by hand over financial calculators so that you can get a feel for how terms in the equation relate to one another. That's important while you're studying/learning.  But for work--by all means you should use the fastest method, which is probably excel.


"The whole story of ""Pamela Shea"" is so light on facts that it makes it hard for me to see what happened to her as example of a problem, let alone a tragedy.  What kind of weird house purchase involves the forfeiture of the down payment in the event you can't get financing?  Yes, there is money you commit when you make an offer on a house that is non-refundable, but it's less than 1% of the value - it's not the ""down payment"".  And if the life savings of a woman with a ""six-figure income"" are less than 1% of the cost of the home she's buying, then I'd say she's not ready to buy a home, or she needs to look at less expensive property."


Yea, like others are saying -- it's legitimate.  Just insurance.  In fact, as far as derivatives go -- weather futures are probably one of the least crazy.  FYI, all derivative and exotic securities are legitimate -- just a matter of price.  CDS? Fine.  CDOs? Yep.  Even the CDO^2 -- They're all fine as long as the price is set right.  A truly efficient market would shun some of these as they are too hard to untangle and understand what the real risks are.  However, we don't have a truly efficient market (nor a particularly free one -- but that's another discussion).


Did you read the sidebar? I get that you deeply dislike Romney and the Republicans - I can easily see that from your post history. No problem with that, but please don't let /r/politics bleed over. There is a reason why many subs are trying to keep /r/politics-esque submissions out - because they are ummm... not especially objective.  >r/business brings you the best of your business section. From tips for running a business, to pitfalls to avoid, /r/business teaches you the smart moves and helps you dodge the foolish.  >Political submission? use /r/politics  If you are that desperate to debate republicans over the internet, there is surely a different subreddit for that. Although...   >So the republican subreddit /r/business...   That did make me giggle. Now I'm fairly certain that your posts here have been pure trolling.


Costco is one of my favorite places to shop.  I hardly ever find better prices elsewhere and their return policy is pretty amazing.  That being said, biggest complaint I have are the long ass lines and parking is a nightmare.


AK Gas and Plumbing is the professional solution to all of your home and commercial maintenance and repair needs. With a guarantee like no other, our Workmanship Guarantee backs all of our work we do in your home or business. You can feel comfortable knowing that each AK Gas and Plumbing plumber is professional and reliable. We are fully licensed and insured. Customer satisfaction is our top priority. If for any reason you are not satisfied with our services, please contact us immediately. AK Gas and Plumbing pledges to you, our customer, to offer the best service that can be provided. Your complete satisfaction with our plumbing repairs and plumbers is 100% guaranteed. Our plumbers are highly trained, experienced and skilled, your needs and expectations are always met and exceeded.


"Not at these rates. The motto used to be 3/6/3: ""Borrow at 3%, Loan out at 6%, and then be at the golf course by 3pm"". So they get 3% on the spread, minus fixed costs. Now, they borrow at near 0% and loan out at slightly above 0%. Those fixed costs starts becoming an issue. It isn't cheap to have all these ATMs, bank branches, tellers, computer systems, etc. Also, a lot of the money cannot be loaned out at all because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers.  You might have recalled a few months ago, several banks started charging for deposits. They don't want more money that will just lay there while they have to pay the costs of maintaining the accounts. Some bank CEOs have stated that they would be better off if the Fed raised rates up to 1%."


"The absolute worst kind of people, they preach community and help thy neighbor, unless you're not orthodox then you might as well be a shit stain on their driveway.   These people better pay back every penny with interest, not like they're paying normal taxes on the majority of that income. Ya know ""religious purposes"" and such."


Here is something that should help your decision: Currently you are 57, suppose that means that you will still work for 10 years, and then be retired for another 20 before you sell the house. Your retirement account is nearly flat, so you will have to support yourself with your own income.  If there are no surprises, you and your wife could expect to earn 1.16 million over the  next 10 years. There will be interest on your savings, but also inflation, so to simplify I will ignore both. That means you will have an average of 40k (gross?) per year available to live from during the next 30 years. If you get a mortgage where you only pay nett 3% interest (no payback of the loan), that would cost you 6k per year on interest (based on 350k-150k), if you also want to pay back the 200k difference within 30 years, it would totally be close to 13k in annual interest+payback. Now consider whether you would rather live on 40k per year in your current place, or on a lower amount in a bigger place. Personally I would not choose to make a 200k investment at this point, perhaps after trying to live on a budget for a while. (This has the additional benefit that you can even build some cash reserve before buying anything.)


The justification for an act typically comes after the decision is made. People operate under a fairly universal set of instincts and social behaviors, so I think condemning him for this behavior directly is short sighted.   I would ask instead, why do people feel that cheating organizations like target is so emotionally easy? I would wager that burdalane is not the sort of person who would steal his neighbors unlocked bike from his porch or hustle a man for bus fare, so what is different?  We seem, (generally, as a population) to have less emotional investment in strangers than ourselves, even less in people from other cultures, and even less in animals. We will fight hard to save the lives of 5000 of our soldiers, less hard to save a million of their civilions, and we certainly don't give a fuck about taking a bee's honey or killing a chicken and eating it (again, generally).   I would propose that organizations like big box stores fall somewhere between animals and foreign peasants as far as our feelings of responsibility towards them. It is a little more complicated than that because obviously a big box store supports the lives of a certain number of people, but if a big box store were delicious and did not support people I would wager it would not survive for very long.  So the defining difference seems to be whether or not you are a person who makes a rational decision that the store provides more good for your people unmolested or if it is a net harmful force, whether you have strong ingrained emotional belief structures regarding cheating or therft, and whether your rational mind supercedes your emotional decision making (mine rarely does, though I try).  A person who thinks that they do more harm to the population than good even with a strong sense of the wrongness of stealing might steal from the store even though they would never steal from another person. They would be completely morally justified in this act.  Similarly, a person who thinks that the store does more good than harm, and does not steal from the store regardless of whether or not they think stealing is wrong would also be morally just in their actions.   A person who thinks they do no harm to the community but has no negative emotional connection to the act of theft might steal from both the store and their neighbor. They would obviously not be justified.  A person with a strong sense of the wrongness of stealing which supercedes their rational decision regarding the value of a big box store will not steal, but they may not be morally justified in the decision, depending on their rational take.  I think I fall into the first category. I think it is wrong not to do harm to an organization like target when it is possible to do so, yet I generally don't go about this by stealing because getting caught would be much worse than whatever harm I could do by jacking a few dollars worth of merchandise. This offer allowed a means of theft without getting caught, and had I been aware of it I probably would have availed myself of it.  As it stands I just work extremely hard in the field of biochemistry with the hopes that one day I will contribute to technologies which will allow humans to live and thrive without having to buy food, clothes, medicine, or shit from target.


The sentiment is because between closing and opening a lot can happen, and between opening and the time your order actually goes through, even more can happen.  An after-hours trade has an extra amount of short-term risk attached; the price of a stock at the opening bell is technically the same as its price as of the closing the previous trading day, but within a tenth of a second, which is forever in a computerized exchange, that price may move drastically one way or the other, based on news and on other markets. The sentiment, therefore, is simple; if you're trading after-hours, you're trading risky. You're not trading based on what the market's actually doing, you're trading based on what you think the market will do in the morning, and there's still more math going on every second in the privately-held supercomputers in rented cubes in the NYSE basement than you could do all night, digesting this news and projecting what it's going to do to the stocks. Now, if you've done your homework and the stock looks like a good long-term buy, with or without any after-hours news, then place the order at 3 in the morning; who cares what the stock's gonna do at the opening bell. You're gonna hold that stock for the next ten years, maybe; what it does in 5 seconds of opening turmoil is relatively minor compared to the monthly trends that you should be worrying about.


Not anytime soon, I suspect, but not necessarily for financial reasons. I found this interesting, including the link to the five tests, but I think that this topic is only partially judged through financial eyes, there's a lot of political issues around this with national identity/immigration issues already in the spot light as well as political aspirations. If there will be a call in the near future to join the Euro, how would that reflect on the financial industry in the UK from a PR perspective? and on the political leadership and how it managed the financial crisis?  I believe that it is in the interest of all the people in the high positions to show the country getting back on track rather than making ground shaking moves. But what do I know....:-)


"I would argue that we went from slavery to other forms of slavery, not a ""free"" society. Slavery still exists, and is even sanctioned by the government in some places (prison industrial complex, prisoners who cannot vote being ""forced"" to work for 13 cents an hour).  Of course I don't think society will always stay the same, but I don't think that we can create enough new jobs to balance those being lost to automation and technological advancement (productivity/efficiency increase).  Perhaps one day, we won't need to balance those losses, but today, in current times, unemployment is a huge problem with very few simple solutions.  I just want to say that I am enjoying the discussion."


"Neither is synonymous with ""the American Dream"" -- self employment is not necessary to achieve it.  >The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, the set of ideals (democracy, rights, liberty, opportunity and equality) in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, as well as an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers."


Take the emotion out of your argument.  Why wouldn't they support this change?  It doesn't hurt them at all, and could potentially help their bottom line.  And by spearheading it for all retailers they make sure that they are all on the same playing field.


Saying that tighter gun laws is the same as taking away your guns is the same as saying that tighter drunk driving laws is taking away your right to drive. It's the kind of rhetoric that shows you are unwilling to be reasonable.  I like this speech [from Obama](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/obama-to-gun-owners-im-not-looking-to-disarm-you) on the topic.  >First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true.  >And I don’t care how many times the NRA says it. I’m about to leave office. There have been more guns sold since I have been president than just about any time in U.S. history. There are enough guns for every man, woman and child in this country.  >And at no point have I ever, ever proposed confiscating guns from responsible gun owners. So it’s just not true.


Start with your local police department then move on to these sites. Fill out the United States Postal Service fraud complaint form  http://ehome.uspis.gov/fcsexternal/ Contact your State Attorneys General. Your state Attorney General or local office of consumer protection is also listed in the government pages of your telephone book Write to the Federal Trade Commission: spam@uce.gov If you are aware of a securities (e.g., stocks) scam, insider trading, etc., you will want to contact the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/SEC.php


"how many of those Indians were immigrants as opposed to born in the USA?  there are tough restrictions for anyone to move from India to USA - only college graduated, high earning people can go to USA to work.  the other groups might have born there and that's why they bring down the ""college-educated"" statistics."


Sears has been around for over a century with little impact to local Main Streets.  Their stores aren't in every community like Targets or Walmarts, and they don't attempt to be a one-stop shop for all your needs.  Sears isn't a threat to mom and pop shops... and that's probably part of why they're struggling while other big box retailers are not.


Yes  You could write a covered call and the stock gets called away at the price + premium.  You could convince someone to buy it regardless of the market price.


>Certainly part of the blame goes to America's pop culture. Dolla dolla bills, ya'll.  How about both generations have major entitlement issues? I am pissed at the baby boomers for their greed, but my generation is at least as bad. Maybe worse, but where did we get that attitude from? One narcissistic generation breeds another.


"Cosigning is explicitly a promise that you will make the payments if the primary signer can not. Don't do it unless you are able to handle the cost and trust the other party will ""make you whole"" when they can... which means don't do it for anyone you would not lend your money to, since it comes out to about the same level of risk. Having agreed, you're sorta stuck with your ex-friend's problem. I recommend talking to a lawyer about the safest way get out of this. It isn't clear you can even sue the ex-friend at this point."


> Only a Sith Deals in Absolutes  I feel that it's a huge problem wherever you go. Nobody wants to take the middle road. I feel that the reduction in fertilizer and pesticides must also might be good for the pocketbook as well.   I'm one of those that took chemistry, and know that chemicals are chemicals, natural or factory-made.


France is one country where cheques are common. More an more people are using credit cards for typical store payments and wire transfers are slowly gaining traction. There are several cases where cheques come handy: Sure, all these cases could ultimately be resolved with a wire transfer. Sometimes it is just simpler/faster to mail a piece of paper. This said, I believe than in 1à years from now even France will go cheque-less.


"I am surprised at the amount of work this contract wants done.  I'd question if it's even legal given the high costs.  I suspect it's only there to remind abusive tenants of responsibilities they already have in law for extraordinary abuse beyond ordinary wear-and-tear: they are already on the hook to repaint if they trash the paint (think: child writing on walls, happens a lot), and already need to fumigate (and a lot more) if they are a filth-type hoarder who brings in a serious infestation (happens a lot).  The landlord can already go after these people for additional money beyond the deposit.   But that's not you.  So don't freak out about those clauses, until you talk to the landlord and see what he's really after.  Almost certainly, he really wants a ""fit and ready to rent"" unit upon your departure, so he doesn't have to take the unit off the market for months fixing it.  As long as that's done, there's no reasonable reason for further work -- a decent landlord wouldn't require that.  Nor would a court, IMO.  The trouble with living in a place for awhile is you become blind to its deficiencies.  What's more, it's rather difficult to ""size up"" a unit as ready when it's still occupied by your stuff.  A unit will look rather different when reduced to a bare room, without furniture and whatnot distracting you.  Add to it a dose of vanity and it becomes hard to convince yourself of defects others will easily see.  So, tread carefully here.  If push comes to shove, first stop is whether it's even legal.   Cities and states with heavy tenant populations tend to have much more detailed laws, and as a rule, they favor the tenant.   Right off the bat, in most states the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear-and-tear.  In my opinion, 6 years of ordinary, exempt wear would justify a repaint, so that shouldn't be on the tenant at all.  As for the fumigation, I'm not in Florida so I don't know the deal, maybe there's some special environmental issue there which somehow makes that reasonable, it sure wouldn't fly in CA.  Again that assumes you're a reasonable prudent tenant, not a slob or hoarder.  As for the pro carpet cleaning, that's par for the course in any of the tough rent control areas I've seen, so that's gotten a pass from the legislators.  Though $600 seems awfully high.  Other than that, you can argue the terms are ""unconscionable"" -- too much of a raw deal to even be fair.  However, this will depend on the opinion of a judge. Hit or miss.  I'm hoping your landlord will be happy to negotiate based on the good condition of the unit (which he may not know; landlords rarely visit tenant units unless they really need to.) You certainly should make the case that you make here; that the work is not really needed and it's prohibitive.  Your best defense against unconscionable deals is don't sign them.  Remember, you didn't know the guy when you initially signed... the now-objectionable language should have been a big red flag back then, saying this guy is epic evil, run screaming. (even if that turned out not to be true, you should't have hung around to find out.)  You may have gotten lucky this time, but don't make that mistake again.  Unless one of the above pans out, though... a deal is a deal.  You gave your word.  The powerful act here is to keep your word.  Forgive me for getting ontological, but successful people say it creates success for them.  And here's the thing. You have to read your contracts because you can't keep your word if you don't know what word you gave.  It's a common mistake: thinking good business is trust, hope, faith, submission or giving your all.  No.   In business, you take the time to hammer out mutually beneficial (win-win) agreements, and you set them on paper to eliminate confusion, argument and stress in the future as memories fade and conditions change.  That conflict resolution is how business partners remain friends, or at least professional colleagues."


The Money Girl (Quick and Dirty Tips for a richer life) Podcast is a pretty good source for this type of information. Some Recent Topics:


Essentially speaking, when you purchase goods worth $100 using your card, the store has to pay about $2 for the transaction to the company that operates that stores' credit card terminal.  If you withdraw cash from an ATM, you might be charged a fee for such a transaction. However, the ATM operator doesn't pay the credit processor such a transaction fee - thus, it is classified as a cash transaction.  Additionally, performing cash advances off a CC is a rather good indicator of a bad financial health of the user, which increase the risk of default, and in some institutions is a factor contributing to their internal creditworthiness assessment.


Short answer is to put the max 15% contribution into your ESPP. Long answer is that since you want to be saving as much as you can anyway, this is a great way to force you to do it, and pick up at least a 15% return every six months (or however often your plan makes a purchase). I say at least because sometimes an ESPP will give you the lower of the beginning or end period stock price, and then a 15% discount off of that (but check the details of your plan). If you feel like your company's stock is a good long term investment, then hold onto the shares when purchased. Otherwise sell as soon as you get them, and bank that 15% return.


I vaguely recall a rare helpful employee telling me that, after a ridiculous amount of phone calls.  I thoroughly appreciated that person's helpfulness.    However, I gave my laptop to Best Buy (I had purchased their service agreement), and even if the third party bungled things, it's BB's job to make sure things are ok/to their agreement.  Their employees/management should not be lying sacks of uselessness.


Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.


Time takes its toll on everything, particularly on your body. Whether you like it or not, time will come when your body will no longer function as well as it did in your youth, and tell-tale signs of aging will show. Your skin, in particular, could be the best reminder that time is catching up, as sags and wrinkles start to appear.


Google is like a kid with a ray gun.  it is fun but I ain't going to hand him my keys to go get me a six pack.  anything that requires a personal touch is doa at Google.  they're all social retards.


"The FTB, as any government agency, is understaffed and underpaid. Even if someone took a glance and it wasn't just an automated letter - consider the situation: you filed as a LLC and then amended to file as a partnership. Unless someone really pays attention - the obvious assumption would be that you had a limited partnership. Yes, you'll need to call them and work with them on fixing this. They do have all the statements you've attached. However, there's a lot of automation and very little attention to details when it comes to matching errors, so don't get surprised if no-one even looked at these statements. Next time your elected government officials talk about ""small government"" and ""cutting government expenses"" - you can remind yourself how it looks in action with this experience."


From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis   The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals.  Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired.  Mortgage brokers (individuals)  • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down  Mortgage originators (organisations)  • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures  Investment banks  • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry  Credit ratings agencies  • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing  Investors  • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors


Imagine that your normal mode of using credit gets you a score of X. As time goes by your score trends upward if the positive items (length of credit) outweigh your negative items. But there are no big increases or decrease in your score. Then you make a one time change to how you use credit. If this is a event that helps your score, there will be a increase in your score. If it is bad thing your score will drop. But if you go back to your standard method of operating your score will drift back to the previous range. Getting a car loan for a few months to get a bump in your credit score, will not sustain your score at the new level indefinitely. Overtime the impact will lessen, and the score will return your your normal range. Spending money on the loan just to buy a temporary higher credit score is throwing away money.


For now Amazon is cool. It's trendy, innovative, smart, convenient, market competitive insert positive note after positive note. For now, Amazon is a trendy super power. Our society that places such a heavy importance on STEM (nothing wrong with that at all) swoons over there grocery ads where people walk into grocery stores and walk out. Oh  Amazon has such a cool factor to it that for now people don't realize how powerful they are getting. The markets they are in, the markets they have plans for. Strangely I don't see Amazon losing their cool factor soon, but they will when people wake up.   We wonder why 6 companies control the media, just a few control everything in the grocery store. 30 years from now, Amazon will be the subject of some tell all uncovering documentary wondering how it all happened.


Atm machine and my Credit Union account. Low fees (often zero, if the machine is on any of the same networks) and decent exchange rate, and no need to carry cash or traveler's checks to be exchanged. Alternatively, pay by credit card, though there is a foreign transaction fee on that.


Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.


"I must be part of the lower class then, for I will never have enough resources to incur such taxes.  I receive so little (despite making two to three times my salary for my employer) that I qualify for many low-income services.  From here, even your ""upper middle class"" are moneyed elite.  Any fault in how I sound can be attributed to my lack of skill in expression.  After being soundly beaten by the *tetsubo* of a malformed labor market (wielded by an invisible hand, no less) I know intimately its every spike and rivet."


The tax cost at election should be zero.  The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.  It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income.  §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it.  If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes.  That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade.  The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election.  The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income.  This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable.  It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.


"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). ""the timing is just different"" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money."


If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).


I have encoded videos that we watch via Apple TV XBMC on our overpriced Sony Bravia LCD in one room and a cheap Acer LCD in another. They look amazingly different on these two screens. Same movie, same playback unit, same HDMI connection, different TVs.  The Sony presents a smooth display with few artifacts. Good motion, clean image on pause, etc. The Acer displays tons of MPEG encoding artifacts, palletized chunks in what should be smooth gradients, visible in motion as well as paused.  I'm just saying that there is a different in what you get when you pay more.


Never borrow money to get a tax deduction. Even 18 months interest free is a stupid risk to save a few $ in taxes (we're talking $1K or less in tax savings from what I can tell in your questions).


Fast food doesn't have to be shitty.  Five Guys is a great example of a good, fast, cheap burger.  Same goes for local favorite [Whataburger](http://www.qsrmagazine.com/qsr-50/whataburger-way)  Burger King and Wendy's see market share eroding and assume they have a marketing problem, which makes me want to ask the executive team-- have you tried the food lately?  Nobody eats at BK because their food tastes like shit.  Meanwhile, their [inexperienced CEO](http://investor.bk.com/burgerking/web/conteudo_en.asp?idioma=1&conta=44&tipo=43568) (35 year old PE guy (!)) is focused on [cost cutting] (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-24/burger-kings-ceo-daniel-schwartz-is-33-years-old).  What a joke.  What BK needs is a complete menu overhaul-- higher quality beef, fresh ingredients, nothing frozen, yadda yadda.  But short term, that sort of thing looks bad on the income statement.  Which kind of makes me wonder why they bothered going private in the first place.  Poster child for management gone wrong.


this seems like a bad idea.  Example: You want to sell. He doesn't.  But he doesn't have enough money to buy you out. What will you do? You might want to sell because you need money, you have to move, you want to get married, you want to start a new business, etc. You two are not equals (you need a place to live), so this is unlikely to work.


If iban and name don't match. This shud have been refunded. Logic says so. Otherwise they just ask for iban without other details if they won't be considered


Considering the Americans Funded him, trained him, gave birth to his murderous ideology and were great friends with him and gave him his entire Modus operandi , but could not stop him from flying two air liners into the world trade center in the Heart of America, living quietly in a nice mountain city near the Military Academy seems tame, the Pentagon/HQ is in the Capital, and there is probably a great deal more to this story, that asshole is probably in witness protection somewhere enjoying gin tonics in a free condo  Ever wonder how a Math Teacher went into AbuGhraib and three months later comes out as a Terrorist master mind with weapons, vehicles, money and contacts to control a complete brand new terrorist network called ISIS or ISIL?


Puerto Rico: Last I checked, the Puerto Rico banking system wasn't materially different than working within the US - though some Continental US banks exclude US Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico or charge more when dealing with them. I'm not certain as to why. However, most banks don't see them any differently than a regular US bank.  Regarding Wire Transfers (WT): $35 for an ad-hoc WT within the US and Puerto Rico is for the most part average. Wires cost money for the convenience of quick clearing and guaranteed funds. If you have a business/commercial account where you are doing this regularly and paying a monthly fee for a WT service, $10 - $15 each may be expected. I had a business account with US Bank where I paid $15 a month for a WT transfer service and reoccurring template (always went to the same account - AMEX in this case) and the transfers were only $15 each. But, a WT as a general rule, especially when it's only a once a month thing from a personal account, will cost around $25 - $35 in the US and Puerto Rico. As others have said, you can simply mail a personal check just as you would in the US. Many people choose to use Money Orders for Puerto Rico as they can be cashed at the post office (I believe there is an amount limit though). ACH: If you want even easier, I would use ACH. Banks in Puerto Rico use this ACH (Automatic Clearing House) system as we do in the Continental US. It will take a little longer than WT, but as you said - this is fine. Not all US Banks offer free ACH, but a number of them do. Last I checked, Citibank and USAA where among them. Banks like, BAC charges a small fee. Much smaller than a WT! This post may be useful to you: What's the difference between wire transfer and ACH?


"Plenty of links around, under the ""monetization"" heading. However my understand came from a local app developer who's done a number of presentations. He's been tweaking and trying to find new ways to develop his now quite successful app, with the aim of earning enough that he doesn't have to work doing databases.  What he found was that ranking in app searches was dependent on downloads, and revenues (paid or ads) were dependent on total installs. Therefore if you go the paid app way, you don't get the downloads to get placement on search returns, so you don't get downloads - a negative spiral. In addition it's another barrier to get your potential user over. Thus you want free as the initial price.  You can try the freemium route - but it really depends on continued usage rate. If people are to buy it in-app, then then need to regularly use it (and it has to be designed this way). But if you do this, you can get regular ad revenue as well - it might not be much, but it adds up.  Hence his statement was to design to have high value ads built in to the way the app works, and allow people to also pay to get rid, or add new functionality."


This point stands. It's an accurate description.   However, for clarity, they're not skimming money off your order in the traditional sense. They see your order, beat you to the punch, and place their own. They then sell it back to you at a higher price. Think brute force for the stock market.


"In the US, the ""first class forever"" postage stamps.  The post office has never lowered the cost of a stamp, but has raise it several times recently.  Given that the gov't has bailed out everyone else, I believe it is a safe bet that they would bail out the post office if it financially fell apart. And you can always use them to send a letter. They aren't very liquid, and it would probably be difficult to invest in them in large quantities.  Although, when the post office does raise rates, you could sell yours off on ebay or something."


There is no inheritance tax on federal level there may be a tax at the state level. Inheritance taxes are different from estate taxes which effect the money that you would be inheriting before you receive it.


Worst case they'll be able to throw a ton of capital towards mining and start grabbing money that's currently going to other people. They see a stream of revenue and work towards capturing as much of it as possible. It's as reliable as gravity. Plan accordingly.


Relative to salaries?  I don't think so. I suspect food quality (and thus how much we spend on it) has, however increased. Certainly,. things like mutton that were byproducts of other processes are almost never seen these days.


Yes, of course.  My point is there are lots of different ways this could be funded.  For instance, one of the doctors complained that insurance only paid him $100 for a one-hour exam, but it costs him $300/hour to operate his office - so he quit taking insurance.  He said single payer is the way to go.  But what if single payer also only pays him $100 for the exam?  Then it's probably not so great.   If single payer pays him $300, but it requires a 20% payroll tax to fund the system, would that be great?    (I am not questioning a single payer system.  I am only questioning the lack of information in endorsing a single payer sysetm.)


"The most important thing is not to tell yourself ""I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,"" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments."


I worked at Sears then commission only while in college. Taught me how to sell and I actually made decent money.  I see no problem with that in high ticket electronics sales as long as the business model supports it. Clearly the model didn't at Sears, CC, or HH Gregg


"Your views are quite obvious.  The facts are that Netflix was one of the leaders in the ""fight"" and have since taken a step back for business reasons.  I supported this with sources.  You criticize my claim without source and don't even refute my claim in the first place."


Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.


"I'm sorry you are going through this, but what you are dealing with is exactly is how cosigning works.  It is among other reasons why you should never cosign a loan for someone unless you are 100% prepared to pay the loan on their behalf. Unfortunately, the main ""benefit"" to cosigning a loan is to the bank - they don't care who makes payments, only that someone does. It is not in their interest to educate purchasers who can easily get themselves into the situation you are in. What your options are depends a fair bit on the type of loan it is. The biggest problem is that normally as cosigner you cannot force your friend to do anything. If it is for a car, your best bet is to convince them to sell the car and hopefully recoup more than the cost of the loan. Many workplaces have some sort of free service to provide counseling/guidance on this sort of thing. Look into your employee benefits as you may have some free services there. You can sue your friend in small claims court, but keep in mind: It also depends on how big the loan is relative to your income. While it might feel good to sue your friend in small claims court, if it's for $500 it probably isn't worthwhile - but if your friend just stopped paying off their $30k vehicle assuming you will pay for it, even though they can pay for it themselves?"


Don't let the tail of credit score wag the dog of prudent financial planning. If you have a sufficient emergency fund in addition to the car cost, then buying the car for cash is to my mind a better plan. But if the car purchase would deplete your emergency fund, then I'd go for the loan. Cash in hand gives you optionality that can be very valuable when things go wrong. And credit will be withdrawn at exactly the most painful moment.


There are checks, international wire transfers (SWIFT), depending on country pair remittance services.


You're focusing on the wrong thing here. You should be paying off debt, not borrowing.  Thus your credit score is of almost no relevance.  There is no lasting effect from credit utilization, one cycle after you have everything paid off it's going to have the same credit score no matter what order you pay them off in. I would look at which of the first three has the highest interest rate and pay it off first.  You can pay any of them off in one month so whichever you pick you get one card down to $0 and restore it's grace period.  After that, sort them by interest rate.


Short-term,  getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do.  However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending.  Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending.  You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.


First off, this is a post for /r/personalfinance.   Second off, if you want to think of this like an accountant/financier, those are the bank's 10233 dollars, not your's, and you are paying them 6% to keep that money. If you are confident that you are going to make more than 6% interest on any investments you make with that money, it makes sense to do so, although your return will be 6% less in reality. You also assume the risk of losing money on the investment and not having enough money to repay your loans.             tl;dr Pay off the loan.


Jeopardy style:  The occupation of most legislators prior to being elected  What is lawyers?   So the folks that set up the system that so greatly benefits lawyers were lawyers.   There's a great line from the movie Barbarians at the Gate that is quite fitting for these times  >The only thing I want from a banker is a calendar and the only thing I want from a lawyer is for them to be back in their coffin before the sun comes up.


"There are many paths to success, but they all begin with education. You made the first big step just by visiting here. We have 17,000 questions, arranged by tag so you can view those on a given topic. You can sort by votes to see the ones that have the best member acceptance.  I'll agree with Ben that one of the best ones is ""The correct order of investing."" We both offered answers there, and that helps address a big chunk of your issue.  The book recommendations are fine, you'll quickly find that each author has his/her own slant or focus on a certain approach. For example, one financial celebrity (note - in the US, there are private advisors, usually with credentials of some sort, there are those who work for brokers and also offers help, there are financial bloggers (I am one), and there are those who are on the radio or TV who may or may not have any credentials) suggests that credit cards are to be avoided. The line in another answer here, ""You're not going to get rich earning 1% on a credit card,"" is a direct quote of one such celebrity. I disputed that in my post ""I got rich on credit card points!"" The article is nearly 2 years old, the account accumulating the rewards has recently passed $34,000. This sum of money is more wealth than 81% of people in the world have.  The article was a bit tongue in cheek (sarcastic) but it made a point. A young person should get a credit card, a good one, with no fee, and generous rewards. Use the card to buy only what you can pay back that month. At year end, I can download all my spending. The use of the card helps, not hinders, the budgeting process, and provides a bit of safety with its guarantees and theft protection.  Your question really has multiple facets. If these answers aren't helpful enough, I suggest you ask a new question, but focus on one narrow issue. ""Paying off debt"" ""Getting organized"" ""Saving"" ""Budgeting"" all seem to be part of your one question here."


"Ben is 100% correct.  The question is how the police and even army are managed.  In Chicago, the police is useless and crime is rampant.  Police, Defense (Army) and health care not ""rights"", but a service provided by your government.  It's all about how it's implemented.  Obamacare is a disaster, unaffordeable, and soon not available because of all the insurance companies who quite supporting it or want to quit.  Trump is not against national health care system. He just want to / have to / no choice but to fix the mess created by Obama.  Let's wait and see what his fixes are all about."


i don't understand why people try to do this as a living. the people bulge brackets hired to do prop trading with the best equipment, capital, technology still has a hard time trading. Oh and they are smarter than you will ever be with . And they have been learning on the job for years


I assume you mean Stock Mutual funds.  2008 wasn't that long ago. Down 37%. 07/08 combined were down 34%, or 07/09 down 20%.  The point of the long term is that over time, a decade will almost ensure a positive return.  2 years is too short, in my opinion.


"Of course there can always be _some_ ways you can integrate some amounts of social responsibility into product, but I don't think that's the point he's making. Social responsibility would be called ""business best practice"" if it improved the bottom line. It is inevitable that there are times when social responsibility and business goals diverge, and at that point given two companies that are in the same market space, the one who bets against society will win. This is the sort of thing that _must_ be handled in law, and absolutely cannot be handled by allowing the free market to work because the free market will not discover ethics, it will discover that ethics don't matter in an environment that doesn't require them.    It's the reason any claim that business does best when there are no regulations is absolutely false. If a company can make more by polluting and you don't have regulation that says clearly ""it may cost more, but we require you to compete by also being non-pollutiong"", then you should expect the market to converge on pollution as ""best practice"".  Removing regulation won't allow business to sort this out, it will allow business to not care that they are polluting.  There is the notion of a B-corp that is organized for the purpose of trying to be good guys without being sued. but it doesn't assure that they will have a fair stake int he market.  It just allows them to fail without getting sued by stock holders.  Basically if everyone is not required to be that level of good guy, though, B-corps are basically indulging unilateral disarmament. Sure, they can make a case that ethics matter, and that might work, but they don't need B-corp protection for that. If making the case that ethics matter was going to win in the market, any corporation could do it.  For more thoughts, so I don't have to drone on here, see my articles [Fiduciary Duty vs. The Three Laws of Robotics](http://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2009/02/fiduciary-duty-vs-three-laws-of-robotics.html) and [Losing the War in a Quiet Room](http://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2012/01/losing-war-in-quiet-room.html)."


If the child is a dependent the question is moot. It is accepted that the parent will pay for some, most, or all of the tuition. There is no tax issue for a current student. The payment of tuition helps them qualify as a dependent. There is no need to transfer the money to the child's account; it can be sent directly to the school. If the money is to be used in the future there are accounts such as 529s pre-paid accounts, and Coverdell savings accounts that can be used. All have pluses and minuses, all can impact taxes, and all can impact financial aid calculations.


I say again, more than a trillion dollars in student loan debt represents tremendous leverage if people in debt would form a consumer group and threaten to withhold payments until Congress retroactively gives them a much lower interest rate and brings back the ability to get out from under huge debt via bankruptcy, just like corporations do.


You could conceivably open a few accounts.  For example, a bank account and a credit card account.  Then the accounts will be older when evaluated for credit when you return.  This would look better than opening fresh accounts later.  But don't expect a big difference in score.  And you'll be stuck with those accounts in the future, otherwise you lose the benefit.  I wouldn't worry about maintaining balances now.  You can wait until you come back.  Occasional purchases may be helpful.   What they really want to see is a regular and sustained use of accounts without missing payments or overextending.  But if you're not going to be here, you can't really do that.  Note that good credit scores are based on seven years of data, preferably a lot of it.  Opening a few accounts can't substitute for that, even if you put balances on them.   If you're not here, you won't be paying rent or utilities.  You won't have a proven payment history on the most common accounts.   If money were no object, you could do something like purchase a house or condo that you could rent out, utilities included.  That would build up a payment history.  But if money were no object, you probably wouldn't be worried about your credit score.  It's more practical to just live normally and be sure that you always live within your means so that you don't experience negative credit events.   You might think about why you want a good credit score.  Is it to borrow a lot of money?  You might be able to spend money to achieve that.  Is it to save money on future borrowing?  If it costs money now, how much will you save total?   Opening accounts now that you won't really use until you return is about the only thing that you can do that won't cost you money.  Perhaps put a balance on the bank account--at least you'll get that money back some day.  Maintaining a balance on the credit cards would cost you money in interest charges, and you don't really benefit from an improved credit score until you use your credit.  So the interest fees aren't really buying you anything.


A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with  existing investors retaining some ownership.  In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.


Of course they did, this whole administration is basically a con to get as much money as possible before either they're caught or quit, but it's ok because surely all that cash is gonna trickle down to me. At least I was told that by the grand ol' party.


"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US?  In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money ""after taxes"" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 ""P/E"" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates.  In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it."


"> Bernie wasn't even accountable to his own donors, that's why they're suing him ;)   Haha silly boy... lame joke, but donors are suing the DNC, not Bernie.    >The only solution is for the government to stop inserting itself between people and Healthcare. Only then with direct pricing, lower barriers to entry, private charity and consumer choice can we lower costs. Cartels only exist because of state mandated regulation, patent law and government mandated Healthcare.   You have been sold the ""freedom"" pill by corporations that want their Ayn Rand puppets in the Republican party to do exactly what you are proposing. How will consumer choice improve if you let health insurance companies set their own rules? how will you lower barriers to entry when behemoths like Aetna and co. can come in and swallow up competitors whole? where are the private charities that help poor black kids in forgotten areas? (unless you think they are sub-human and don't deserve any help). How can we keep corporations accountable when we let their cartels, monopolies, and oligopolies do what they please with our lives? You live in a fantasy world where all of a sudden Jonny Schmoe Insurance will swoop in and create more affordable choices for all. You are deluded if you think this is how the real world works.     Cartels exist because if you don't put up barriers to profit seekers, they will seek to accumulate more and more, and they will seek to consolidate more and more power and market share. Government officials are simply a commodity they have to buy, or else consumers/communities might actually organize and have a voice against their rapacious quest for MOAR. Without that representative ""public servant"", they could give three shits about appeasing anybody but their shareholders. It is the wet dream of assholes like Trump and his tea party Ayn Rand sociopaths."


FTSE is an index catering to the London stock exchange. It is a  Capitalization-Weighted Index  of 100 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange with the highest market capitalization . When somebody says FTSE closed at 6440, it basically means at the end of the day, the index calculated using the day end market capitalization of the companies, included in the index, is 6440.


He can send you a check. This will move the burden of GBP->USD conversion to him (unless the GBP amount is preset, then you'll be the one to pay for conversion either way). You can then deposit the USD check in any Israeli bank (they'll charge commission for the deposit and the USD->ILS conversion). Another, and from my experience significantly cheaper, option would be to wire transfer directly to your account. If you have a USD account and he'll transfer USD out - it will be almost at no cost to you, if you don't have a USD account check with your bank how to open it, or pay for USD->ILS conversion.


It looks like a coin toss. What you have isn't bad at all.  If you have enough free time with your $50k job to do extra stuff on the side, you can use that time to build a business.  You're obviously a go-getter type, so this might suit you. Which job is closer to your calling?  All other things being equal, the more fulfilling job should win, no?


If You use the car regulary, I don't think that driving on the bald tires for 3 years is a reasonable option. Have You considered buying used tires? Those will be cheaper and will last till You get to replace the car.


I prefer TaxAct. I find it simpler to use and more helpful in helping answer the questionnaire. I have a fairly complex tax return and it handles it just fine.


As it is international debits, this will take a while. BofA is right, You have to dispute this with Card Issuer, i.e. HDFC. The worst case for me was around 1 month. Keep chasing and sending out reminders every 3-4 days.


Yes it is viable but uncommon. As with everything to do with investment, you have to know what you are doing and must have a plan. I have been successful with long term trading of CFDs for about 4 years now. It is true that the cost of financing to hold positions long term cuts into profits but so do the spreads when you trade frequently. What I have found works well for me is maintaining a portfolio that is low volatility, (e.g. picking a mix of positions that are negatively correlated) has a good sharpe ratio, sound fundamentals (i.e. co-integrated assets - or at least fairly stable correlations) then leveraging a modest amount.


Anyone dissing America needs to realize how many people would kill for citizenship here. We have our flaws, like any other place on earth, but we are and always will be the land of the free and the home of the brave. As a woman, I've dealt with the last strands of sexism in this country and as a young adult I've dealt with the shitty hand my generation was dealt as far as housing and education but I wouldn't give my birthright up for anything. All I have to say is, we still run the world and however fucked our government is right now, we will ALWAYS learn and grow and prosper.   If you don't appreciate all that America is , GET OUT!


I just returned from overseas and for the most part it isn't TSA thats the worst part its the other parts that get added on. In comparison if I fly through to another country in Europe my items are checked through, I'll wait 15 minutes to get my passport stamped and stand in line for my plane. If you land in America from international you have to wait through customs (I just waited 1.5 hours but I know thats not standard) then I had to get my bags and recheck them through the airline, and finally I had to go through security yet again except this time instead of having to take things out of my pockets I had to remove my shoes, take everything out of my pockets and then get a complete body scan (not sure how I feel about those yet though I know many on here hate them)   It really is just more inconvenient and seemingly unnecessary


Everyone pays their personal income tax with funds from their employer;  some of it through withholding, and the rest through the balance due at the time of filing. All that is happening here is that the company is calculating  your personal tax return for you, and fiddling retroactively with the gross salary to yield a specific after-tax salary. One problem is that there is a lot of information I put in my return to earn deductions, that I would not care to tell my employer.   The system would also appear to be contrary to public policy.  Governments create tax deductions to give a larger income to those with socially acceptable expenses:  health care, dependents,  etc.  The system you describe would give employees with such deductions a lower gross salary.


"AFAIK they use entirely different LTE frequencies in Japan and the US, hence the issues with the ""new iPad"" being LTE in the States but not here.    Additionally, there are still Japanese manufacturers who are big brands in the Japanese market, but more or less unheard of overseas.  So there's likely to be relatively limited scope for economies of scale regarding handsets.  Sure, with a limited number of handsets (e.g. the iPhone) you may be able to place a larger order, but when was the last time you heard of a network operator dictating terms to Apple?  That's why only Softbank had the iPhone at launch, because they were the only one willing to cede to Apple's high pricing demands.    And that's before you even get into language related issues.  As far as LTE equipment goes, it depends on suppliers and whether the practicalities of ordering equipment for two very different territories, thousands of miles apart, with very different geography will bear a lot of fruit.  As for people traveling between Japan and the States, its such a tiny proportion of customers, it would barely make a dent.  And most corporate customers historically favor DoCoMo anyway and given Japanese business culture are unlikely to change any time soon.  In a nutshell, the synergies may not be as strong as it first seems."