Datasets:

jasper-xian

/

tevatron_fiqa_qrel_test

like 0

[ { "docid": "58937", "title": "", "text": "In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual." } ]

[ { "docid": "72209", "title": "", "text": "\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"" }, { "docid": "406656", "title": "", "text": "\"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee. I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as \"\"contractors\"\" but make them work under rules that fall into employee. The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.\"" }, { "docid": "316074", "title": "", "text": "\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"" }, { "docid": "494808", "title": "", "text": "Interesting. When you say DIY you mean pencil and paper. For most of us the choice came down to using a professional vs using the software. Your second bullet really hits the point. The tax return is a giant spreadsheet with multiple cells depending on each other. Short of building my own spreadsheet to perform the task, I found the software, at $30-$50, to be the happy medium between the full DIY and the Pro at $400+. With a single W2, and no other items, the form is likely just a 1040-EZ, and there shouldn't be any recalculating so long as you have the data you need. Pencil/paper is fine. There's no exact time to say go with the software, except, perhaps, when you realize there are enough fields to fill out where the recalculating might be cumbersome, or the need to see the exact tax bracket has value for you. You are clearly in the category that can fill out the one form. At some point, you might have investment income (Schedule D) enough mortgage interest to itemize deductions (Schedule A) etc. You'll know when it's time to go the software route. Keep in mind, there are free online choices from each of the tax software providers. Good for simple returns up to a certain level. Thanks to Phil for noting this in comments. I'll offer an anecdote exemplifying the distinction between using the software as a tool vs having a high knowledge of taxes. I wrote an article The Phantom Tax Zone, in which I explained how the process of taxing Social Security benefits at a certain level created what I called a Phantom Tax Rate. I knew that $1000 more in income could cause $850 of the benefit to be taxed as well, but with a number of factors to consider, I wanted to create a chart to show the tax at each incremental $1000 of income added. Using the software, I simply added $1000, noted the tax due, and repeated. Doing this by hand would have taken a day, not 30 minutes. For you, the anecdote may have no value, Social Security is too far off. For others, who in March are doing their return, the process may hold value. Many people are deciding whether to make their IRA deposit be pre-tax or the Post tax Roth IRA. The software can help them quickly see the effect of +/- $1000 in income and choose the mix that's ideal for them." }, { "docid": "233897", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Is it legal to do this? What if it's a shareholder, lets say, a 20% owner of a company who has their own real estate business as their primary focus, but get most of their income from a set hourly wage from the company they partly own, plus dividends? To elaborate on this, let's say that the person in question is never involved in the business in any way shape or form except that they own a % share.. They get paid $40 per hour as a W2 employee, plus dividends, yet they contribute to nothing. I guess it's more of an ethics question, but if that's illegal please let me know. :)" }, { "docid": "286592", "title": "", "text": "In addition to the other comments there are things like training costs. Lower paid employees tend to turn over more quickly so instead of training one employee for 4 weeks and staying for 3 years you spend 12 weeks over that same time period as the minimum wage employees each only stay for a year. Also, you aren't necessarily scheduling all three people at the same time, it might be 3 part time workers at $12 an hour covering one role vs. one full time $20 employee working 40 hours a week." }, { "docid": "205503", "title": "", "text": "\"So your goal is to sell out? If I'm understanding correctly. I say that without connotation. Since you want stock and the ability to be bought. Your partner sounds like he wants reinvest back into the company and make it grow. If you want \"\"profit\"\", I'd say find a different partner. Again you personally can be profitable while still maintaining the company with a nonprofit status. Gotta pay employees.\"" }, { "docid": "452896", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least)." }, { "docid": "360723", "title": "", "text": "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." }, { "docid": "106673", "title": "", "text": "This sounds like a rental fee as described in the instructions for the 1099-MISC. Enter amounts of $600 or more for all types of rents, such as any of the following. ... Non-Employee compensation does not seem appropriate because you did not perform a service. You mention that your tax-preparer brought this up. I think you will need to consult with a CPA to receive a more reliable opinion. Make sure to bring the contract that describes the situation with you. From there, you may need to consult a tax attorney, but the CPA should be able to help you figure out what your next step is." }, { "docid": "477476", "title": "", "text": "Welcome to the wonderful but oft confusing world of self-employment. Your regular job will withhold income for you and give you a W2, which tells you and the government how much is withheld. At the end of the year uber will give you and the government a 1099-misc, which will tell you how much they paid you, but nothing will be withheld, which means you will owe the government some taxes. When it comes to taxes, you will file a 1040 (the big one, not a 1040EZ nor 1040A). In addition you will file a schedule C (self-employed income), where you will report the gross paid to you, deduct your expenses, and come up with your profit, which will be taxable. That profit goes into a line in the 1040. You need to file schedule SE. This says how much self-employment tax you will pay on your 1099 income, and it will be more than you expect. Self employment tax is SS/Medicare. There's a line for this on the 1040 as well. You can also deduct half of your self-employment tax on the 1040, there's a line for it. Now, you can pay quarterly taxes on your 1099 income by filing 1040-ES. That avoids a penalty (which usually isn't that large) for not withholding enough. As an alternative, you can have your regular W2 job withhold extra. As long as you don't owe a bunch at tax time, you won't be a fined. When you are self-employed your taxes aren't as simple. Sorry. You can either spend some time becoming an expert by studying the instructions for the 1040, pay for the expensive version of tax programs, or hire someone to do it for you. Self-employed taxes are painful, but take advantage of the upsides as well. You can start a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA, for example. Make sure you are careful to deduct every relevant business expense and keep good records in case you get audited." }, { "docid": "121832", "title": "", "text": "\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"" }, { "docid": "42999", "title": "", "text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk." }, { "docid": "598899", "title": "", "text": "How will your employer treat your pay and benefits status while you're on leave? Disability income coverage and leave policies work in tandem to solve very different problems. Disability income coverage covers your income, leave policies guarantee your status as an employee. Typically, STD coverage requires an actual loss of income and will offset it's stated benefit for any income you're receiving. In general you can't begin a STD claim after the 7 day waiting period and also draw income from vacation or sick time. Also, typically STD will cover some percentage of your covered pay (sometimes including commission/bonus income) up to some weekly maximum. FLMA requires employers to allow certain amounts of time for certain types of leave. FMLA is not necessarily an income replacement tool like STD coverage. Contrary to your post it's my understanding that if sick and vacation time accrue in to a single PTO bucket your employer is prohibited from requiring employees to exhaust accrued time prior to beginning FMLA leave. In general, you're not missing anything because the point of FMLA is to guarantee your job and status as an employee from a benefits perspective. Benefits language from the Department of Labor Website A covered employer is required to maintain group health insurance coverage, including family coverage, for an employee on FMLA leave on the same terms as if the employee continued to work." }, { "docid": "24323", "title": "", "text": "\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \"\"on the books employees\"\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\"" }, { "docid": "565157", "title": "", "text": "No. Regular W2 employees cannot deduct housing or transportation costs related to their employment. However, in the US, many employers offer Parking and/or Transit FSA programs which are usually collectively referred to a Commuter Benefits FSA programs, this is particularly common among larger employers with locations in major metropolitan cities. Under Commuter benefits FSAs employees can defer up to $255 per month from their gross pay, tax-free, for parking and/or transit expenses. Eligible expenses include things like bus and train passes or parking at a train or bus station. These are money-in/money-out arrangements so expenses can only be claimed against contributions that have been made, unlike a Health FSA. Though, like a health FSA, contributions are subject to use-it or lose-it provisions. These programs must be sponsored by the employer for an employee to take advantage of them though. Some jurisdictions mandate that employers above a certain threshold must offer commuter benefits." }, { "docid": "586355", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, it applies to control groups. If I remember correctly common ownership rules are used to determine \"\"Applicable Large Employer\"\" status but if the time comes to owe a penalty, only the actual entity missing the mark will owe a penalty, not the entire control group. This is an excerpt from Section 4980H (the section that lays out employer requirements and penalties) (16) Employer. The term employer means the person that is the employer of an employee under the common-law standard. See § 31.3121(d)-1(c). For purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer, all persons treated as a single employer under section 414(b), (c), (m), or (o) are treated as a single employer. Thus, all employees of a controlled group of entities under section 414(b) or (c), an affiliated service group under section 414(m), or an entity in an arrangement described under section 414(o), are taken into account in determining whether the members of the controlled group or affiliated service group together are an applicable large employer. For purposes of determining applicable large employer status, the term employer also includes a predecessor employer (see paragraph (a)(36) of this section) and a successor employer. Link to the Federal Register\"" }, { "docid": "373043", "title": "", "text": "\"Not sure I understood, so I'll summarize what I think I read: You got scholarship X, paid tuition Y < X, and you got 1098T to report these numbers. You're asking whether you need to pay taxes on (X-Y) that you end up with as income. The answer is: of course. You can have even lower tax liability if you don't include the numbers on W2, right? So why doesn't it occur to you to ask \"\"if I don't include W2 in the software, it comes up with a smaller tax - do I need to include it?\"\"?\"" }, { "docid": "488774", "title": "", "text": "Walmart is one of the biggest low wage employers. Let's say $1B of the $2.66B is spent on subsidizing Wal-Mart employees. That's &gt;$3 per US citizen, that we all pay and cannot put back into the economy how we wish. I don't even shop at wal mart and I'm forced to subsidize their employees. IMO, that is not fair. This just incentivizes walmart to hire more cheap government-subsidized employees, rewarding walmart's on my back. So let's do this: For every government dollar spent on helping low-wage employees subsist, we tax the employer the same dollar. From this I bet we would see walmart building housing for their employees, maybe even cafeterias, to get them off section 8 / food stamps. That is more efficient than sending money to the IRS, it makes its way to HUD, then to some government employees who are overburdoned, then we pay out section 8 money to landlords. That's inefficient. I know of walmart employees who rely on $1400/month in section 8, so walmart's tax bill would increase substantially, costs would rise, but tax receipts that we all have to currently pay would decrease by the same amount. So overall costs stay them same, but the finances are more efficient and where they should be vs spread around." } ]

[ { "docid": "234436", "title": "", "text": "Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors." } ]

[ { "docid": "42999", "title": "", "text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk." }, { "docid": "562927", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-labour-analysis/japan-inc-turns-contract-workers-into-permanent-staff-as-labor-market-tightens-idUSKCN1BC3PJ) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Last year, the average monthly pay for regular workers was 321,700 yen while for contract workers it was 211,800 yen, so a change in status can mean a big jump in pay plus benefits workers weren&amp;#039;t previously receiving. &gt; LABOR LAW REVISIONS. The trend is expected to accelerate toward April 2018 when a revised labor contract law starts forcing companies to provide permanent status for temporary workers who have served more than five years, if the workers request it. &gt; The share of non-regular workers has almost doubled as companies saddled with excess capacity, debt and excess workers have replaced regular employees with cheaper contract workers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xgsde/japans_labor_market_is_getting_so_tight_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~202637 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **work**^#1 **employee**^#2 **year**^#3 **job**^#4 **contract**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "406656", "title": "", "text": "\"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee. I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as \"\"contractors\"\" but make them work under rules that fall into employee. The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.\"" }, { "docid": "32072", "title": "", "text": "I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee." }, { "docid": "14776", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, it is, but first let me address this sentence: my current withholding on my W4 is already at 0 so I can't make it lower You definitely can make it lower. On W4, in addition to the allowances (that what you meant by \"\"already at 0\"\"), there's also a line called \"\"additional withholding\"\". There, you put the dollar amount that you want your payroll to withhold from your paycheck each pay period. So the easiest way to \"\"send\"\" a one time payment to the IRS, if you're a W2 employee, would be to adjust that line with the amount you want to send, and change it back to 0 next pay period. You can also send a check directly to the IRS - follow the instructions to form 1040-ES. That is exactly what that form is designed to be used for.\"" }, { "docid": "373043", "title": "", "text": "\"Not sure I understood, so I'll summarize what I think I read: You got scholarship X, paid tuition Y < X, and you got 1098T to report these numbers. You're asking whether you need to pay taxes on (X-Y) that you end up with as income. The answer is: of course. You can have even lower tax liability if you don't include the numbers on W2, right? So why doesn't it occur to you to ask \"\"if I don't include W2 in the software, it comes up with a smaller tax - do I need to include it?\"\"?\"" }, { "docid": "106673", "title": "", "text": "This sounds like a rental fee as described in the instructions for the 1099-MISC. Enter amounts of $600 or more for all types of rents, such as any of the following. ... Non-Employee compensation does not seem appropriate because you did not perform a service. You mention that your tax-preparer brought this up. I think you will need to consult with a CPA to receive a more reliable opinion. Make sure to bring the contract that describes the situation with you. From there, you may need to consult a tax attorney, but the CPA should be able to help you figure out what your next step is." }, { "docid": "565157", "title": "", "text": "No. Regular W2 employees cannot deduct housing or transportation costs related to their employment. However, in the US, many employers offer Parking and/or Transit FSA programs which are usually collectively referred to a Commuter Benefits FSA programs, this is particularly common among larger employers with locations in major metropolitan cities. Under Commuter benefits FSAs employees can defer up to $255 per month from their gross pay, tax-free, for parking and/or transit expenses. Eligible expenses include things like bus and train passes or parking at a train or bus station. These are money-in/money-out arrangements so expenses can only be claimed against contributions that have been made, unlike a Health FSA. Though, like a health FSA, contributions are subject to use-it or lose-it provisions. These programs must be sponsored by the employer for an employee to take advantage of them though. Some jurisdictions mandate that employers above a certain threshold must offer commuter benefits." }, { "docid": "97852", "title": "", "text": "Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons" }, { "docid": "326329", "title": "", "text": "In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US." }, { "docid": "103437", "title": "", "text": "Here is how it should look: 100 shares of restricted stock (RSU) vest. 25 shares sold to pay for taxes. W2 (and probably paycheck) shows your income going up by 100 shares worth and your taxes withheld going up by 25 shares worth. Now you own 75 shares with after-tax money. If you stop here, there would be no stock sale and no tax issues. You'd have just earned W2 income and withheld taxes through your W2 job. Now, when you sell those 75 shares whether it is the same day or years later, the basis for those 75 shares is adjusted by the amount that went in to your W2. So if they were bought for $20, your adjusted basis would be 75*$20." }, { "docid": "205503", "title": "", "text": "\"So your goal is to sell out? If I'm understanding correctly. I say that without connotation. Since you want stock and the ability to be bought. Your partner sounds like he wants reinvest back into the company and make it grow. If you want \"\"profit\"\", I'd say find a different partner. Again you personally can be profitable while still maintaining the company with a nonprofit status. Gotta pay employees.\"" }, { "docid": "598899", "title": "", "text": "How will your employer treat your pay and benefits status while you're on leave? Disability income coverage and leave policies work in tandem to solve very different problems. Disability income coverage covers your income, leave policies guarantee your status as an employee. Typically, STD coverage requires an actual loss of income and will offset it's stated benefit for any income you're receiving. In general you can't begin a STD claim after the 7 day waiting period and also draw income from vacation or sick time. Also, typically STD will cover some percentage of your covered pay (sometimes including commission/bonus income) up to some weekly maximum. FLMA requires employers to allow certain amounts of time for certain types of leave. FMLA is not necessarily an income replacement tool like STD coverage. Contrary to your post it's my understanding that if sick and vacation time accrue in to a single PTO bucket your employer is prohibited from requiring employees to exhaust accrued time prior to beginning FMLA leave. In general, you're not missing anything because the point of FMLA is to guarantee your job and status as an employee from a benefits perspective. Benefits language from the Department of Labor Website A covered employer is required to maintain group health insurance coverage, including family coverage, for an employee on FMLA leave on the same terms as if the employee continued to work." }, { "docid": "597199", "title": "", "text": "Self employment is typically harder to qualify with than W2 income. In general the bank is going to want 2 years of tax returns. You will be asked to sign a 4506-T that allows the bank to get the records directly from the IRS. Self employment income will be averaged across the 2 years, I don't think a 20% drop in profits is large enough to cause concern but it might. I would plan on being able borrow against the lowest year just in case. If you get a W2 job you will be able to count the income immediately assuming it is not a temporary position. The bank will ask for the offer letter. If you have decent credit and 20% down, you should be able to get a mortgage either way. A W2 is typically less paperwork and you would get to claim your current income assuming that is higher than your past income." }, { "docid": "262895", "title": "", "text": "If it was me, I'd wait until/if you get contacted again by the collection agency. Once you do, I'd offer to settle for less. Perhaps 1000-1250 to start, and I would not go any higher than 2K. Get it in writing that this settles your debt in full, and do not give them direct access to your checking account. You can pay them by certified check or with a prepaid credit card or something. If you do the latter, throw that prepaid card away, and never use it again. You may also try to get them to agree that you do not owe the full 5K, and again get that in writing. Otherwise, you will be 1099'd for the difference between it and the amount you settle and therefore it will be treated as income. I'd stick 2k in a bank account for a while, perhaps two years, and you are free to use the remaining 3K to meet other goals. After two years, I would check my credit and see if it is still in the report. You might also choose to dispute the collection and see what happens there. If it is successful it will come off your report. Prior to a big credit decision (aka buying a home), I would check on the status of this collection. Only at that time would I contact that collection agency and again try to settle. If I contacted them, I would start the negotiations around 500 or so." }, { "docid": "510913", "title": "", "text": "You have to file and issue each one of them a 1099 if you are paying them $600 or more for the year. Because you need to issue a 1099 to them (so they can file their own taxes), I don't think there's a way that you could just combine all of them. Additionally, you may want to make sure that you are properly classifying these people as contractors in case they should be employees." }, { "docid": "454184", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure how this gets entered in TurboTax, but this income from the company should be included in the Schedule C (or C-EZ) Line 1 Gross Receipts total, along with all of your 1099-MISC income from your business and any other income that your business took in. You don't need a 1099 from them, and the IRS doesn't care (at least from your perspective) if you got a 1099 or not; in fact, they probably expect you to have some non-1099 income. We don't know why the company chose not to issue 1099 forms, but luckily it isn't your concern. You can fill out your tax return properly without it. Note: This answer assumes that you didn't have any tax withheld from your checks from this company. If you did have tax withheld, you'll need to insist on a 1099 to show that." }, { "docid": "121832", "title": "", "text": "\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"" }, { "docid": "424979", "title": "", "text": "Sounds a lot like my old boss. Except, I couldn't even get a PM methodology in place that numbered and tracked projects. Boss: Just email me weekly status reports of what you're working on. Me: How am I supposed to know what I am working on? Boss: ... --- Me: I came up with a PM system to track all of our work. Here's the link. Boss: I like this, I have some notes of things I'd like changed. 6 months later Boss: Where is your weekly status report? Me: When are you going to send me those notes? --- Boss: Send me an inventory of all of our systems and servers. Me: I can put it in a centralized, web-based system where we you can get real-time reports and export them to Excel. Boss: We'll do that later. 6 Months later Boss: Can you email me an updated version of the systems and servers inventory? Me: Where is it? Boss: You sent it to me. Me: So in email? Boss: I guess. Me:I can put it in a centralized, web-based system where we you can get real-time reports and export them to Excel. Boss: We'll do that later. --- Boss: This employee of yours is a real problem. Me: I agree, we've had many conversations about this. I've spoken to her several times, she's been written up. I think it's time to fire her. Boss: Let's wait till after the holidays I'm going on vacation then you are. Me: I think we need to move quickly. Boss: Let's wait Right after holidays employee falls, injures hip on the job. Takes 9 months off of work. Turns out it was a preexisting condition but HR tells us we have to take her back despite the act that she lied on her application. --- Went on short paternity leave. Boss was supposed to okay my employees time cards in the system in my absence. Same employee as above. Boss: So you're employee didn't get paid because her time card wasn't approved. Me: I was on leave, I was clear I couldn't okay it while I was out and my system back up was supposed to okay it. Boss: Who is your system back up? Me: According to HR, you. Boss: Oh, well you need to own this problem. Me:... --- Me: So we just need to develop use cases for the system. Boss and his Boss: Don't use technical jargon. Me:..." } ]

[ { "docid": "399406", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure if the rules in Canada and the US are the same. I'm as amazed as you are by the amounts of debts people have, but I can see how this credit can be extended. Generally, with good credit history and above average pay - it is not unheard of to get about $100K credit limit with a bunch of credit cards. What you do with that after that depends on your own ability to manage your finances and discipline. Good credit history is defined by paying your credit cards on time with at least minimum payment amount (which is way lower than the actual statement amount). Above average pay is $60K+. So you can easily have tons of debt, yet be considered \"\"low risk\"\" with good credit history. And that's the most lucrative market for the credit card issuers - people who do not default, but also have debt and pay interest.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "190225", "title": "", "text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you." }, { "docid": "333219", "title": "", "text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\"" }, { "docid": "84596", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;You could say the same about any public utility. (except the one largest one, technically) There are literally thousands and thousands of processors, which is not the case with utilities. Additionally, processors don't need to have any kind of office or presence anywhere near the business they're serving, which means being able to choose without geographical restrictions. Also, PayPal is not a utility. This is not a relevant comparison. &gt;Are you saying they are unable, both contractually and technically, to affect the consumer side? They'd have to revoke their partnerships with banks who issue cards, which they aren't going to do, because consumers using cards is how they make money. Banks could choose not to issue cards, but they're already free to do that. (There's no right to a credit card.) &gt;But also by selectively quoting me you are (deliberately?) side-stepping what actually happened in the WikiLeaks case, to focus on the consumer side. Visa and Mastercard prohibited payments to Wikileaks on the basis of WL allegedly facilitating illegal activity. How is that relevant to what PayPal's doing? &gt;You must buy things in different corners of the Internet than I do. The customer experience (to me) is that there is \"\"the store\"\" or you can pay with PayPal. Yes, \"\"the store\"\" is actually a payment processor but this is a quick slippery slope to \"\"what? You can just set up your own payment processor once they've all blocked your legal business\"\". What are you talking about? You acknowledge that the store has its own processing but somehow that's not enough because someday they might not have processing and have to go through PayPal? Processors *already* deny service to legal businesses. Notably, anything considered \"\"high risk\"\" - which includes travel services, pharmaceuticals, firearms, adult entertainment, telemarketing, debt collection, tobacco, and more - but also for businesses with poor credit, high chargebacks, business practices they don't agree with, lots of international transactions, etc. It literally happens all the time. And, there are so many processors (tens of thousands) that there's another processor willing to step in. Tons of websites don't even use PayPal anymore, and the ones that do often layer it on top of a different payment option. (PayPal is trying hard to increase their presence in stores because of the competition in the internet space.) No one is unable to accept payments if they're barred from PayPal. PayPal actually cuts off accounts all the time because people use it for things against PayPal's TOS. Amazon payments, Shopify, and Stripe are the ones that most people know off the tops of their heads for online processing, but there are literally thousands. No one is somehow unable to conduct business if they can't use PayPal. The only time that businesses can't really get processing is if they do something like rack up chargebacks and disappear or commit fraud against a processor. In those cases, the processor can put that business on the Terminated Merchant File (or MATCH list) and other processors will see that there's been a problem with that customer and not take them on. Even in those cases, businesses can rectify the issue and get off the MATCH list or they can look for processors that will serve them anyway and expect to pay a premium for it.\"" }, { "docid": "398090", "title": "", "text": "\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \"\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\"\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\"" }, { "docid": "84036", "title": "", "text": "\"Ditto Nate Eldredge in many ways, but let me add some other thoughts. BTW there are not four types of account, but five. You're forgetting equity, also called capital. Would it be possible to design an accounting system that does not have 5 types of accounts, maybe is simpler in other ways, and is internally consistent and logical? I'm sure it is. But what's the advantage? As Nate points out, the existing system has been in use for hundreds of years. Lots of people know how it works and understand it. I'd add: People have long since worked out how to deal with all the common situations and 99% of the odd cases you're likely to hit. If you invent your own system, you're starting from scratch. You'd have to come up with conventions to handle all sorts of situations. How do I record buying a consumable with cash? How do I record buying a capital asset with credit? How do I record paying off debts? How do I record depreciation? Etc etc. If you worked at it long and hard enough and you're a reasonably bright guy, maybe you could come up with solutions to all the problems. But why? If you were approaching this saying, \"\"I see these flaws in the way accounting is done today. I have an idea for a new, better way to do accounting\"\", I'd say good luck, you have a lot of work ahead of you working out all the details to make a fully functioning system, and then persuading others to use it, but if you really do have a better idea, maybe you can revolutionize the world of accounting. But, \"\"The present system is too much trouble and I don't want to bother to learn it\"\" ... I think that's a mistake. The work involved in inventing your own system is going to end up being way more than what it would take to learn the existing system. As to, Aren't liabilities a lot like assets? Well, in a sense I suppose. A credit card is like a checking account in that you can use it to pay for things. But they're very different, too. From an accounting point of view, with a checking account you buy something and then the money is gone, so there's one transaction: reduce cash and increase office supplies or whatever. But with a credit card there has to be a second transaction, when you pay off the charge: So, step 1, increase debt and increase office supplies; step 2, decrease debt and decrease cash. Credit cards charge interest, well you don't pay interest to use your own cash. Etc. One of the beauties of double-entry book-keeping is that every transaction involves a debit and a credit of equal amounts (or a set of debits and credits where the total of the debits equals the total of the credits). If you combine assets and liabilities into, whatever you call it, \"\"balance accounts\"\" say, then some transactions would involve a matching debit and credit while others would involve a positive debit and a matching negative debit and no credit. I'm sure you could make such a system work, but one of the neat built-in protections against error is lost. There's a very logical distinction between things that you have or that others owe you, and things that you owe to others. It makes a lot of sense to want to list them separately and manage them separately. I think you'd pretty quickly find yourself saying, \"\"well, we have two types of balance accounts, those that represent things we have and which normally have positive balances, which we list on chart A, and those that represent things we owe and which normally have negative balances, which we list on chart B\"\". And before you know it you've just reinvented assets and liabilities.\"" }, { "docid": "474573", "title": "", "text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\"" }, { "docid": "506567", "title": "", "text": "\"You have a few options, none of which are trade off free: Apply for a credit card, and live off of that. Here, of course, you will go into debt, and there are minimums to pay. But, it will tide you over. In any case, you are getting unsecured credit, so your rates will probably be very, very high. You don't want to build up a lot of 20% per annum debt. An alternative to this would be to go to any bank and ask for an unsecured loan. Having no income, it will be difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to secure some funds. When I was in between houses, once, for example, I was able to borrow $30,000 in unsecured debt (to help me construct my new house!), just based on my income. Grant you, I paid it 2 months later, in order to avoid the 10% / year interest, but the point is that unsecured debt does exist. Credit Cards are easier to get. Arrange for personal financing through your parents or other relatives. If your parents can send you remittances, the terms will most likely be more generous. They know your credit and your true ability to repay. Just because they send you money doesn't mean you have to live with them. As a parent, I have a stake in ensuring my children's success. If I think that tiding them over briefly is in their best interest and mine, you better be sure I'll do it. A variation on this is Microfinance - something like Kiva. Here, if you can write up a story compelling enough to get finance, there are people who might lend you money. Kiva is normally directed towards poorer countries and entrepeneurs - but local variations exist. UPDATE: Google-backed 'LendingClub.com is far more appropriate to this situation than Kiva. Same general idea, but that's the vendor. Find freelance, contract, or light employment. Your concern about employment is justified - you don't want to be in a position where you are unable to travel to an interview because Starbucks or McDonalds will fire you if you don't show up for a shift. (Then again, do you really care if McDonald's lets you go?) As such, you need to find income that is less bound by schedule. Freelance work, in particular, will give you that freedom - assuming you have a skill you can trade. Likewise, short term contract work is equally flexible - usually. Finally, it may be easiest just to get temporary pickup work in a service capacity. In any event, doing something will be better than doing nothing. Who knows, you might want to be a manager / owner of a McDonalds some day. Wouldn't hurt to say, \"\"I started at the bottom.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "516397", "title": "", "text": "Everyone is telling you how to manage your finances, good for them that's not an answer to your question. The real answer solves how to get your money to travel. The bank likely might extend you a loan especially if you have assets greater than the amount borrowed. However, a better solution (or alternative if the bank's rate are too high or they simply won't give it to you) is to go to a P2P lending platform these are copious in the UK and US. If I remember correctly there was a Canadian platform called CommunityLEnd or FinanceIT. The point here is this: Go borrow money at a lower rate than your credit card (there are other alternatives than P2P, you can google these, just make sure the rate is lower than your credit card). Pay the card off, and go on vacation just make sure you can pay it all off eventually otherwise you'll be swimming in debt you cant pay." }, { "docid": "460225", "title": "", "text": "\"You will definitely want to look into odd jobs, if possible. I'm sure this sounds patronizing, but the biggest problem you have right now is your credit card debt, most likely at very high interest rates. You said you have enough to \"\"make your payments\"\", but you didnt specify what that meant. Are you making the minimum payments only? If you're only making the minimum payments, you'll want to really find SOME way to scrounge even an extra $50 together each month (odd jobs specifically. You might also want to try mturk, where you get paid to fill out surveys). You see, by making only the minimum payment, you are actually probably only putting a few dollars at all to principal. Most of the rest went to last month's interest charges. The best thing to do is lay out each card and what the interest rate is. You have 9 of them, so this seems like a bit of a task. The first step is to identify which card has the HIGHEST interest rate. There are two things you can do then. You either throw every extra penny you have at that specific card, OR, you find some way to move that balance to your LOWEST interest rate card. In all cases, your goal is to move debt from the high-interest rate cards to the low interest rate cards. Once you can't move debt around anymore, your goal then is to pay only the minimums on all the low-interest rate cards, and put EVERY SINGLE SPARE PENNY you have towards the higher ones. If you don't mind me asking, can you outline all 9 cards and how much you owe on each, adn what each's interest rate is? It's possible you don't know, and that's problem one. If you don't know the interest rate of each card, then you don't even really know which card you should be paying off first. Edit: How miuch do you spend on food a month? If you were really really determined to get over this, you'd basically just eat rice and beans, or buy nearly-bad bananas and eggs. These are the cheapest foodstuffs you can find.\"" }, { "docid": "508510", "title": "", "text": "If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk." }, { "docid": "376403", "title": "", "text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin." }, { "docid": "372993", "title": "", "text": "\"I had to apply for an American Express card, which was also rejected. Then I had searched for a Marbles Credit Card Stop applying for credit cards/loans. Doing so is just making your credit rating worse. Credit agencies will downgrade your credit rating if they see lots of signs of credit checking. It's a sign you're desperately looking for credit, which you are...! 44.9% APR This is very expensive credit. You can get personal loans on the high street for 3-4%. 44.9% is really bad value. You're simply going to make the situation worse. Am I taking off a loan from website as amingos loans to help me build up my credit rating Again this is 44% interest! You also need a guarantor. So you're not only going to get yourself in trouble but a family member too: don't do this! This will only help your credit rating if you pay it back successfully, which given your situation seems like a risk. Contact the Money Advice Service or the National Debt Line. Explain your situation in detail to them. They are a government-backed service designed for people in your situation. They will offer practical advice and can even help negotiate with your creditors, etc. Here's some general advice about getting out of debt from Money Saving Expert Traditional debt help says 'never borrow your way out of a debt problem'. But this ignores the varying cost of different debts. The MoneySaving approach is: \"\"Never borrow more to get out of a debt problem.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "524149", "title": "", "text": "\"I've been using YNAB4 for the last few years, and I like it so much that I haven't switched to the web version (new YNAB) yet. However, I have played around with the web version a little, and here is what I have discovered. Despite the different look of the credit card account and the lengthy dissertation on the credit card differences in the Transition Guide, credit cards are handled almost exactly the same in the new YNAB as they were in YNAB4. You enter credit card spending transactions in the same way as YNAB4. When you enter a transaction, money is pulled out of the budget category you select. The only difference is that in YNAB4, this money was considered \"\"gone.\"\" Now, that money moves from your budget category into the new credit card category. When it comes time to pay the credit card bill, you also enter this transaction in the same way as before. It is entered as a transfer of money from your checking account to your credit card account. The only difference here is that with new YNAB, the funds are deducted from your credit card category. This is handled automatically, so you don't have to think about it if you don't want to. If you always pay your credit card bill in full, you never have to budget money manually into the credit card category. The money will already be there from when you entered the credit card spending transactions. The only time you would manually budget money into the credit card spending category is if you have old credit card debt that you are trying to pay off. A quick example, in pictures: I start out with $10,000 in my checking account, and no credit card debt: I've got all $10,000 in my \"\"Fun Money\"\" category: Now, I spend $100 at the Store: You can see that, just like in YNAB4, the credit card account is now in the red $100, and the checking account balance has not changed. In the categories, my Fun Money category is down $100 to $9,900, just like it would be in YNAB4. The only difference is that there is now $100 in the new Credit Card Payments category. When it is time to pay the bill, I enter an account transfer, just like in YNAB4: Note that the Credit Card balance is back to $0, and the Checking Account balance is now down to $9,900. The Credit Card Payment budget category is now magically back to $0: The above example starts with a zero balance on the credit card. However, most people will have a non-zero balance on their credit card when they first start a budget. In YNAB4, when you added a credit card with a (negative) balance, the debt was shown in a budget category called \"\"Pre-YNAB Debt.\"\" You then added money to this budget category until it went to zero, and then you didn't need this budget category anymore. With new YNAB, credit card balances are not shown in budget categories. If you add a credit card account with a balance, the debt is not shown in the budget categories. To pay off this debt, you can fund the Credit Card Payments category. After this existing balance amount is paid off, you won't need to fund the Credit Card Payments category anymore as long as you properly assign each new credit card purchase to a funded budget category.\"" }, { "docid": "87402", "title": "", "text": "\"They have forever to collect a balance from you. Furthermore they can add whatever penalties and fees they wish to increase that balance. Worst of all, they don't have to remind you or send you bills or any other notification. You owed it when you left the office. (There very well could be local laws that require notifications, but that isn't really the issue here.) That dentist has every right to deny you service until you settle the account. Forever. The statute of limitations on collecting that debt via court: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/when-does-your-debt-expire.aspx Which covers the rules on HOW LONG they have to collect the debt. Owing the money is one thing, but the rules and tools that you creditor has to collect the debt are another. You are probably worried about them suing you. But if you don't pay the debt (or settle in some way), that dentist can refuse to provide services to you, even if they write off the debt. Ways you can be punished by your dentist for not paying the bill are: Depending on your jurisdiction and/or type of debt, they typically only report it on your credit (if they are reporting at all) for 7 years. Even if you pay and settle the account, it will still be reported on your credit report for 7 years. The difference is how it is reported. They can report that \"\"user133466 is a super reliable person who always pays debts on time\"\". They can say \"\"user133466 is a flake who pays, but takes a while to pay\"\". Or they can say \"\"user133466 is a bad person to provide services before collecting money, because user133466 don't pay bills\"\". Other people considering lending you money are going to read these opinions and decide accordingly if they want to deal with you or not. And they can say that for 7 years. The idea of credit reporting is that you settle up as soon as possible and get your credit report to reflect the truth. One popular way to collect a debt to is to sue you for it. There, each state has a different time period on how long a creditor has to sue you for a debt. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/state-statutes-of-limitations-for-old-debts-1.aspx If you pay part of the debt, that will often reset the clock on the statute of limitations, so be sure any partial or negotiated settlements state very clearly, in writing, that payment is considered payment in full on the debt. Then you keep that record forever. There are other interesting points in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Debt collectors calling? Know your rights. They can only contact you in certain ways, they must respond to you in certain ways, and they have limits on what they can say, who they can say it to, and when they can say it. There are protections from mean or vicious bill collectors, but that doesn't sound like who you are dealing with. I don't know that the FDCPA is a tool you need to use in this case. You should negotiate your debt and try your best to settle up. From your post, both parties dropped the ball, and both parties should give a little. You should pay no or minor late fees, and the doctor should report your credit positively when you do so. If you both made honest mistakes, they both parties should acknowledge that and be fair, and not defensive. This is not legal advice. But you owe the debt, so you should settle up. I don't think it is fair for you to not pay because they didn't mail you a paper. However I also do not think it is fair for the doctor to run up fees and not remind you of the bill. Finally, you didn't bring up insurance or many other details. Those details can change the answer.\"" }, { "docid": "386668", "title": "", "text": "These are the things to focus on... do not put yourself in debt with a car, there are other better solutions. 1) Get a credit card (Unless you already have one) -Research this and get the best cash back or points card you can get at the best rate. - Start with buying gas and groceries every month do not run the balance up. - Pay the card off every single month. (THIS IS IMPORTANT) - Never carry a balance above 25% of your credit limit. - Every 8 months or so call your credit card company and ask for a credit line increase. They should be able to do this WITHOUT pulling your credit you are only looking for the automatic increment that they can automatically approve. This will help increase your available credit and will help keep your credit utilization low. Only do this is you are successfully doing the other bullet points above. 2) Pay all of your bills on time, this includes everything from water, electricity, phone bill, etc. never be late. Setup automatic payments if you can. 3) Minimize the number of hard credit inquiries. -This is particularly important when you are looking for your mortgage lender. Do not let them pull your credit automatically. You should be able to provide them your credit score and other information and get quotes from those lenders. Do not let them tell you then can't do this... they can. 4)Strategically plan when you close a credit line, closing them will do two things, lower your credit limit often times increasing your credit utilization, and it may hurt your average age of credit. Open one credit card and keep it forever. *Note: Credit Karma is a great tool, you should check your score monthly and see how your efforts are influencing your score. I also like Citi credit cards because they will provide you monthly with your FICO Score which Credit Karma will only provide TransUnion and Equifax. This is educational information and you should consider talking to a banker/lender who can also give you more detailed instructions on how to get your credit improved so that they can approve you for a loan. Many people can get their score above 720 in 1-2 years time going from no credit doing the steps described above. It does take time be patient and don't fall for gimmicks." }, { "docid": "311815", "title": "", "text": "I would look for these features in the credit card: If there is some kind of reward option like cash back or points, you obviously deduct these from the total costs. Chances are the total costs are higher than the rewards, because generally people don't give you money for free. The reward has to be financed somehow. I would adivse against building up credit card debt. It typically has a high interest rate. So, use the credit card only as a method of payment and pay back the debt so quickly that the interest doesn't start to accumulate." }, { "docid": "24138", "title": "", "text": "You're going to have a huge problem getting approved for anything as long as you have an unpaid bill on your report. Pay it and make sure its reported as paid in full - ASAP. Once that settled, your credit will start to improve slowly. Can't do anything about that, it will take time. You can make the situation improve a bit faster by lending money to yourself and having it reported regularly on your report. How? Easy. Get a secured credit card. What does it mean? You put X amount of money in a CD and the bank will issue you a credit card secured by that CD. Your credit line will be based on the amount in that CD, and you'll probably pay some fees to the bank for the service (~$20-50/year, shop around). You might get lucky and find a secured card without fees, if you look hard enough. Secured cards are reported as revolving credit (just as any other credit card) and are easy to get because the bank doesn't take the risk - you do. If you default on your payments - your CD goes to cover the debt, and the card gets cancelled. But make absolutely sure that you do not default. Charge between 10% and 30% of the credit limit each month, not more. Pay the balance shown on your credit card statement in full every month and by the due date shown on your monthly statement. It will take a while, but you would typically start noticing the improvement within ~6-12 months. Stop applying for stuff. Not store cards, not car loans, you're not going to get anything, and will just keep dragging your scores down. Each time you have a pull on your report, the score goes down. A lot of pulls, frequent pulls - the score goes down a lot. Lenders can see when one is desperate, and no-one wants to lend money to desperate people. Optimally lenders want to lend money to people who doesn't need loans, but in order to keep the business running they'll settle for slightly less - people who don't usually need loans, and pay the loans they do have on time. You fail on both, as you're desperate for a loan and you have unpaid bills on your report." }, { "docid": "59327", "title": "", "text": "Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run." }, { "docid": "393866", "title": "", "text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "396933", "title": "", "text": "I would say you are typical. The way people are able to build their available credit, then subsequently build their average balances is buy building their credit score. According to FICO your credit score is made up as follows: Given that you had no history, and only new credit you are pretty much lacking in all areas. What the typical person does, is get a card, pay on it for 6 months and assuming good history will either get an automatic bump; or, they can request a credit limit increase. Credit score has nothing to do with wealth or income. So even if you had 100K in the bank you would likely still be facing the same issue. The bank that holds the money might make an exception. It is very easy to see how a college student can build to 2000 or more. They start out with a $200 balance to a department store and in about 6 months they get a real CC with a 500 balance and one to a second department store. Given at least a decent payment history, that limit could easily increase above 2500 and there could be more then one card open. Along the lines of what littleadv says, the companies even welcome some late payments. The fees are more lucrative and they can bump the interest rate. All is good as long as the payments are made. Getting students and children involved with credit cards is a goal of the industry. They can obtain an emotional attachment that goes beyond good business reasoning." } ]

[ { "docid": "110953", "title": "", "text": "I do this all the time, my credit rating over time plotted on a graph looks like saw blades going upward on a slope I use a credit alert service to get my credit reports quarterly, and I know when the credit agencies update their files (every three months), so I never have a high balance at those particular times Basically, I use the negative hard pulls to propel my credit score upwards with a the consequentially lowered credit utilization ratio, and the credit history. So here is how it works for me, but I am not an impulse buyer and I wouldn't recommend it for most people as I have seen spending habits: Month 1: charge cards, pay minimum balance (raises score multiple points) Month 2: PAY OFF ALL CREDIT CARDS, massive deleveraging using actual money I already have (raises score multiple points) Month 3: get credit report showing low balance, charge cards, pay minimum balance ask for extensions of credit, AND followup on new credit line offers (lowers score several points per credit inquiry) Month 4: charge cards, pay minimum balance, discretionally approving hard pulls - always have room for one or two random hard pulls, such as for a new cell phone contract, or renting a car, or employment, etc Month 5: PAY OFF CREDIT CARDS using actual money you have. (the trick is to NEVER really go above a 15% credit utilization ratio, and to never overleverage. Tricky because very quickly you will get enough credit to go bankrupt) Month 6: get credit report showing low balances, a slight dip in score from last quarter, but still high continue." }, { "docid": "390598", "title": "", "text": "Since recent changes to credit scoring (July 2017) it may not be necassary to do this, as more emphasis is placed on having a timely payment history and less emphasis is placed on having a low credit utilization ratio. Using what’s known as trended data is the biggest change. The phrase means credit scores will take into account the trajectory of a borrower’s debts on a month-to-month basis. In fact, having a low credit utilization ratio may even negatively effect you (if your available credit line value is high): ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source" }, { "docid": "24138", "title": "", "text": "You're going to have a huge problem getting approved for anything as long as you have an unpaid bill on your report. Pay it and make sure its reported as paid in full - ASAP. Once that settled, your credit will start to improve slowly. Can't do anything about that, it will take time. You can make the situation improve a bit faster by lending money to yourself and having it reported regularly on your report. How? Easy. Get a secured credit card. What does it mean? You put X amount of money in a CD and the bank will issue you a credit card secured by that CD. Your credit line will be based on the amount in that CD, and you'll probably pay some fees to the bank for the service (~$20-50/year, shop around). You might get lucky and find a secured card without fees, if you look hard enough. Secured cards are reported as revolving credit (just as any other credit card) and are easy to get because the bank doesn't take the risk - you do. If you default on your payments - your CD goes to cover the debt, and the card gets cancelled. But make absolutely sure that you do not default. Charge between 10% and 30% of the credit limit each month, not more. Pay the balance shown on your credit card statement in full every month and by the due date shown on your monthly statement. It will take a while, but you would typically start noticing the improvement within ~6-12 months. Stop applying for stuff. Not store cards, not car loans, you're not going to get anything, and will just keep dragging your scores down. Each time you have a pull on your report, the score goes down. A lot of pulls, frequent pulls - the score goes down a lot. Lenders can see when one is desperate, and no-one wants to lend money to desperate people. Optimally lenders want to lend money to people who doesn't need loans, but in order to keep the business running they'll settle for slightly less - people who don't usually need loans, and pay the loans they do have on time. You fail on both, as you're desperate for a loan and you have unpaid bills on your report." }, { "docid": "257483", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\"" }, { "docid": "294828", "title": "", "text": "\"Going off hearsay here. I believe your question is. \"\"Does not having a credit card lower your credit score\"\" If that is the question then in the UK at least the answer appears to be yes. Having a credit card makes you less of a risk because you have proven that you can handle a little bit of debt and pay it back. I have a really tiny credit history. Never had a credit card and the only people who will lend to me are my own bank because they can actually see my income / expenditure. When I have queried my bank and at stores offering credit they have said that no credit history isn't far off a bad credit record. Simply having a credit card and doing the odd transactions show's lenders you are at least semi-responsible and is seen as a positive. Not having a credit card and not having much else for that matter makes you an unknown and an unknown is a risk in the eyes of lenders.\"" }, { "docid": "591714", "title": "", "text": "The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer." }, { "docid": "465801", "title": "", "text": "I concur with pretty much what everyone else said. Let me break it down in a concrete plan of action. First, though, note that at least the minimum payments for the credit cards needs to be on this list of fixed expenses. Also, you have $868 remaining in a normal month -- food could be $500 or more easily for a family, so find out how much! Adding in just those 2 things, and you're already at your max. And there are other expenses in life. Ok, cutting from the top: DirectTv -- gone. Pure luxury, and between netflix, hulu and your internet connection (hook your computer to the tv), there's no need for it. $80 savings. Cell phones -- you're already moving in the right direction, but not far enough. In a financial crunch why does your stay-at-home wife have a cell? Especially when she could just as easily use Google Voice for free? Both plans gone, replaced by one of the prepaids @$45. $105 savings, total $186 savings. 529 plans -- Of course you want to save for your kids college, but it doesn't help them for you to drown financially. Gone until your credit card debit is too. $50 savings, $236 total. Ok, we're already up to $236/month in savings just cutting items you don't need. That probably gets you back into the black, but why stop there? Trimming expenses Electric -- ok, I know it's summer, but can you cut this back? Is the thermostat set as high as you can comfortably bear? Are you diligent in turning of lights, especially incandescent? Do you turn off your computer when you're not using it? See if you can get the Electric down by 10%. That's $20/month savings. Doesn't seem like much, but it adds up. Gas -- same with gas. Do you have gas hot water? If so, cut shower length. Saves on water too. Food -- this one you didn't list. But as I said, you could be spending $500 or $600 a month easily for a family. Do you guys plan meals, and thus plan shopping trips? If not, do it. You'll be surprised how much you can save. Either way, 10% reduction should be doable. That's $50/month. If you don't plan now, 20% is within reach -- that's $100/month. Ok, that may have added as much as $130 or so. If so, you're now up to $366/month savings. That's like a 15% raise. Simply cutting, however, is only half the plan. You want to improve your situation, so you can get the Directtv back (assuming you'll even want it at that point), and the wife's cell phone, for starters. To do that, you've got to nail down that debt. I figure you've got minimum $567.23/month in debt payments. That's not including your mortgage, and including an assumed $80/month minimum credit card payments. You pay over 21% of your take-home to short term and consumer debt! Yea, that's why you're hurting. Here's what you do In both cases, apply the extra payments entirely to one balance at a time. Pick either the smallest balance (psychologically best because you quickly see a loan & it's payment dissappear), or the highest interest (mathematically the best). Roll each regular payment that's paid off into the extra debt payments. You didn't list total debt balances, but you did say you had $4000 in credit card debt. Applying an extra $250/month to debt (out of that $366 savings), plus two extra paychecks of $1300 each, is $5600/year paid off. In under a year, you could have those credit cards paid off, and likely that window loan too. Start the 529s again, but keep going paying down the rest. When you have the car paid off, bring back the wife's cell (you and I both know that's going to be #1 on the list :) ), then finish off those student loans. Then bask in the extra $567/month - 21% of your income - you'll have in sweet, sweet green cash!" }, { "docid": "311815", "title": "", "text": "I would look for these features in the credit card: If there is some kind of reward option like cash back or points, you obviously deduct these from the total costs. Chances are the total costs are higher than the rewards, because generally people don't give you money for free. The reward has to be financed somehow. I would adivse against building up credit card debt. It typically has a high interest rate. So, use the credit card only as a method of payment and pay back the debt so quickly that the interest doesn't start to accumulate." }, { "docid": "91183", "title": "", "text": "\"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \"\"better\"\" than the market.\"" }, { "docid": "372993", "title": "", "text": "\"I had to apply for an American Express card, which was also rejected. Then I had searched for a Marbles Credit Card Stop applying for credit cards/loans. Doing so is just making your credit rating worse. Credit agencies will downgrade your credit rating if they see lots of signs of credit checking. It's a sign you're desperately looking for credit, which you are...! 44.9% APR This is very expensive credit. You can get personal loans on the high street for 3-4%. 44.9% is really bad value. You're simply going to make the situation worse. Am I taking off a loan from website as amingos loans to help me build up my credit rating Again this is 44% interest! You also need a guarantor. So you're not only going to get yourself in trouble but a family member too: don't do this! This will only help your credit rating if you pay it back successfully, which given your situation seems like a risk. Contact the Money Advice Service or the National Debt Line. Explain your situation in detail to them. They are a government-backed service designed for people in your situation. They will offer practical advice and can even help negotiate with your creditors, etc. Here's some general advice about getting out of debt from Money Saving Expert Traditional debt help says 'never borrow your way out of a debt problem'. But this ignores the varying cost of different debts. The MoneySaving approach is: \"\"Never borrow more to get out of a debt problem.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "201447", "title": "", "text": "Of course credit cards are viewed as credit. If you're using money on a credit card, you are not directly paying for your transactions on goods/services immediately: this is the act of borrowing credit to pay for them. Debit cards, on the other hand, work where the funds are taken from an account immediately (or subject to a small delay - but usually no more than 24 hours - depending on various factors). You should never miss credit card payments, as that will affect your credit rating. If you have unpaid money on your card this is debt - plain and simple. But to answer your question succinctly - yes, credit cards are a form of credit, as the name suggests. When you apply for a mortgage any unpaid credit (debt) is considered and would adversely affect you if you have such debts. The level to which it affects you depends on the amount of debt. This is how it works in the UK, but to my knowledge it is the same in the US and most other countries. Please clarify if you think this is incorrect." }, { "docid": "393817", "title": "", "text": "MrChrister's answer is just plain wrong. Your history of carrying debt or paying interest has nothing to do with your credit score. The biggest factors are payment history, debt to available credit ratio and length of credit history. If you have active credit accounts for 5 years, have 10-15k in limits on credit cards and put gas and groceries on a credit card that is paid in full each month, you'll have a top notch credit rating. There is no way to tell from a credit report whether you carry a balance for pay in full. Anyone who gets into debt to improve a credit score is ignorant of the process. If you have bad credit, here's how you improve it:" }, { "docid": "398090", "title": "", "text": "\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \"\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\"\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\"" }, { "docid": "460225", "title": "", "text": "\"You will definitely want to look into odd jobs, if possible. I'm sure this sounds patronizing, but the biggest problem you have right now is your credit card debt, most likely at very high interest rates. You said you have enough to \"\"make your payments\"\", but you didnt specify what that meant. Are you making the minimum payments only? If you're only making the minimum payments, you'll want to really find SOME way to scrounge even an extra $50 together each month (odd jobs specifically. You might also want to try mturk, where you get paid to fill out surveys). You see, by making only the minimum payment, you are actually probably only putting a few dollars at all to principal. Most of the rest went to last month's interest charges. The best thing to do is lay out each card and what the interest rate is. You have 9 of them, so this seems like a bit of a task. The first step is to identify which card has the HIGHEST interest rate. There are two things you can do then. You either throw every extra penny you have at that specific card, OR, you find some way to move that balance to your LOWEST interest rate card. In all cases, your goal is to move debt from the high-interest rate cards to the low interest rate cards. Once you can't move debt around anymore, your goal then is to pay only the minimums on all the low-interest rate cards, and put EVERY SINGLE SPARE PENNY you have towards the higher ones. If you don't mind me asking, can you outline all 9 cards and how much you owe on each, adn what each's interest rate is? It's possible you don't know, and that's problem one. If you don't know the interest rate of each card, then you don't even really know which card you should be paying off first. Edit: How miuch do you spend on food a month? If you were really really determined to get over this, you'd basically just eat rice and beans, or buy nearly-bad bananas and eggs. These are the cheapest foodstuffs you can find.\"" }, { "docid": "333219", "title": "", "text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\"" }, { "docid": "319043", "title": "", "text": "One reason why some merchants in the US don't accept Discover is that the fee the store is charged is higher than the average. Generally a portion of transaction fee for the network and the issuing bank goes to the rewards program. In some cases a portion of the interest can also be used to fund these programs. Some cards will give you more points when you carry a balance from one month to the next. Therefore encouraging consumers to have interest charges. This portion of the program will be funded from the interest charges. Profits: Rewards: Some rewards are almost always redeemed: cash once the amount of charges gets above a minimum threshold. Some are almost never redeemed: miles with high requirements and tough blackout periods. Credit cards that don't understand how their customers will use their cards can run into problems. If they offer a great rewards program that encourages use, but pays too high a percentage of points earned can lead to problems. This is especially true when a great percentage of users pay in full each month. This hurt Citibank in the 1990's. They had a card with no annual fee forever, and a very high percentage never had to pay interest. People flocked to the card, and kept it as an emergency card, because they knew it would never have a annual fee." }, { "docid": "375780", "title": "", "text": "\"Paying off a loan early isn't a bad thing. Having a credit card for 6 months and then closing it is probably unneeded; pay it off and then keep it as an emergency card. The key is debt:available credit ratio. Look at this article for example which explains the different elements; the only one you're affecting here is the second, your debt load. If you're not planning on asking for another loan in the next six months, none of this really matters - assuming you are paying it off for sure, in six months, your debt will be gone and your credit score recovered from any hit it takes (and if you get a $1500 credit card and only put $300 on it, it might actually improve your credit). But having an open $1500 credit card with a 0 balance will probably improve your credit rating, unless you have a really high amount of available credit. It will improve your debt/credit ratio (ie, total $ you owe divided by total $ you could put on your CCs/revolving credit). This is all aside from the \"\"is it a good idea to borrow money for a 3 month vacation before starting working\"\", which the answer is \"\"Well, not exactly\"\". That's not from a credit perspective, just from a living within your means perspective. If you have a firm job that will easily pay off the vacation, it's probably not a bad thing, but definitely a certain number of people will take this and end up in 'spending bad habits' that last their life. Be aware of that, and if you're just loaning yourself money from the future, make sure you understand the terms of that loan... and are certain you can pay it off.\"" }, { "docid": "508510", "title": "", "text": "If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk." }, { "docid": "28230", "title": "", "text": "I am answering this in light of the OP mentioning the desire to buy a house. A proper mortgage uses debt to income ratios. Typically 28/36 which means 28% of monthly gross can go toward PITI (principal, interest, tax, insurance) and the total debt can go as high as 36% including credit cards and car payment etc. So, if you earn $5000/mo (for easy math) the 8% gap (between 28 and 36) is $400. If you have zero debt, they don't let you use it for the mortgage, it's just ignored. So a low interest long term student loan should not be accelerated if you are planning to buy a house, better put that money to the down payment. But for credit cards, the $400/mo carries $8000 (banks treat it as though the payment is 5% of debt owed). So, I'd attack that debt with a vengeance. No eating out, no movies, beer, etc. Pay it off as if your life depended on it, and you'll be happier in the long run." } ]

[ { "docid": "25543", "title": "", "text": "I had $70K in credit card at one point. Limited income, starting a business - it's the only credit available. (yes, all paid off now)." } ]

[ { "docid": "110672", "title": "", "text": "\"How do people do it? Firstly, I'd advise you to explicitly budget all taxes. The reason is because taxes get complicated when you have a child deduction. Not that raising a child is profitable post taxes, but it can change your perspective. SIWKs with high income get by just fine. The rest sacrifice. They buy less house, or rent. They drive more than 30 minutes to work every day. They work second jobs. They stop saving for retirement. And when they fail to save or plan, they borrow from family or rack up huge credit card debt. They don't buy the sweet new truck they were planning on. They cut cable and cook meals at home. They skip church, because they can't afford the tithe, and say it's because they don't have time, don't want their children to disrupt services, etc. So right now, that \"\"other\"\" basket is looking pretty juicy, and the taxes can maybe be examined as well. But ultimately, if you're looking at a 30 percent hit in pay, that won't cut it. Mortgage + food alone is nearly half your budget!\"" }, { "docid": "355605", "title": "", "text": "\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \"\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\"\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \"\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\"\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\"" }, { "docid": "190635", "title": "", "text": "Credit card limits are, for the most part, soft limits; sometimes, a credit card will allow you to charge a little over your limit. The large amount they allowed you to go over your limit is unusual, but not unheard of. It is your responsibility to keep track of how much you charge on your credit card, not the bank. Just like with a checking account, you are supposed to keep track of everything you charge so that you always know how much you have spent and can pay it off. Raising your limit will not help your problem; it would only make it worse. You have already charged more than you can afford, and they have already effectively raised your limit by $1200. I realize that this situation is tough, but fortunately, you have a learning opportunity here. I recommend you resolve to stop using the credit card in this way, and work toward paying off your debt to zero. At that point, treat your credit card as if it was a debit card, and only charge what you already have in the bank to pay off right away. (Or, just use a debit card and get rid of the credit card.) Learning to do this now will save you lots of money in interest. If you don't learn to do this, you will find yourself in even more debt in the future, and it will be even harder to dig yourself out. If you need some more help on getting out of debt and learning to budget your money, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey." }, { "docid": "143596", "title": "", "text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "200268", "title": "", "text": "\"In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan. The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest. A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - \"\"Pay off X credit card first!\"\"; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards.\"" }, { "docid": "474573", "title": "", "text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\"" }, { "docid": "319043", "title": "", "text": "One reason why some merchants in the US don't accept Discover is that the fee the store is charged is higher than the average. Generally a portion of transaction fee for the network and the issuing bank goes to the rewards program. In some cases a portion of the interest can also be used to fund these programs. Some cards will give you more points when you carry a balance from one month to the next. Therefore encouraging consumers to have interest charges. This portion of the program will be funded from the interest charges. Profits: Rewards: Some rewards are almost always redeemed: cash once the amount of charges gets above a minimum threshold. Some are almost never redeemed: miles with high requirements and tough blackout periods. Credit cards that don't understand how their customers will use their cards can run into problems. If they offer a great rewards program that encourages use, but pays too high a percentage of points earned can lead to problems. This is especially true when a great percentage of users pay in full each month. This hurt Citibank in the 1990's. They had a card with no annual fee forever, and a very high percentage never had to pay interest. People flocked to the card, and kept it as an emergency card, because they knew it would never have a annual fee." }, { "docid": "257483", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\"" }, { "docid": "91183", "title": "", "text": "\"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \"\"better\"\" than the market.\"" }, { "docid": "190225", "title": "", "text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you." }, { "docid": "59327", "title": "", "text": "Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run." }, { "docid": "444748", "title": "", "text": "\"I answered a similar question, How will going from 75% Credit Utilization to 0% Credit Utilization affect my credit score?, in which I show a graph of how utilization impacts your score. In another answer to Should I keep a credit card open to maintain my credit score?, I discuss the makeup of your score. From your own view at Credit Karma, you can see that age of accounts will help your score, so now is the time to get the right cards and stay with them. My background is technology (electrical engineer) and MBA with a concentration in finance. I'm not a Psychology major. If one is undisciplined, credit can destroy them. If one is disciplined, and pays in full each month, credit is a tool. The quoting of billionaires is a bit disingenuous. I've seen people get turned away at hotels for lack of a credit card. $1000 in cash would not get them into a $200/night room. Yes, a debit card can be used, but the rental car and hotel \"\"reserve\"\" a large amount on the card, so if you don't have a high balance, you may be out of town and out of luck. I'll quote another oft-quoted guru: \"\"no one gets rich on credit card rewards.\"\" No, but I'm on track to pay for my 13 year old's last semester in college with the rewards from a card that goes right into her account. It will be great to make that withdrawal and not need to take the funds from anywhere else. The card has no fee, and I've not paid them a dime in interest. By the way, with 1-20% utilization ideal, you want your total available credit to be 5X the highest monthly balance you'd every hit. Last - when you have a choice between 2% cash reward, and the cash discount Kevin manages, take the discount, obviously.\"" }, { "docid": "517050", "title": "", "text": "\"I want to recommend an exercise: Find all the people nearby who you can talk to in less than 24 hours about credit cards: Your family, whoever lives with you, and friends. Now, ask each of them \"\"what's the worst situation you've gotten yourself into with a credit card?\"\" Personally, the ratio of people who I asked who had credit cards to the ratio of people with horror stories about how credit cards screwed up their credit was nearly 1:1. Pretty much, only one of them had managed to avoid the trap that credit cards created (that sole exception had worked for the government at a high paying job and was now retired with adult children and a lucrative pension). Because it's trivially easy over-extend yourself, as a result of how credit cards work (if you had the cash at any second, you would have no need for the credit). But do your own straw poll, and then see what the experience of people around you has been. And if there's a lot more bad than good out there, then ask yourself \"\"am I somehow more fiscally responsible than all of these people?\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "28230", "title": "", "text": "I am answering this in light of the OP mentioning the desire to buy a house. A proper mortgage uses debt to income ratios. Typically 28/36 which means 28% of monthly gross can go toward PITI (principal, interest, tax, insurance) and the total debt can go as high as 36% including credit cards and car payment etc. So, if you earn $5000/mo (for easy math) the 8% gap (between 28 and 36) is $400. If you have zero debt, they don't let you use it for the mortgage, it's just ignored. So a low interest long term student loan should not be accelerated if you are planning to buy a house, better put that money to the down payment. But for credit cards, the $400/mo carries $8000 (banks treat it as though the payment is 5% of debt owed). So, I'd attack that debt with a vengeance. No eating out, no movies, beer, etc. Pay it off as if your life depended on it, and you'll be happier in the long run." }, { "docid": "446255", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes and No. There's always a \"\"fee\"\". The difference in credit vs debit usually determines how much that fee is and how it's paid. Each vendor who accepts the major credit card is under contract to pay for equipment and meet certain standards. The same is true for debt card transactions. How much the \"\"fee\"\" is can vary based on the contract the vendor has with MasterCard/Visa/AMEX. But in general most debt transactions go back to the bank who distributed the card.\"" }, { "docid": "318730", "title": "", "text": "If you have $5k in cash and $5k in credit card debt, you should pay off the credit card and use your line of credit for any emergency cash need. You're worried about not having cash on hand but that's exactly what a credit line provides. You can draw a cash advance from it if you need. If you pay it off, at least you don't pay interest during the time you don't need it. 17% is a ridiculously high rate of interest. In actuality, you don't have $5k in savings because if you had paid for your purchases using cash, you wouldn't have the savings. So it's basically like you've drawn a cash advance from your CC company to fill your bank account with." }, { "docid": "287876", "title": "", "text": "If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year." }, { "docid": "110953", "title": "", "text": "I do this all the time, my credit rating over time plotted on a graph looks like saw blades going upward on a slope I use a credit alert service to get my credit reports quarterly, and I know when the credit agencies update their files (every three months), so I never have a high balance at those particular times Basically, I use the negative hard pulls to propel my credit score upwards with a the consequentially lowered credit utilization ratio, and the credit history. So here is how it works for me, but I am not an impulse buyer and I wouldn't recommend it for most people as I have seen spending habits: Month 1: charge cards, pay minimum balance (raises score multiple points) Month 2: PAY OFF ALL CREDIT CARDS, massive deleveraging using actual money I already have (raises score multiple points) Month 3: get credit report showing low balance, charge cards, pay minimum balance ask for extensions of credit, AND followup on new credit line offers (lowers score several points per credit inquiry) Month 4: charge cards, pay minimum balance, discretionally approving hard pulls - always have room for one or two random hard pulls, such as for a new cell phone contract, or renting a car, or employment, etc Month 5: PAY OFF CREDIT CARDS using actual money you have. (the trick is to NEVER really go above a 15% credit utilization ratio, and to never overleverage. Tricky because very quickly you will get enough credit to go bankrupt) Month 6: get credit report showing low balances, a slight dip in score from last quarter, but still high continue." }, { "docid": "581697", "title": "", "text": "\"First to actually answer the question \"\"how long at these rates/payments?\"\"- These is nothing magic or nefarious about what the bank is doing. They add accrued interest and take your payment off the new total. I'd make higher payments to the 8.75% debt until it's gone, $100/mo extra and be done. The first debt, if you bump it to $50 will be paid in 147 months, at $75/mo, 92 months. Everything you pay above the minimum goes right to the principal balance and gets you closer to paying it off. The debt snowball is not the ideal way to pay off your debt. Say I have one 24% credit card the bank was nice enough to give me a $20,000 line of credit on. I also have 20 cards each with $1000 in credit, all at 6%. The snowball dictates that the smallest debt be paid first, so while I pay the minimum on the 24% card, the 6% cards get paid off one by one, but I'm supposed to feel good about the process, as I reduce the number of cards every few months. The correct way to line up debt is to pay off the (tax adjusted) highest rate first, as an extra $100 to the 24% card saves you $2/mo vs 50 cents/mo for the 6% cards. I wrote an article discussing the Debt Snowball which links to a calculator where you can see the difference in methods. I note that if the difference from lowest to highest rate is small, the Snowball method will only cost you a small amount more. If, by coincidence, the balances are close, the difference will also be small. The above aside, it's the rest of your situation that will tell you the right path for you. For example, a matched 401(k) deposit should take priority over most debt repayment. The $11,000 might be better conserved for a house downpayment as that $66/mo is student loan and won't count as the housing debt, rather \"\"other debt\"\" and part of the higher ratio when qualifying for the mortgage. If you already have taken this into account, by all means, pay off the 8.75% debt asap, then start paying off the 3% faster. Keep in mind, this is likely the lowest rate debt one can have and once paid off, you can't withdraw it again. So it's important to consider the big picture first. (Are you depositing to a retirement account? Is it a 401(k) and are you getting any matching from the company?)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "562896", "title": "", "text": "You must understand that not everyone has or can get credit cards. Consider that those who are in the the lowest 20-30% of income tend to have fewer credit cards (or none), and lower credit debt, although some have quite high credit card debt relative to their income. So you really aren't comparing the same demographics (the population of all income earners, used to calculate average income, and the population of all credit card debt holders, are not the same groups of people). Once you remove those folks from consideration, then credit card usage may still average higher, but accept that it is unusual for people making less than $20K-30K/year to have much credit card debt. You must understand that wealth and income are two very different (although related) concepts. One must note that there are millions of people in the U.S. who have wealth; they have net assets of over $1M (excluding their homes). Many of those folks have assets greatly exceeding $1M. And although it might seem foolish to carry a large balance on their credit cards, they may have quite low interest rates, and simply find it simpler and more convenient to use credit cards in lieu of personal loans. Suppose you have $2M in net assets, and want to buy a classic car or a diamond necklace. Charging $30K and carrying the balance until a dividend check arrives may make sense. Understand also that not everyone makes the same choices, or good choices. Carrying a credit card balance may appear like a poor choice, especially when you are not wealthy, or have lower income. But suppose you have a high credit limit across several cards, and you need to handle a short-term financial challenge (car repair, layoff, medical bills, etc). You might use the credit card to pay for that purchase, essentially financing an extraordinary event over a longer period of time. And although having a balance of more than 5-10% of your monthly income may seem foolish to some, it may make sense to others. And some people choose to carry balances of 50% to 100% of their credit limit. Others realize that keeping their credit utilization below 30%, 20%, or 10% of the credit limit is a better plan (both interest rate and risk wise)." } ]

[ { "docid": "465801", "title": "", "text": "I concur with pretty much what everyone else said. Let me break it down in a concrete plan of action. First, though, note that at least the minimum payments for the credit cards needs to be on this list of fixed expenses. Also, you have $868 remaining in a normal month -- food could be $500 or more easily for a family, so find out how much! Adding in just those 2 things, and you're already at your max. And there are other expenses in life. Ok, cutting from the top: DirectTv -- gone. Pure luxury, and between netflix, hulu and your internet connection (hook your computer to the tv), there's no need for it. $80 savings. Cell phones -- you're already moving in the right direction, but not far enough. In a financial crunch why does your stay-at-home wife have a cell? Especially when she could just as easily use Google Voice for free? Both plans gone, replaced by one of the prepaids @$45. $105 savings, total $186 savings. 529 plans -- Of course you want to save for your kids college, but it doesn't help them for you to drown financially. Gone until your credit card debit is too. $50 savings, $236 total. Ok, we're already up to $236/month in savings just cutting items you don't need. That probably gets you back into the black, but why stop there? Trimming expenses Electric -- ok, I know it's summer, but can you cut this back? Is the thermostat set as high as you can comfortably bear? Are you diligent in turning of lights, especially incandescent? Do you turn off your computer when you're not using it? See if you can get the Electric down by 10%. That's $20/month savings. Doesn't seem like much, but it adds up. Gas -- same with gas. Do you have gas hot water? If so, cut shower length. Saves on water too. Food -- this one you didn't list. But as I said, you could be spending $500 or $600 a month easily for a family. Do you guys plan meals, and thus plan shopping trips? If not, do it. You'll be surprised how much you can save. Either way, 10% reduction should be doable. That's $50/month. If you don't plan now, 20% is within reach -- that's $100/month. Ok, that may have added as much as $130 or so. If so, you're now up to $366/month savings. That's like a 15% raise. Simply cutting, however, is only half the plan. You want to improve your situation, so you can get the Directtv back (assuming you'll even want it at that point), and the wife's cell phone, for starters. To do that, you've got to nail down that debt. I figure you've got minimum $567.23/month in debt payments. That's not including your mortgage, and including an assumed $80/month minimum credit card payments. You pay over 21% of your take-home to short term and consumer debt! Yea, that's why you're hurting. Here's what you do In both cases, apply the extra payments entirely to one balance at a time. Pick either the smallest balance (psychologically best because you quickly see a loan & it's payment dissappear), or the highest interest (mathematically the best). Roll each regular payment that's paid off into the extra debt payments. You didn't list total debt balances, but you did say you had $4000 in credit card debt. Applying an extra $250/month to debt (out of that $366 savings), plus two extra paychecks of $1300 each, is $5600/year paid off. In under a year, you could have those credit cards paid off, and likely that window loan too. Start the 529s again, but keep going paying down the rest. When you have the car paid off, bring back the wife's cell (you and I both know that's going to be #1 on the list :) ), then finish off those student loans. Then bask in the extra $567/month - 21% of your income - you'll have in sweet, sweet green cash!" }, { "docid": "24138", "title": "", "text": "You're going to have a huge problem getting approved for anything as long as you have an unpaid bill on your report. Pay it and make sure its reported as paid in full - ASAP. Once that settled, your credit will start to improve slowly. Can't do anything about that, it will take time. You can make the situation improve a bit faster by lending money to yourself and having it reported regularly on your report. How? Easy. Get a secured credit card. What does it mean? You put X amount of money in a CD and the bank will issue you a credit card secured by that CD. Your credit line will be based on the amount in that CD, and you'll probably pay some fees to the bank for the service (~$20-50/year, shop around). You might get lucky and find a secured card without fees, if you look hard enough. Secured cards are reported as revolving credit (just as any other credit card) and are easy to get because the bank doesn't take the risk - you do. If you default on your payments - your CD goes to cover the debt, and the card gets cancelled. But make absolutely sure that you do not default. Charge between 10% and 30% of the credit limit each month, not more. Pay the balance shown on your credit card statement in full every month and by the due date shown on your monthly statement. It will take a while, but you would typically start noticing the improvement within ~6-12 months. Stop applying for stuff. Not store cards, not car loans, you're not going to get anything, and will just keep dragging your scores down. Each time you have a pull on your report, the score goes down. A lot of pulls, frequent pulls - the score goes down a lot. Lenders can see when one is desperate, and no-one wants to lend money to desperate people. Optimally lenders want to lend money to people who doesn't need loans, but in order to keep the business running they'll settle for slightly less - people who don't usually need loans, and pay the loans they do have on time. You fail on both, as you're desperate for a loan and you have unpaid bills on your report." }, { "docid": "110672", "title": "", "text": "\"How do people do it? Firstly, I'd advise you to explicitly budget all taxes. The reason is because taxes get complicated when you have a child deduction. Not that raising a child is profitable post taxes, but it can change your perspective. SIWKs with high income get by just fine. The rest sacrifice. They buy less house, or rent. They drive more than 30 minutes to work every day. They work second jobs. They stop saving for retirement. And when they fail to save or plan, they borrow from family or rack up huge credit card debt. They don't buy the sweet new truck they were planning on. They cut cable and cook meals at home. They skip church, because they can't afford the tithe, and say it's because they don't have time, don't want their children to disrupt services, etc. So right now, that \"\"other\"\" basket is looking pretty juicy, and the taxes can maybe be examined as well. But ultimately, if you're looking at a 30 percent hit in pay, that won't cut it. Mortgage + food alone is nearly half your budget!\"" }, { "docid": "137414", "title": "", "text": "\"The weird thing is that if you use the credit impact simulators with the credit monitoring services, they show that the impact of paying your credit cards off completely is more negative than carrying a small balance, which doesn't make a great deal of sense, one would think. From what I can gather, the rationale is that carrying a small balance shows you making payments over time, as opposed to having a zero balance. This doesn't quite compute with me, but I don't truly understand the inner workings of the scoring models. To confirm this, I used simulators with both TransUnion and Experian, and both showed this. I know that it's easy to find people on both sides of this argument, so I can't say which is the best option (certainly whichever side someone falls on is the one they'll argue is the right one! chuckle). In all fairness, your best tool is time. The effects of your prior bad decisions will lessen over time as they move further away in your history and then disappear altogether. Obtaining a credit card just because you think you need one is not a compelling argument, by any means. If you can't rationalize reasons why you need it then maybe you should question the wisdom of such a decision. If you don't have a particular need for better credit right now, why be in a hurry to take on debt? Whatever the formulas are for calculating credit scores, the specific details are a pretty closely-guarded secret (they're proprietary for starters, plus it theoretically prevents people from \"\"gaming the system\"\" for a better score), but if you do enough research online, you can get a pretty good sense of how they work in general. Whatever you do with your credit should be in line with your overall financial goals. If you want to remain debt-free (at least for now) then having a credit card you can't otherwise justify a need for just introduces temptations which could prove tough to resist (\"\"wants\"\" quickly turn into \"\"needs\"\" when you can put it on a card you pay later), then you're right back in the same place you were earlier in your life. Instead of trying to figure out the \"\"best strategy\"\" for a credit card, first ask yourself how necessary it is to you right now in light of your financial objectives, then go from there. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "219181", "title": "", "text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month." }, { "docid": "261016", "title": "", "text": "\"This is second hand information as I am not a millionaire, but I work with such people everyday and have an understanding of how they handle cash: The wealthy people don't. Simple. Definitely not if they don't have to. Cash is a tool to them that they use only if they get benefit of it being a cash transaction (one of my friends is a re-seller and he gets a 10% discount from suppliers for settling lines using cash). Everything else they place on a line of credit. For people who \"\"dislike\"\" credit cards and pay using ATM or debit cards might actually have a very poor understanding of leverage. I assure you, the wealthy people have a very good understanding of it! Frankly, wealthy people pay less for everything, but they deserve it because of the extreme amount of leverage they have built for themselves. Their APRs are low, their credit limits are insanely high, they have longer billing periods and they get spoiled by credit card vendors all the time. For example, when you buy your groceries at Walmart, you pay at least a 4% markup because that's the standardized cost of processing credit cards. Even if you paid in cash! A wealthy person uses his credit card to pay for the same but earns the same percentage amount in cash back, points and what not. I am sure littleadv placed the car purchase on his credit card for similar reasons! The even more wealthy have their groceries shipped to their houses and if they pay cash I won't be surprised if they actually end up paying much less for fresh (organic) vegetables than what equivalent produce at Walmart would get them! I apologize for not being able to provide citations for these points I make as they are personal observations.\"" }, { "docid": "375780", "title": "", "text": "\"Paying off a loan early isn't a bad thing. Having a credit card for 6 months and then closing it is probably unneeded; pay it off and then keep it as an emergency card. The key is debt:available credit ratio. Look at this article for example which explains the different elements; the only one you're affecting here is the second, your debt load. If you're not planning on asking for another loan in the next six months, none of this really matters - assuming you are paying it off for sure, in six months, your debt will be gone and your credit score recovered from any hit it takes (and if you get a $1500 credit card and only put $300 on it, it might actually improve your credit). But having an open $1500 credit card with a 0 balance will probably improve your credit rating, unless you have a really high amount of available credit. It will improve your debt/credit ratio (ie, total $ you owe divided by total $ you could put on your CCs/revolving credit). This is all aside from the \"\"is it a good idea to borrow money for a 3 month vacation before starting working\"\", which the answer is \"\"Well, not exactly\"\". That's not from a credit perspective, just from a living within your means perspective. If you have a firm job that will easily pay off the vacation, it's probably not a bad thing, but definitely a certain number of people will take this and end up in 'spending bad habits' that last their life. Be aware of that, and if you're just loaning yourself money from the future, make sure you understand the terms of that loan... and are certain you can pay it off.\"" }, { "docid": "84596", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;You could say the same about any public utility. (except the one largest one, technically) There are literally thousands and thousands of processors, which is not the case with utilities. Additionally, processors don't need to have any kind of office or presence anywhere near the business they're serving, which means being able to choose without geographical restrictions. Also, PayPal is not a utility. This is not a relevant comparison. &gt;Are you saying they are unable, both contractually and technically, to affect the consumer side? They'd have to revoke their partnerships with banks who issue cards, which they aren't going to do, because consumers using cards is how they make money. Banks could choose not to issue cards, but they're already free to do that. (There's no right to a credit card.) &gt;But also by selectively quoting me you are (deliberately?) side-stepping what actually happened in the WikiLeaks case, to focus on the consumer side. Visa and Mastercard prohibited payments to Wikileaks on the basis of WL allegedly facilitating illegal activity. How is that relevant to what PayPal's doing? &gt;You must buy things in different corners of the Internet than I do. The customer experience (to me) is that there is \"\"the store\"\" or you can pay with PayPal. Yes, \"\"the store\"\" is actually a payment processor but this is a quick slippery slope to \"\"what? You can just set up your own payment processor once they've all blocked your legal business\"\". What are you talking about? You acknowledge that the store has its own processing but somehow that's not enough because someday they might not have processing and have to go through PayPal? Processors *already* deny service to legal businesses. Notably, anything considered \"\"high risk\"\" - which includes travel services, pharmaceuticals, firearms, adult entertainment, telemarketing, debt collection, tobacco, and more - but also for businesses with poor credit, high chargebacks, business practices they don't agree with, lots of international transactions, etc. It literally happens all the time. And, there are so many processors (tens of thousands) that there's another processor willing to step in. Tons of websites don't even use PayPal anymore, and the ones that do often layer it on top of a different payment option. (PayPal is trying hard to increase their presence in stores because of the competition in the internet space.) No one is unable to accept payments if they're barred from PayPal. PayPal actually cuts off accounts all the time because people use it for things against PayPal's TOS. Amazon payments, Shopify, and Stripe are the ones that most people know off the tops of their heads for online processing, but there are literally thousands. No one is somehow unable to conduct business if they can't use PayPal. The only time that businesses can't really get processing is if they do something like rack up chargebacks and disappear or commit fraud against a processor. In those cases, the processor can put that business on the Terminated Merchant File (or MATCH list) and other processors will see that there's been a problem with that customer and not take them on. Even in those cases, businesses can rectify the issue and get off the MATCH list or they can look for processors that will serve them anyway and expect to pay a premium for it.\"" }, { "docid": "395152", "title": "", "text": "Sorry for your loss. Like others have said Debts cannot be inherited period (in the US). However, assets sometimes can be made to stand for debts. In most cases, credit card debt has no collateral and thus the credit card companies will often either sell the debt to a debt collector or collections agency, sue you for it, or write it off. Collecting often takes a lot of time and money, thus usually the credit card companies just sell the debt, to a debt collector who tries to get you to pay up before the statute of limitations runs out. That said, some credit card companies will sue the debtor to obtain a judgement, but many don't. In your case, I wouldn't tell them of your loss, let em do their homework, and waste time. Don't give them any info,and consult with a lawyer regarding your father's estate and whether his credit card will even matter. Often, unscrupulous debt collectors will say illegal things (per the FDCPA) to pressure anyone related to the debtor to pay. Don't cave in. Make sure you know your rights, and record all interactions/calls you have with them. You can sue them back for any FDCPA infractions, some attorneys might even take up such a case on contingency, i.e they get a portion of the FDCPA damages you collect. Don't pay even a penny. This often will extend or reset the statute of limitations time for the debt to be collectable. i.e Ex: If in your state, the statute of limitations for credit card debt is 3 years, and you pay them $0.01 on year 2, you just bought them 3 more years to be able to collect. TL;DR: IANAL, most credit card debt has no collateral so don't pay or give any info to the debt collectors. Anytime you pay it extends the statute of limitations. Consult an attorney for the estate matters, and if the debt collectors get too aggressive, and record their calls, and sue them back!" }, { "docid": "411479", "title": "", "text": "There is almost no reason to get a second credit card - this is a very good arrangement for your creditor but not for you. Credit cards have high rates of interest which you have to pay unless you pay the credit off every month. Therefore, increasing your total credit capacity should not be your concern. Since internet technology lets you pay off your balance in minutes online, there is no reason to have multiple cards in order to avoid running out of a balance. If, on the other hand, you do not pay your existing card off every month, than getting another card can be even more dangerous, since you're increasing the amount of debt you take on. I'd say at most it would make sense for you to grab a basic VISA, since most places do not accept AMEX. I would also considering cancelling the AMEX if you get the VISA, for reasons above." }, { "docid": "517050", "title": "", "text": "\"I want to recommend an exercise: Find all the people nearby who you can talk to in less than 24 hours about credit cards: Your family, whoever lives with you, and friends. Now, ask each of them \"\"what's the worst situation you've gotten yourself into with a credit card?\"\" Personally, the ratio of people who I asked who had credit cards to the ratio of people with horror stories about how credit cards screwed up their credit was nearly 1:1. Pretty much, only one of them had managed to avoid the trap that credit cards created (that sole exception had worked for the government at a high paying job and was now retired with adult children and a lucrative pension). Because it's trivially easy over-extend yourself, as a result of how credit cards work (if you had the cash at any second, you would have no need for the credit). But do your own straw poll, and then see what the experience of people around you has been. And if there's a lot more bad than good out there, then ask yourself \"\"am I somehow more fiscally responsible than all of these people?\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "393817", "title": "", "text": "MrChrister's answer is just plain wrong. Your history of carrying debt or paying interest has nothing to do with your credit score. The biggest factors are payment history, debt to available credit ratio and length of credit history. If you have active credit accounts for 5 years, have 10-15k in limits on credit cards and put gas and groceries on a credit card that is paid in full each month, you'll have a top notch credit rating. There is no way to tell from a credit report whether you carry a balance for pay in full. Anyone who gets into debt to improve a credit score is ignorant of the process. If you have bad credit, here's how you improve it:" }, { "docid": "300489", "title": "", "text": "\"I will disagree with the other answers. The idea that there is some to establish a \"\"credit history\"\" is largely a myth propagated by loaners who see it as positive propaganda to increase the numbers of their prospective customers. You will find some people who claim they were rejected for a card because they had no \"\"credit history,\"\" but in every case what these people are not telling you is they also had no income (were students, house wives, or others with no steady income). Anyone who has income can get a credit card or other line of credit regardless of their \"\"credit history.\"\" Even people who have gone bankrupt can get credit cards if they have proven income. If your answer to this is that \"\"you have no income, but still want a credit card\"\", I would advise you to re-read that sentence several times and think carefully about it. I have never had a credit card and never missed having one, except when trying to rent cars which was somewhat complex and annoying to do in the 2005-2010 time period without a credit card. Credit cards have a number of disadvantages: I definitely agree with those who will tell you credit cards are convenient, they are, but for someone who wants to be financially prudent and build wealth they are unnecessary and unwise. If you don't believe me, read \"\"The Total Money Makeover\"\" by David Ramsey, one of the most famous and best-selling books ever written on personal finance. He actually will give you much better and detailed reasons to avoid CCs than me. After all, who am I, just some dumb rich schmuck with lots of money and no debt and a happy life. Comment on Culture I think it is pretty funny we have a lot of spendthrift Americans in this thread basically telling the OP to get lots of credit cards as soon as possible. If you asked the same question in Japan you would get completely different answers and votes. In Japan its hard to even use credit cards. The people there are much more responsible financially than Americans; the average Japanese person has much higher wealth than a person with the same income in the United States. One of the reasons for this, among many, is that the average Japanese person does not use credit cards. A Japanese person, if you translated this question for them, would think the whole thing a typical example of how foolish Americans are.\"" }, { "docid": "355605", "title": "", "text": "\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \"\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\"\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \"\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\"\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\"" }, { "docid": "494753", "title": "", "text": "An emergency fund of $5000 seems on the low side and I would be worried about spending it down to $2000, that said you want to get out of the car loan. It sounds like you have a little extra disposible income since you think you can rebuild your emergency fund quicker than just the amount you will save from not having a car payment. One option to decrease the hit to your emergency fund is to save aggressively for a month or two to increase your emergency fund by a few hundred dollars and take on some other debt (possibly credit card). You could then pay off the new debt and replenish your emergency fund over a slightly longer period. While some financial planners dislike the idea of an emergency fund while still having high interest debt, to me I would prefer to have $1000 in credit card debt and $3000 in an emergency fund over $0 in credit card debt and $2000 in an emergency fund. Given your time course of 6 months or so to pay off the debt, you might even qualify for a 0% credit card introductory rate (or balance transfer)." }, { "docid": "569056", "title": "", "text": "I feel like this has nothing to do with income, and as such RMDs will not really help or harm you. After a person passes, credit card companies are unlikely to collect any outstanding balance. Debts cannot be inherited, however, assets can be made to stand for debts. Many assets pass to heirs without the probate process and in some cases all of them pass this way. This leaves creditors with nothing and having to write off the balance. Even if assets do pass through probate heirs may dispute the creditors. In that case credit card balances may not be high enough justify hiring a lawyer to fight for payment; or, if they do the judge may be unsympathetic and offer nothing or pennies on the dollar. The bottom line is that they probably see you, or your demographic, as a poor credit risk and reduced their exposure by lowering your limit. While that is not what they told you, they probably have to carefully structure what they say to avoid any discrimination claims." }, { "docid": "84036", "title": "", "text": "\"Ditto Nate Eldredge in many ways, but let me add some other thoughts. BTW there are not four types of account, but five. You're forgetting equity, also called capital. Would it be possible to design an accounting system that does not have 5 types of accounts, maybe is simpler in other ways, and is internally consistent and logical? I'm sure it is. But what's the advantage? As Nate points out, the existing system has been in use for hundreds of years. Lots of people know how it works and understand it. I'd add: People have long since worked out how to deal with all the common situations and 99% of the odd cases you're likely to hit. If you invent your own system, you're starting from scratch. You'd have to come up with conventions to handle all sorts of situations. How do I record buying a consumable with cash? How do I record buying a capital asset with credit? How do I record paying off debts? How do I record depreciation? Etc etc. If you worked at it long and hard enough and you're a reasonably bright guy, maybe you could come up with solutions to all the problems. But why? If you were approaching this saying, \"\"I see these flaws in the way accounting is done today. I have an idea for a new, better way to do accounting\"\", I'd say good luck, you have a lot of work ahead of you working out all the details to make a fully functioning system, and then persuading others to use it, but if you really do have a better idea, maybe you can revolutionize the world of accounting. But, \"\"The present system is too much trouble and I don't want to bother to learn it\"\" ... I think that's a mistake. The work involved in inventing your own system is going to end up being way more than what it would take to learn the existing system. As to, Aren't liabilities a lot like assets? Well, in a sense I suppose. A credit card is like a checking account in that you can use it to pay for things. But they're very different, too. From an accounting point of view, with a checking account you buy something and then the money is gone, so there's one transaction: reduce cash and increase office supplies or whatever. But with a credit card there has to be a second transaction, when you pay off the charge: So, step 1, increase debt and increase office supplies; step 2, decrease debt and decrease cash. Credit cards charge interest, well you don't pay interest to use your own cash. Etc. One of the beauties of double-entry book-keeping is that every transaction involves a debit and a credit of equal amounts (or a set of debits and credits where the total of the debits equals the total of the credits). If you combine assets and liabilities into, whatever you call it, \"\"balance accounts\"\" say, then some transactions would involve a matching debit and credit while others would involve a positive debit and a matching negative debit and no credit. I'm sure you could make such a system work, but one of the neat built-in protections against error is lost. There's a very logical distinction between things that you have or that others owe you, and things that you owe to others. It makes a lot of sense to want to list them separately and manage them separately. I think you'd pretty quickly find yourself saying, \"\"well, we have two types of balance accounts, those that represent things we have and which normally have positive balances, which we list on chart A, and those that represent things we owe and which normally have negative balances, which we list on chart B\"\". And before you know it you've just reinvented assets and liabilities.\"" }, { "docid": "386668", "title": "", "text": "These are the things to focus on... do not put yourself in debt with a car, there are other better solutions. 1) Get a credit card (Unless you already have one) -Research this and get the best cash back or points card you can get at the best rate. - Start with buying gas and groceries every month do not run the balance up. - Pay the card off every single month. (THIS IS IMPORTANT) - Never carry a balance above 25% of your credit limit. - Every 8 months or so call your credit card company and ask for a credit line increase. They should be able to do this WITHOUT pulling your credit you are only looking for the automatic increment that they can automatically approve. This will help increase your available credit and will help keep your credit utilization low. Only do this is you are successfully doing the other bullet points above. 2) Pay all of your bills on time, this includes everything from water, electricity, phone bill, etc. never be late. Setup automatic payments if you can. 3) Minimize the number of hard credit inquiries. -This is particularly important when you are looking for your mortgage lender. Do not let them pull your credit automatically. You should be able to provide them your credit score and other information and get quotes from those lenders. Do not let them tell you then can't do this... they can. 4)Strategically plan when you close a credit line, closing them will do two things, lower your credit limit often times increasing your credit utilization, and it may hurt your average age of credit. Open one credit card and keep it forever. *Note: Credit Karma is a great tool, you should check your score monthly and see how your efforts are influencing your score. I also like Citi credit cards because they will provide you monthly with your FICO Score which Credit Karma will only provide TransUnion and Equifax. This is educational information and you should consider talking to a banker/lender who can also give you more detailed instructions on how to get your credit improved so that they can approve you for a loan. Many people can get their score above 720 in 1-2 years time going from no credit doing the steps described above. It does take time be patient and don't fall for gimmicks." }, { "docid": "157923", "title": "", "text": "First of all a big thumbs up for Ben's answer. A few small things you can do to help you on your way. Hopefully you are not more in debt that 6 months of salary in debt because that is a really tough road. first thing you need to do is get some professional help. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) offers free or low-cost debt counseling to help you through the process. Visit them at NFCC.org or call 1-800-388-2227 to find a local affiliate office near you. You might want to only use cash for a while. If not and you have a credit card with no balance always use that card because it will be interest free. Remember if you use credit cards as a payment system and not credit, you actually get free interest. If you roll even a penny over into the next statement you are paying interest day one of each purchase. Pay credit cards with highest interest rate first an pay minimums to others This one I like the best. As you get money pay your credit card. You interest is being compounded daily. Pay your cards when you have money, not when they are due. Have a mindset that reminds how much something is really going to cost you If you plan on taking 3 years to get out of debt and you buy something for $100 that is really costs you $156.08 Three years of compound 16% interest. 5b. Conversely if you sell something for $100 on eBay that is like selling something for $156.08." } ]

[ { "docid": "443419", "title": "", "text": "In the United States, when applying for credit cards, proof of income is on an honor system. You can make $15k a year and write on your application that you make $150k a year. They don't check that value other than to have their computer systems figure out risk and you get a yes or no. It was traditionally easy to attain credit, but that got tightened in 2008/2009 with the housing crisis. This is starting to change again and credit is flowing much more easily." } ]

[ { "docid": "545991", "title": "", "text": "\"Congratulations on recognizing your problem and getting serious about paying down your debt. That's the first step. If you have a loan with 80% interest, yes, get that paid off as quickly as possible. Much better to be paying even the outrageous 20% on a credit card than the astounding 80%. As others have noted, if you can get a consolidation loan or refinance that 80% to something more realistic, do it and do it as soon as possible. Heck, if you have the credit limit, use the credit card to off the 80% loan. 20% on a credit card is better than 80%. Of course you may not have enough credit limit to do that. Cash-back rewards are nice if you are paying off the credit card balance each month. But in your case, you're not. 25% with a 2% cash back reward means you're still paying 23% the first month and 25% every month after that. That's worse than 20%. Remember you pay the interest on your balance every month that you don't pay it off, while a cash-back is a one-time thing. So if you're not going to pay off the balance, AT BEST a cash back reward could be effectively subtracted from the interest rate. 20% with a 2% cashback is effectively somewhere between 18% and 20%. If you're comparing 20% with 2% cashback to 19%, could be complicated to figure out which is better. But it's clearly worse than anything more than 20%. Besides that, you don't say what your total debt is in relation to your income. If you have a lot of debt, I'd say first thing is to figure out what you can do to cut your expenses. Lots of things that people call \"\"fixed expenses\"\" aren't really fixed at all, they just take some effort to cut. Like if you have a big expensive house and you're paying a large mortgage, you can (probably) cut that by selling the place and moving to a cheaper house. (I say \"\"probably\"\" because the housing market may make it impossible to sell for enough to improve your situation.) If you have large heating bills, you can turn the thermostat down and get used to wearing a sweater around the house. Etc. Final note: I've talked to a fair number of people with debt problems, and I often hear them say, \"\"Yes, I really need to cut my spending and start paying off these debts. And I intend to ... right after I buy this one last thing that I really really want.\"\" But of course after that there's one more vital purchase, and then another, etc. Avoid falling into this trap.\"" }, { "docid": "86716", "title": "", "text": "\"Others have commented on the various studies. If, as JoeTaxpayer says, this one particular study he mentions does not really exist, there are plenty of others. (And in that case: Did someone blatantly lie to prove a bogus point? Or did someone just get the name of the organization that did the study wrong, like it was really somebody called \"\"B&D\"\", they read it as \"\"D&B\"\" because they'd heard of Dun & Bradstreet but not of whoever B&D is. Of course if they got the organization wrong maybe they got important details of the study wrong. Whatever.) But let me add one logical point that I think is irrefutable: If you always buy with cash, there is no way that you can spend more than you have. When you run out of cash, you have no choice but to stop spending. But when you buy with a credit card, you can easily spend more than you have money in the bank to pay. Even if it is true that most credit card users are responsible, there will always be some who are not, and credit cards make it easy to get in trouble. I speak from experience. I once learned that my wife had run up $20,000 in credit card debt without my knowledge. When she divorced me, I got stuck with the credit card debt. To this day I have no idea what she spent the money on. And I've known several people over the years who have gone bankrupt with credit card debt. Even if you're responsible, it's easy to lose track with credit cards. If you use cash, when you take out your wallet to buy something you can quickly see whether there's a lot of money left or not so much. With credit, you can forget that you made the big purchase. More likely, you can fail to add up the modest purchases. It's easy to say, \"\"Oh, that's just $100, I can cover that.\"\" But then there's $100 here and $100 there and it can add up. (Or depending on your income level, maybe it's $10 here and $10 there and it's out of hand, or maybe it's $10,000.) It's easier today when you can go on-line and check the balance on your credit card. But even at that, well just this past month when I got one bill I was surprised at how big it was. I went through the items and they were all legitimate, they just ... added up. Don't cry for me, I could afford it. But I had failed to pay attention to what I was spending and I let things get a little out of hand. I'm a pretty responsible person and I don't do that often. I can easily imagine someone paying less attention and getting into serious trouble.\"" }, { "docid": "411479", "title": "", "text": "There is almost no reason to get a second credit card - this is a very good arrangement for your creditor but not for you. Credit cards have high rates of interest which you have to pay unless you pay the credit off every month. Therefore, increasing your total credit capacity should not be your concern. Since internet technology lets you pay off your balance in minutes online, there is no reason to have multiple cards in order to avoid running out of a balance. If, on the other hand, you do not pay your existing card off every month, than getting another card can be even more dangerous, since you're increasing the amount of debt you take on. I'd say at most it would make sense for you to grab a basic VISA, since most places do not accept AMEX. I would also considering cancelling the AMEX if you get the VISA, for reasons above." }, { "docid": "474573", "title": "", "text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\"" }, { "docid": "273528", "title": "", "text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\"" }, { "docid": "143596", "title": "", "text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "315275", "title": "", "text": "\"A lot of your options depends on the type of debt you have. If you're single, young, and have lots of credit card debt then don't discount bankruptcy. It's definitely not an \"\"appealing\"\" thought I'm sure, but it's an option. One thing I did was completely cut myself off from most forms of credit (credit cards and personal credit loans). I know my weaknesses. I will never, ever, ever, get another credit card. I'm probably older than you are and have lived with debt for a long time. I'm pretty much debt free; at least from debts that are not covered 100% by assets. It took a long time. Keep your spirits up. Maybe try contacting a credit councilor; one of the real ones that aren't paid for by credit card companies. I've known people that took that route.\"" }, { "docid": "398090", "title": "", "text": "\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \"\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\"\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\"" }, { "docid": "494753", "title": "", "text": "An emergency fund of $5000 seems on the low side and I would be worried about spending it down to $2000, that said you want to get out of the car loan. It sounds like you have a little extra disposible income since you think you can rebuild your emergency fund quicker than just the amount you will save from not having a car payment. One option to decrease the hit to your emergency fund is to save aggressively for a month or two to increase your emergency fund by a few hundred dollars and take on some other debt (possibly credit card). You could then pay off the new debt and replenish your emergency fund over a slightly longer period. While some financial planners dislike the idea of an emergency fund while still having high interest debt, to me I would prefer to have $1000 in credit card debt and $3000 in an emergency fund over $0 in credit card debt and $2000 in an emergency fund. Given your time course of 6 months or so to pay off the debt, you might even qualify for a 0% credit card introductory rate (or balance transfer)." }, { "docid": "460225", "title": "", "text": "\"You will definitely want to look into odd jobs, if possible. I'm sure this sounds patronizing, but the biggest problem you have right now is your credit card debt, most likely at very high interest rates. You said you have enough to \"\"make your payments\"\", but you didnt specify what that meant. Are you making the minimum payments only? If you're only making the minimum payments, you'll want to really find SOME way to scrounge even an extra $50 together each month (odd jobs specifically. You might also want to try mturk, where you get paid to fill out surveys). You see, by making only the minimum payment, you are actually probably only putting a few dollars at all to principal. Most of the rest went to last month's interest charges. The best thing to do is lay out each card and what the interest rate is. You have 9 of them, so this seems like a bit of a task. The first step is to identify which card has the HIGHEST interest rate. There are two things you can do then. You either throw every extra penny you have at that specific card, OR, you find some way to move that balance to your LOWEST interest rate card. In all cases, your goal is to move debt from the high-interest rate cards to the low interest rate cards. Once you can't move debt around anymore, your goal then is to pay only the minimums on all the low-interest rate cards, and put EVERY SINGLE SPARE PENNY you have towards the higher ones. If you don't mind me asking, can you outline all 9 cards and how much you owe on each, adn what each's interest rate is? It's possible you don't know, and that's problem one. If you don't know the interest rate of each card, then you don't even really know which card you should be paying off first. Edit: How miuch do you spend on food a month? If you were really really determined to get over this, you'd basically just eat rice and beans, or buy nearly-bad bananas and eggs. These are the cheapest foodstuffs you can find.\"" }, { "docid": "311815", "title": "", "text": "I would look for these features in the credit card: If there is some kind of reward option like cash back or points, you obviously deduct these from the total costs. Chances are the total costs are higher than the rewards, because generally people don't give you money for free. The reward has to be financed somehow. I would adivse against building up credit card debt. It typically has a high interest rate. So, use the credit card only as a method of payment and pay back the debt so quickly that the interest doesn't start to accumulate." }, { "docid": "287876", "title": "", "text": "If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year." }, { "docid": "2460", "title": "", "text": "Credit scoring has changed recently and the answer to this question will have slightly changed. While most points made here are true: But now (as of July 2017) it is possible having a large available credit balance can negatively effect your credit score directly: ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source" }, { "docid": "294828", "title": "", "text": "\"Going off hearsay here. I believe your question is. \"\"Does not having a credit card lower your credit score\"\" If that is the question then in the UK at least the answer appears to be yes. Having a credit card makes you less of a risk because you have proven that you can handle a little bit of debt and pay it back. I have a really tiny credit history. Never had a credit card and the only people who will lend to me are my own bank because they can actually see my income / expenditure. When I have queried my bank and at stores offering credit they have said that no credit history isn't far off a bad credit record. Simply having a credit card and doing the odd transactions show's lenders you are at least semi-responsible and is seen as a positive. Not having a credit card and not having much else for that matter makes you an unknown and an unknown is a risk in the eyes of lenders.\"" }, { "docid": "524149", "title": "", "text": "\"I've been using YNAB4 for the last few years, and I like it so much that I haven't switched to the web version (new YNAB) yet. However, I have played around with the web version a little, and here is what I have discovered. Despite the different look of the credit card account and the lengthy dissertation on the credit card differences in the Transition Guide, credit cards are handled almost exactly the same in the new YNAB as they were in YNAB4. You enter credit card spending transactions in the same way as YNAB4. When you enter a transaction, money is pulled out of the budget category you select. The only difference is that in YNAB4, this money was considered \"\"gone.\"\" Now, that money moves from your budget category into the new credit card category. When it comes time to pay the credit card bill, you also enter this transaction in the same way as before. It is entered as a transfer of money from your checking account to your credit card account. The only difference here is that with new YNAB, the funds are deducted from your credit card category. This is handled automatically, so you don't have to think about it if you don't want to. If you always pay your credit card bill in full, you never have to budget money manually into the credit card category. The money will already be there from when you entered the credit card spending transactions. The only time you would manually budget money into the credit card spending category is if you have old credit card debt that you are trying to pay off. A quick example, in pictures: I start out with $10,000 in my checking account, and no credit card debt: I've got all $10,000 in my \"\"Fun Money\"\" category: Now, I spend $100 at the Store: You can see that, just like in YNAB4, the credit card account is now in the red $100, and the checking account balance has not changed. In the categories, my Fun Money category is down $100 to $9,900, just like it would be in YNAB4. The only difference is that there is now $100 in the new Credit Card Payments category. When it is time to pay the bill, I enter an account transfer, just like in YNAB4: Note that the Credit Card balance is back to $0, and the Checking Account balance is now down to $9,900. The Credit Card Payment budget category is now magically back to $0: The above example starts with a zero balance on the credit card. However, most people will have a non-zero balance on their credit card when they first start a budget. In YNAB4, when you added a credit card with a (negative) balance, the debt was shown in a budget category called \"\"Pre-YNAB Debt.\"\" You then added money to this budget category until it went to zero, and then you didn't need this budget category anymore. With new YNAB, credit card balances are not shown in budget categories. If you add a credit card account with a balance, the debt is not shown in the budget categories. To pay off this debt, you can fund the Credit Card Payments category. After this existing balance amount is paid off, you won't need to fund the Credit Card Payments category anymore as long as you properly assign each new credit card purchase to a funded budget category.\"" }, { "docid": "517050", "title": "", "text": "\"I want to recommend an exercise: Find all the people nearby who you can talk to in less than 24 hours about credit cards: Your family, whoever lives with you, and friends. Now, ask each of them \"\"what's the worst situation you've gotten yourself into with a credit card?\"\" Personally, the ratio of people who I asked who had credit cards to the ratio of people with horror stories about how credit cards screwed up their credit was nearly 1:1. Pretty much, only one of them had managed to avoid the trap that credit cards created (that sole exception had worked for the government at a high paying job and was now retired with adult children and a lucrative pension). Because it's trivially easy over-extend yourself, as a result of how credit cards work (if you had the cash at any second, you would have no need for the credit). But do your own straw poll, and then see what the experience of people around you has been. And if there's a lot more bad than good out there, then ask yourself \"\"am I somehow more fiscally responsible than all of these people?\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "531137", "title": "", "text": "\"I was I a similar position as you, and sometimes credit bureaus might be difficult to deal with, especially when high amounts of money are involved. To make the long story short, someone opened a store credit card under my name and made a charge of around 3k. After reporting this to the bureaus, they did not want to remove the account from my credit report citing that the claim was \"\"frivolous\"\". After filing a police report, the police officer gave me the phone number for the fraud department of this store credit card, and after they investigated, they removed the account from my credit. I would suggest to do the following: Communicating with Creditors and Debt Collectors You have the right to: Stop creditors and debt collectors from reporting fraudulent accounts. After you give them a copy of a valid identity theft report, they may not report fraudulent accounts to the credit reporting companies. Get copies of documents related to the theft of your identity, like transaction records or applications for new accounts. Write to the company that has the documents, and include a copy of your identity theft report. You also can tell the company to give the documents to a specific law enforcement agency. Stop a debt collector from contacting you. In most cases, debt collectors must stop contacting you after you send them a letter telling them to stop. Get written information from a debt collector about a debt, including the name of the creditor and the amount you supposedly owe. If a debt collector contacts you about a debt, request this information in writing. I know that you said that the main problem was that your credit account was combined with another. But there might be a chance that identity theft was involved. If this is the case, and you can prove it, then you might have access to more tools to help you. For example, you can file a report with the FTC, and along with a police report, this can be a powerful tool in stopping these charges. Feel free to go to the identitytheft.gov website for more information.\"" }, { "docid": "200268", "title": "", "text": "\"In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan. The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest. A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - \"\"Pay off X credit card first!\"\"; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards.\"" }, { "docid": "110953", "title": "", "text": "I do this all the time, my credit rating over time plotted on a graph looks like saw blades going upward on a slope I use a credit alert service to get my credit reports quarterly, and I know when the credit agencies update their files (every three months), so I never have a high balance at those particular times Basically, I use the negative hard pulls to propel my credit score upwards with a the consequentially lowered credit utilization ratio, and the credit history. So here is how it works for me, but I am not an impulse buyer and I wouldn't recommend it for most people as I have seen spending habits: Month 1: charge cards, pay minimum balance (raises score multiple points) Month 2: PAY OFF ALL CREDIT CARDS, massive deleveraging using actual money I already have (raises score multiple points) Month 3: get credit report showing low balance, charge cards, pay minimum balance ask for extensions of credit, AND followup on new credit line offers (lowers score several points per credit inquiry) Month 4: charge cards, pay minimum balance, discretionally approving hard pulls - always have room for one or two random hard pulls, such as for a new cell phone contract, or renting a car, or employment, etc Month 5: PAY OFF CREDIT CARDS using actual money you have. (the trick is to NEVER really go above a 15% credit utilization ratio, and to never overleverage. Tricky because very quickly you will get enough credit to go bankrupt) Month 6: get credit report showing low balances, a slight dip in score from last quarter, but still high continue." } ]

[ { "docid": "18001", "title": "", "text": "You are wildly over-estimating your taxes. First, remember that your business expenses reduce your gross income. Second, remember that taxes are progressive, so your flat 35% only applies if you're already making a high salary that pushed you into the higher brackets of US and CA. I think the deeper problems are: 1) you are expecting a super early start-up (with no finished product) to pay you the same as a steady job, including health insurance, and 2) you are expecting Kickstarter to independently fund the venture. The best source of funding is yourself. If you believe in this venture and in your game design abilities, then pay for most of the costs out of your own savings. Cut your expenses to the extent you can. You may want to wander over to startups.SE to get more perspective and ideas on your business plan." } ]

[ { "docid": "280091", "title": "", "text": "\"You're missing the point here. The goal of ratings firms is **not** to accurately price debt. That's the market's job. The goal of ratings companies is to evaluate the ability of the company to service their debt instrument, much like how the goal of a public accounting firm is to assure that a company's financial statements follow GAAP. The article implicitly makes the assertion that Aaa rated securities have pretty low default rates; it's mainly only the area of CDO backed securities that there's a large disconnect between the rating and default risk. While this does raise questions about the worthiness of these ratings and the way they went about modeling and rationalizing them, it hardly suggests that they are \"\"wrong over 50% of the time.\"\" As a side note, why not make it against the law for mutual funds to have rules that allow them to only hold Aaa rated securities? These funds that demand high credit ratings are only contributing to the conflict of interest by essentially \"\"asking for it.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "114824", "title": "", "text": "Well you have three main options in my opinion. For cash, or any assets you can convert to cash, you could purchase bonds with a maturity date close to what you are looking to lock your funds up for. While you could sell these on a secondary market, admittedly - however you have a justification you can provide to yourself as to why you cannot sell them. Fixed term deposits often have poor interest rates, but if you ask to withdraw your money early you often forfeit all of the interest you would have gained. While your money would not be locked up, it keeps it further out of your reach, just like bonds. Every step further away from your bank account the funds get, the less likely you are to surrender to giving away money that is rightfully yours. It comes with the added advantage of typically high-returns. Trust funds can be set up with anyone as the beneficiary, and provide legal barriers so long as the beneficiary isn't also the executor. While it can be expensive to do so, you could hire a lawyer who specialises in estate law to set up a trust fund you are the beneficiary of, which has stipulations as to how and when assets can be released. I didn't include this as one of the main three, because it doesn't allow you to specify exactly when funds are released to you, but in many countries (including the US) you have special tax advantaged retirement accounts, where funds are locked away until you retire. However, it is unfortunate you even need to think about this. Another thing to consider is that if people start pressuring you for money, you should cut them out of your life." }, { "docid": "185443", "title": "", "text": "\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \"\"target retirement,\"\" \"\"lifecycle,\"\" \"\"balanced,\"\" \"\"conservative/moderate allocation.\"\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \"\"mental accounting\"\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\"" }, { "docid": "167879", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of benefits to this type of account. If one has highly appreciated stock (think Apple), donations of the stock are taken at current value, so for example, I donate $10,000 worth of shares, which cost me $100. In the 28% bracket, and itemizing, I see a $2800 benefit. But, I also avoid a $9900 capital gain and the 15% tax on that, or $1485. In this example, the fund comes into play as it would allow me to break up that $10,000 into smaller donations, and over a number of years. Next example - In my article some years ago Fun with Schedule A I describe how a strategy of 'bunching' ones itemized deductions every other year can help push people into the ability to itemize where normally they just miss doing so. Using the charitable fund can help people smooth out their contributions to the end charities while actually making the out of pocket withdrawal every other year. Last - there are many whose income is irregular for whatever reason. This type of account can be useful to help people in this situation make a deposit in high income/high tax rate years, skipping the deposit in low income/low rate years, but still keep up with the annual charity support. Obviously, one's goal is to help the charities they wish to support, it's silly to donate 'for the deduction.' But, for those who are charitable, these strategies help them divert more money to the charity and less to Uncle Sam. Sorry, I'm not sure about the math to show that 6.46%. My answer was to share the benefits of using these types of accounts." }, { "docid": "52504", "title": "", "text": "(After seeing your most recent comment on the original question, it looks like others have answered the question you intended, and described the extreme difficulty of getting the timing right the way you're trying to. Since I've already typed it up, what follows answers what I originally thought your question was, which was asking if there were drawbacks to investing entirely in money market funds to avoid stock volatility altogether.) Money market funds have the significant drawback that they offer low returns. One of the fundamental principles in finance is that there is a trade-off between low risk and high returns. While money market funds are extremely stable, their returns are paltry; under current market conditions, you can consider them roughly equivalent to cash. On the other hand, though investing in stocks puts your money on a roller coaster, returns will be, on average, substantially higher. Since people often invest in order to achieve personal financial stability, many feel naturally attracted to very stable investments like money market funds. However, this tendency can be a big mistake. The higher returns of the stock market don't merely serve to stoke an investor's greed, they are necessary for achieving most people's financial goals. For example, consider two hypothetical investors, saving for retirement over the course of a 40-year career. The first investor, apprehensive Adam, invests $10k per year in a money market fund. The second investor, brave Barbara, invests $10k per year in an S&P 500 index fund (reinvesting dividends). Let's be generous and say that Adam's money market fund keeps pace with inflation (in reality, they typically don't even do that). At the end of 40 years, in today's money, Adam will have $10,000*40 = $400,000, not nearly enough to retire comfortably on. On the other hand, let's assume that Barbara gets returns of 7% per year after inflation, which is typical (though not guaranteed). Barbara will then have, using the formula for the future value of an annuity, $10,000 * [(1.07)^40 - 1] / 0.07, or about $2,000,000, which is much more comfortable. While Adam's strategy produces nearly guaranteed results, those results are actually guaranteed failure. Barbara's strategy is not a guarantee, but it has a good chance of producing a comfortable retirement. Even if her timing isn't great, over these time scales, the chances that she will have more money than Adam in the end are very high. (I won't produce a technical analysis of this claim, as it's a bit complicated. Do more research if you're interested.)" }, { "docid": "415432", "title": "", "text": "On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)" }, { "docid": "176498", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a great number of financial obligations that should be considered more urgent than student loan debt. I'll go ahead and assume that the ones that can land people in jail aren't an issue (unpaid fines, back taxes, etc.). I cannot stress this enough, so I'll say it again: setting money aside for emergencies is so much more important than paying off student loans. I've seen people refer to saving as \"\"paying yourself\"\" if that helps justify it in your mind. My wife and I chose to aggressively pay down debt we had stupidly accrued during college, and I got completely blindsided by a layoff during the downturn. Guess what happened to all those credit cards we'd paid off and almost paid off? Guess what happened to my 401k? If all we had left were student loans, then I still wouldn't prioritize paying those off. There are income limits to Roth IRAs, so if you're in a field where you'll eventually make too much to contribute, then you'll lose that opportunity forever. If you're young and you don't feel like learning too much about investing, plop 100% of your contributions into the low-fee S&P 500 index fund and forget it until you get closer to retirement. Don't get suckered into their high-fee \"\"Retirement 20XX\"\" managed funds. Anyway, sure, if you have at least three months of income replacement in savings, have maximized your employer 401k match, have maximized your Roth IRA contributions for the year, and have no other higher interest debt, then go ahead and knock out those student loans.\"" }, { "docid": "489480", "title": "", "text": "You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired." }, { "docid": "485776", "title": "", "text": "I've seen agism go the other way on my job. A Generation X'er Accounts Payable Clerk in my department was promoted to an Accounts Payable Supervisory role simply because she has kids and my Baby Boomer boss sympathized with her on a personal level. The punchline is this woman doesn't understand accounting on a fundamental level (she has some junior college education, no degree). I (Generation Y) on the other hand had to train up my Baby Boomer boss in our industry over the course of a year. Attempt to teach him how to use our ERP system (he refuses to learn how to use our accounting system and he's the CFO, big red flag, we're going on year 2 now), cover for him when he make bone-headed Accounting 101 mistakes, and be the defacto department manager (I'm the Senior Accountant) because his Accounts Payable supervisor doesn't know how to debit and credit accounts correctly. The buck should stop with her when it comes to Accounts Payable transactions but she's too incompetent to handle the responsibility. So now my boss is looking hire a new staff to the department and I'm gunning for a Manager's title (I do the managing already I just want the official title and pay raise). In addition I would like to have an official direct report, instead of all this unofficial direct reporting going on. I found out last week that I'm not up for consideration, but the girl that has NO COLLEGE DEGREE who was in my position before me, but left (knew someone who got her a better job) is on the short list for the position. Of course she's a Generation X'er. I'm more experienced technically than she is, I have less years of experience but my skill set is larger, I'm much better educated, and I bring database administration and programming to the table in addition to Accounting (Accounting ERP softwares are essentially databases). I even fixed the tax mess she left the department on the way out. I suspect the reason why I wasn't up for consideration is because I stand out. I'm young (28, look young), gym fit (coworkers are all overweight), and no kids (that seems to REALLY single me out). Everyone else never learned what a condom was and had children around 16-19 years of age. So instead of the workplace becoming a meritocracy, it's a game of who can put themselves in bad situations and garner sympathy for pay raises and promotions they don't deserve." }, { "docid": "163385", "title": "", "text": "What you are describing is called following (or going over) a budget. There is no debt or loans in the scenario you are describing. Simply put a budget is when you allocate a certain amount of your income for expenses in various categories, and a certain amount for savings. So lets say you earn $100 a month. If you budget $50 in expenses every month, then that means you try not to spend more then $50 a month, and the rest you save. In any given month, you may go over your self-imposed budgeted amount for expenses. That simply means you are over the budgetted amount for that month, but that does not make you 'in debt'. It just means you didn't meet your goal for that month (or whatever time period you created). However, if you do this habitually then you clearly don't have a realistic budget, because the idea behind a budget is a plan that you can realistically meet on a consistent basis. Sometimes you may have to break it, but it should be made in such a way that if you work at it, it is consistently achievable. If not, then you need to rethink your budget. Instead of thinking in terms of taking loans from yourself, I would encourage you to think in terms of saving up for goals and only spending money from those 'goal funds.' In this way, you are not arbitrarily spending money that would instead go into savings, but rather explicitly setting money aside for those goals. This will also help you to see where exactly your money is going and also help you to prioritize your financial goals." }, { "docid": "412056", "title": "", "text": "My in-laws are pressuring me to buy a home. I don't really have much financial experience. In fact, I'm a nightmare with finances. I almost have my student loans payed off from school. My in-laws and husband are great with finances and with real-estate. My husband has a good job and $200k in savings. I have a good job too, and still have some debt from school. (approx $60k left of 180k). They say the house will be available in Jan or February for purchase, and that we should really try to buy it (prob $2-3 mil). My guess is they want to make it available to us off the market (which is a huge benefit in this area, there are really no houses available lately) . The problem is: I am uncomfortable because I don't have all of my loans payed off, I could divert money away from paying off the loans in order to save for a larger downpayment. I just got a bonus of $35k (after taxes) I don't think I'll have all of my loans payed off by January. Should I save my money for the downpayment or focus on my loans, should I go for the house? I don't know how to weigh these options against each other with such little experience." }, { "docid": "290385", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"" }, { "docid": "420046", "title": "", "text": "You should be worried. You have made the mistake of entering an investment on the recommendation of family/friend. The last think you should do is make another mistake of just leaving it and hoping it will go up again. Your stock has dropped 37.6% from its high of $74.50. That means it has to go up over 60% just to reach the high of $74.50. You are correct this may never happen or if it does it could take a long, long time to get up to its previous highs. What is the company doing to turn its fortunes around? Take a look at some other examples: QAN.AX - Qantas Airways This stock reached a high of around $6 in late 2007 after a nice uptrend over a year and a half, it then dropped drastically at the start of the GFC, and has since kept falling and is now priced at just $1.15. QAN reported its first ever loss earlier this year, but its problems were evident much earlier. AAPL - Apple Inc. AAPL reach a high of just over $700 in September 2013, then dropped to around $400 and has recovered a bit to about $525 (still 25% below its highs) and looks to be at the start of another downtrend. How long will it take AAPL to get back to $700, more than 33% from its current price? TEN.AX - Ten Network Holdings Limited TEN reached a high of $4.26 in late 2004 after a nice uptrend during 2004. It then started a steep journey downwards and is still going down. It is now priced at just $0.25, a whopping 94% below its high. It will have to increase by 1600% just to reach its high of $4.26 (which I think will never happen). Can a stock come back from a drastic downtrend? Yes it can. It doesn't always happen, but a company can turn around and can reach and even surpass it previous highs. The question is how and when will this happen? How long will you keep your capital tied up in a stock that is going nowhere and has every chance of going further down? The most important thing with any investment is to protect your current capital. If you lose all your capital you cannot make any new investments until you build up more capital. That is why it is so important to have a risk management strategy and decide what is your get out point if things go against you before you get into any new investment. Have a stop loss. I would get out of your investment before you lose more capital. If you had set a stop loss at 20% off the stock's last highs, you would have gotten out at about $59.60, 28% higher than the current share price of $46.50. If you do further analysis on this company and find that it is improving its prospects and the stock price breaks up through its current ranging band, then you can always buy back in. However, do you still want to be in the stock if it breaks the range band on the downside? In this case who knows how low it can continue to go. N.B. This is my opinion, as others would have theirs, and what I would do in your current situation with this stock." }, { "docid": "124027", "title": "", "text": "Yes, becoming a millionaire is a reasonable goal. Saving 15% of your income starting at age 25 and investing in the stock market will likely get you there. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week at age 25. (If your annual income is $35,000, that is about 15% of your income.) You decide to invest your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. 35 years from now when you are 60 years old, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). You may earn less than the assumed 9%, depending on how the stock market does. However, if you stick with your 15% investment amount throughout your whole career, you'll most likely end up with more, because your income will probably increase during your career. And you will probably be working past age 60, giving your investments time to earn even more." }, { "docid": "383743", "title": "", "text": "Paying yourself first is a method to ensure you are meeting your financial goals whatever they may be. It's also an easy way to automate the process of sending money where you need it go without needing to think about it. Your goals could be to buy a bit of a mutual fund every month, max your IRA, or stash a percentage of each paycheck in a wedding savings account. Maybe you are saving for a house. Knowing you should save and not doing is guilt generating. Paying yourself first means regularly putting money to these goals so you can stop worrying. Any way you figure it, you've still got bills to pay. Paying yourself first means taking care of these payments right off the top of your paycheck. The money goes where you need it. A good move is to automate this with bill pays, ACH transfers to investments accounts, etc. Once this is done, you can guiltlessly spend the money that is left over knowing that you've taken care of the important things and met all your goals. You never have to find yourself wondering if you paid your cell phone bill or if you have enough money to go out tonight. Savings for the new car you want are, as they say, in the bank." }, { "docid": "408589", "title": "", "text": "The right way to develop confidence is to get educated. Confidence can come from many sources, but the right source of confidence is an understanding of how markets work. Markets react (and overreact) to news. I think the biggest factor to trading successfully is to not allow emotion to drive you. You should determine how much you are comfortable gaining and losing and set those in limit and stop orders rather than just using market orders all of the time. As I've grown in my understanding of the market, I find it much more rare that I feel confident enough to make a specific bet. Most of my money is allocated in index funds, and I only buy and sell small amounts to reset the percentages according to a preset allocation plan. I still keep some cash available for speculative trades in the account where those trades will add the most value." }, { "docid": "170871", "title": "", "text": "\"My own personal point of view. I earn about twice what my wife to be earns. We are planning on getting married next year. I ultimately do all the finances (basically because she hates that kind of thing) not because I'm in charge or whatever. To work out how we do this I wrote a spreadsheet: At the top it has my monthly pay in one column and her's in another. I add all our bills (against me initally). At the bottom I have a total of both of our \"\"spending money\"\". Spending money is wage - bills - savings I then move money out of my column into her column. My goal is that we pay all the bills and save a decent amount and have roughly the same amount to spend each month. So each persons spending money should be roughly equal. I then fine tune this as things change (if we get a pay rise we alter it, if a bill goes up or down we alter it) To manage this we have 4 accounts, a joint account to pay bills (both give a set amount to each mont), a savings acount (both give a set amount to each month) and our own accounts (where we get paid and where our spending money lives). Like everyone else says, this seems fair to me. I don't earn more, we both earn \"\"an amount\"\" and this should be split equally.\"" }, { "docid": "550319", "title": "", "text": "This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below." }, { "docid": "146632", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "528564", "title": "", "text": "I think you might be missing something important here. If you are running a business, then any expenses that your business incurs are deductible. Yes, Kickstarter would report the full amount. The IRS requires them to report everything that you raised. However, the Kickstarter and Amazon fees would be a business expense. Your cost on the backer rewards are deductible business expenses as well. Legal fees, accounting fees: deductible. Money that you spend on equipment may not be deductible all in one year; you may have to depreciate it over multiple years. This is where the accountant that you are paying accounting fees to will come in handy. People who do an iOS app Kickstarter campaign for $5000 might have a few things going on that you don't:" } ]

[ { "docid": "550319", "title": "", "text": "This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below." }, { "docid": "62047", "title": "", "text": "\"I think this question is perfectly on topic, and probably has been asked and answered many times. However, I cannot help myself. Here are some basics however: Personal Finance is not only about math. As a guy who \"\"took vector calculus just for fun\"\", I have learned that superior math skills do not translate into superior net worth. Personal finance is about 50% behavior. Take a look at the housing crisis, car loans, or payday lenders and you will understand that the desire to be accepted by others often trumps the math surrounding a transaction. Outline your goals What is it that you want in life? A pile of money or to retire early? What does your business look like? How much cash will you need? Do you want to own a ton of rental properties? How does all this happen (set intermediate goals). Then get on a budget A budget is a plan to spend your money in advance. Stick to it. From there you can see how much money you have to implement various goals. Are your goals to aggressive? This is really important as people have a tendency to spend more money then they have. Often times when people receive a bonus at work, they spend that one bonus on two or three times over. A budget will prevent this from happening. Get an Emergency Fund Without an emergency fund, you be subject to the financial whims of people involved in your own life and that of the broader marketplace. Once you have one, you are free to invest with impunity and have less stress in a world that deals out plenty. Bad things will happen to you financially, protect against them. The best first investments are simple: Invest in yourself. Find a way to make a very healthy income with upward mobility. Also get out and stay out of debt. These things are not sexy, but they pay off in the long run. The next best investment is also simple: Index funds. These become the bench mark for all other investments. If you do not stand a good chance of beating the S&P 500 index fund, why bother? Just dump the money in the fund and sleep well at night.\"" }, { "docid": "464277", "title": "", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"" }, { "docid": "457847", "title": "", "text": "\"Budgeting is the key. Saying that you need to eat out less and cook more is good, but ultimately difficult for some people, because it is very difficult to measure. How much eating out is too much? Instead, help him set up a monthly budget. Luckily, he's already got some built-in motivation: He's got a saving goal (trip) with a deadline. When you set up the budget, start here, figuring out how much per month he needs to save to meet his goal. After you've put the saving goal and the fixed monthly bills into the budget, address what he has left. Put a small amount of money into a \"\"fast food\"\" category, and a larger amount into a \"\"grocery\"\" category. If he spends everything in his fast food budget and still has the desire to go out, he'll need to raid his grocery budget. And if that is depleted, he'll need to raid his vacation budget. By doing this, it will be made very clear to him that he must choose between going out and taking the trip. In my opinion, using budgeting software makes the whole budgeting process easier. See this answer and this answer for more detailed recommendations on using software for budgeting.\"" }, { "docid": "357103", "title": "", "text": "\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"" }, { "docid": "187405", "title": "", "text": "To me the key is a budget. Each month, before it begins, decide on what to spend on each dollar that you earn. Money should be allotted for normal expenses such as housing, food, transportation, and utilities. If you have any consumer debt that should be a priority. Extra money should go to eliminate that debt. There should be money allotted to savings goals (such as retirement, home down payment, or vacation home). Also there should be money set aside for clothing and giving. Giving is an important part and often overlooked part of wealth creation. Somewhere in there you should also give yourself a bit of free money. For example one of the things I spend my free money on is coffee. I buy freshly ground coffee from a really good supplier. It is a bit expensive, but that is okay as it does not preclude me from meeting other goals. If you still have money left after all of that increase your giving some, your savings some, and your free money some. You can then spend that money without guilt. If your budget includes $100 of free money per month, and you want something that costs $1000, save up the $1,000 and then buy it. Do not borrow to buy free money stuff! Doing those sorts of things will make you weigh purchasing decisions very carefully. If you find that you cannot stick to a budget, you should enlist a friend to be your accountability partner. They have to be very good with money." }, { "docid": "413522", "title": "", "text": "\"Curious, are you asking about average, or the good numbers? The median family doesn't have $2500 to address an emergency. We are a nation of debtors, and spenders. A young couple at .8 is doing well. It means they saved 20% for a down payment, and just bought a house. Not too tough to buy with 5% down, have no other savings, and a student loan to put the debt to equity over 100%. Older people should be shooting for zero. I semi-retired at 50, and my mortgage is at about 8% of my net worth. 50% would be too high. Others 50+ should have at least 50% equity in their home and nearly half their \"\"number,\"\" the amount needed to retire. So, a target is 25% maximum. These numbers shouldn't impact you at all. You should plan wisely, spend frugally, and prioritize your goals. There are 'zero debt' people out there who make me look reckless, and others who invest in rentals with a goal of keeping them highly leveraged. Neither group is wrong, what's right for you is what lets you sleep at night.\"" }, { "docid": "371922", "title": "", "text": "\"I will give a slightly different answer which is actually an addendum to JoeTaxpayer's (soon-to-be-edited) answer. Do NOT go to your financial advisor and ask him \"\"How do I go about transferring my Roth IRA to ....\"\"? where .... is whichever broker or mutual fund family that you have chosen from the list that Joe has suggested. Instead, go to the website of the new group (or call their toll-free number) and tell them \"\"I want to open a Roth IRA account with you and fund it by transferring all the money in my Roth IRA from First Clearing.\"\" Your new Roth IRA custodian will take care of all the paperwork and get the money transferred over at no cost to you except possibly fielding a weepy call from your current financial advisor because he had just ordered his new Lamborghini and now will have difficulty making payments on his auto loan. \"\"Why are you leaving me? After all the years we have had together?\"\" You will need to choose some place to put the money, and I suggest that you use their S&P 500 Index Fund, not the S&P 500 ETF, just the standard vanilla S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund. This recommendation is almost heresy in this forum, but it is better to pay the extra 0.01% fee that the Fund charges over and above the ETF until you become a little more savvy and are ready to branch out into individual stocks (which is when you really need a brokerage account). Revelation: I have never made the transition and invest only in mutual funds which does not require a brokerage account. After doing all this, pay no attention whatsoever to your Roth IRA investment or how the S&P 500 Index is doing for the next 20 years. This will help avoid the temptation of taking all your money out just because the Index went down a little. Everybody is told \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" but far too many folks end up doing exactly the opposite: buying because the stock market is up and selling when it starts going down.\"" }, { "docid": "18647", "title": "", "text": "One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily." }, { "docid": "523058", "title": "", "text": "\"I am not a Financial Advisor, but I an tell you what I did in exactly this situation - which is pretty much what you are proposing. I put money into the offset savings account until I had only a small amount of mortgage \"\"balance\"\" left (less than a year's worth of mortgage payments), then I set it up so that each month I did the transfer from the offset savings pot into the mortgage itself. This depleted the offset savings in line with the mortgage debt, and the interest on the two balanced out almost to zero. This was self-sustaining and meant that I kept the same margin owing over time (i.e. if I was in this situation for 5 years, for the whole 5 years I would effectively have 1 year remaining on the mortgage). Meanwhile, since I now didn't have any mortgage outgoings from my regular income, I put any spare money into ISA savings. No need to withdraw money from the mortgage to move to the ISA. The benefits of this (as opposed to just paying off the damn mortgage already) were that I kept the full liquidity of the mortgage amount - I could withdraw all the offset savings pot if I wanted to, although I would then have to have funded the mortgage payments differently, and as that liquidity went down over time I was building up other savings in parallel. It worked well for me. It almost doesn't matter what the offset mortgage rate is since you are effectively paying it off by keeping the offset savings pot so high.\"" }, { "docid": "445655", "title": "", "text": "If I were you, I would pay off my student loans today or tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice to be completely debt free and not owe anyone anything? It doesn't matter what the interest rate of the loan is; there is no need to spend anymore time trying to worry about whether or not the market will allow you to make a tiny bit extra over what you are spending in interest on the loan. Just get rid of the debt, and you will get to keep every bit of the growth of your investments from here on out. After the student loans are paid off, that leaves you with $15k. I would take $10k and put it in a savings account for an emergency fund, and put $5k as a start toward your retirement savings in a Roth IRA. At this point, with a fully funded emergency fund, a start on your retirement savings, and no debts, you have really set yourself up for success. Learn how to budget your income so that you spend less than you make and can save up toward goals like a car (paid for in cash) and a down payment on a house." }, { "docid": "18001", "title": "", "text": "You are wildly over-estimating your taxes. First, remember that your business expenses reduce your gross income. Second, remember that taxes are progressive, so your flat 35% only applies if you're already making a high salary that pushed you into the higher brackets of US and CA. I think the deeper problems are: 1) you are expecting a super early start-up (with no finished product) to pay you the same as a steady job, including health insurance, and 2) you are expecting Kickstarter to independently fund the venture. The best source of funding is yourself. If you believe in this venture and in your game design abilities, then pay for most of the costs out of your own savings. Cut your expenses to the extent you can. You may want to wander over to startups.SE to get more perspective and ideas on your business plan." }, { "docid": "124027", "title": "", "text": "Yes, becoming a millionaire is a reasonable goal. Saving 15% of your income starting at age 25 and investing in the stock market will likely get you there. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week at age 25. (If your annual income is $35,000, that is about 15% of your income.) You decide to invest your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. 35 years from now when you are 60 years old, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). You may earn less than the assumed 9%, depending on how the stock market does. However, if you stick with your 15% investment amount throughout your whole career, you'll most likely end up with more, because your income will probably increase during your career. And you will probably be working past age 60, giving your investments time to earn even more." }, { "docid": "84800", "title": "", "text": "\"Your broker, Ameritrade, offers a variety of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that you can buy and sell with zero commission. An ETF is like a mutual fund, but you buy and sell shares the same way you buy and sell shares of stocks. From your point of view, the relevance of this is that you can buy and sell as many or as few shares as you like, even down to a single share. Note that to get the commission-free trades on the available ETFs you have to sign up for it in your account profile. Be sure to do that before you enter any buy orders. You'll want to start by looking at the Ameritrade's list of commission-free ETFs. Notice that they are divided into different categories: stocks, bonds, international, and commodities. Which categories you pick from will depend on your personal investing goals, time horizon, risk tolerance, and so on. There are lots of questions and answers on this site that talk about asset allocation. You should read them, as it is the most important decision you will make with your portfolio. The other thing you want to be aware of is the expense ratio for each fund. These expenses reduce the fund's return (they are included in the calculation of the net asset value of the shares), so lower is definitely better. Personally, I wouldn't even consider paying more than about 0.10% (commonly read \"\"10 basis points\"\" or \"\"10 bp\"\") for a broad-based domestic stock fund. For a sectoral fund you might put up with as much as 20 bp in expenses. Bond funds tend to be a little more expensive, so maybe allow as much as 25 bp, and likewise for international funds. I've never invested in commodity funds, so I'll let someone else opine on appropriate expense ratios for those. Once you've decided what funds you want (and have signed up for commission-free trades), all you have to do is enter the trade orders. The website where you manage your account has tutorials on how to do that. After that you should be all set. Good luck with your investing!\"" }, { "docid": "124705", "title": "", "text": "You'd only be left with €2,000 in the bank, so paying it off completely in a lump sum now would be unwise. However, dropping, for example, €35,000 onto it is a reasonable option. That would give you still €42,000 is the bank (an excellent emergency fund), save you a lot of interest, and greatly speed up the repayment schedule. (Changing subjects: how much interest is it earning in the bank.)" }, { "docid": "146632", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "383427", "title": "", "text": "\"Your statement - \"\"not practical\"\" - presumes that the primary goal of having the store is to allow the store to thrive. But if you subscribe to the idea that stores and other companies are just organizations of people, that presumption is false we humans form social structures that benefit people who live within the social structures - towns, cities, teams, companies, political parties. the success of \"\"the store\"\" or the company or the team, or the \"\"city\"\", is not the primary goal. The success of the people ought to be the primary goal. Example: hospitals weren't originally conceived to make money and grow. They were conceived to aid people who were sick. These days hospitals make a LOT OF MONEY , despite being classified as nonprofit institutions in the USA. As a result we have bad medical practice - over prescription of opioids, over use of surgeries, over-use of diagnostic tests, etc., - all of which benefits the hospital but not the patients. It's not always a clear line - look at the real jobs vs environment issues in mining or fracking. But the balance we have struck now, gives great profits to the companies (profits are at record highs) while income inequality is also at record highs. How is that sensible or sustainable. Or moral? My key point here is that your statement that \"\"it's not practical for the store\"\" is misguided. The store's well being cannot be the primary goal of commerce. We need to place a higher priority on benefiting people. (Broadly framed - not just owners of the store)\"" }, { "docid": "481475", "title": "", "text": "I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month." }, { "docid": "577479", "title": "", "text": "\"I recently moved out from my parents place, after having built up sufficient funds, and gone through these questions myself. I live near Louisville, KY which has a significant effect on my income, cost of living, and cost of housing. Factor that into your decisions. To answer your questions in order: When do I know that I'm financially stable to move out? When you have enough money set aside for all projected expenses for 3-6 months and an emergency fund of 4-10K, depending on how large a safety net you want or need. Note that part of the reason for the emergency fund is as a buffer for the things you won't realize you need until you move out, such as pots or chairs. It also covers things being more expensive than anticipated. Should I wait until both my emergency fund is at least 6 months of pay and my loans in my parents' names is paid off (to free up money)? 6 months of pay is not a good measuring stick. Use months of expenses instead. In general, student loans are a small enough cost per month that you just need to factor them into your costs. When should I factor in the newer car investment? How much should I have set aside for the car? Do the car while you are living at home. This allows you to put more than the minimum payment down each month, and you can get ahead. That looks good on your credit, and allows refinancing later for a lower minimum payment when you move out. Finally, it gives you a \"\"sense\"\" of the monthly cost while you still have leeway to adjust things. Depending on new/used status of the car, set aside around 3-5K for a down payment. That gives you a decent rate, without too much haggling trouble. Should I get an apartment for a couple years before looking for my own house? Not unless you want the flexibility of an apartment. In general, living at home is cheaper. If you intend to eventually buy property in the same area, an apartment is throwing money away. If you want to move every few years, an apartment can, depending on the lease, give you that. How much should I set aside for either investment (apartment vs house)? 10-20K for a down payment, if you live around Louisville, KY. Be very choosy about the price of your house and this gives you the best of everything. The biggest mistake you can make is trying to get into a place too \"\"early\"\". Banks pay attention to the down payment for a good reason. It indicates commitment, care, and an ability to go the distance. In general, a mortgage is 30 years. You won't pay it off for a long time, so plan for that. Is there anything else I should be doing/taking advantage of with my money during this \"\"living at home\"\" period before I finally leave the nest? If there is something you want, now's the time to get it. You can make snap purchases on furniture/motorcycles/games and not hurt yourself. Take vacations, since there is room in the budget. If you've thought about moving to a different state for work, travel there for a weekend/week and see if you even like the place. Look for deals on things you'll need when you move out. Utensils, towels, brooms, furniture, and so forth can be bought cheaply, and you can get quality, but it takes time to find these deals. Pick up activities with monthly expenses. Boxing, dancing, gym memberships, hackerspaces and so forth become much more difficult to fit into the budget later. They also give you a better credit rating for a recurring expense, and allow you to get a \"\"feel\"\" for how things like a monthly utility bill will work. Finally, get involved in various investments. A 401k is only the start, so look at penny stocks, indexed funds, ETFs or other things to diversify with. Check out local businesses, or start something on the side. Experiment, and have fun.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "576295", "title": "", "text": "There's two big problems here and they are both related to the same thing: The last line says it all: you live in California. CA is a terrible state to do business in. the taxes on this money alone are crushing. Also, while I think you need to re-visit your budget and lifestyle, the cost of living is very, very high in CA and affecting your decisions. Of course, all of this raises the question - if you can afford 12K in expenses each month, and I'm assuming you're the only source of income, then you should be able to afford funding your own game :D" } ]

[ { "docid": "124705", "title": "", "text": "You'd only be left with €2,000 in the bank, so paying it off completely in a lump sum now would be unwise. However, dropping, for example, €35,000 onto it is a reasonable option. That would give you still €42,000 is the bank (an excellent emergency fund), save you a lot of interest, and greatly speed up the repayment schedule. (Changing subjects: how much interest is it earning in the bank.)" }, { "docid": "401598", "title": "", "text": "\"My broker offers the following types of sell orders: I have a strategy to sell-half of my position once the accrued value has doubled. I take into account market price, dividends, and taxes (Both LTgain and taxes on dividends). Once the market price exceeds the magic trigger price by 10%, I enter a \"\"trailing stop %\"\" order at 10%. Ideally what happens is that the stock keeps going up, and the trailing stop % keeps following it, and that goes on long enough that accrued dividends end up paying for the stock. What happens in reality is that the stock goes up some, goes down some, then the order gets cancelled because the company announces dividends or something dumb like that. THEN I get into trouble trying to figure out how to re-enter the order, maintaining the unrealized gain in the history of the trailing stop order. I screwed up and entered the wrong type of order once and sold stock I didn't want to. Lets look at an example. a number of years ago, I bought some JNJ -- a hundred shares at 62.18. - Accumulated dividends are 2127.75 - My spreadsheet tells me the \"\"double price\"\" is 104.54, and double + 10% is 116.16. - So a while ago, JNJ exceeded 118.23, and I entered a Trailing Stop 10% order to sell 50 shares of JNJ. The activation price was 106.41. - since then, the price has gone up and down... it reached a high of 126.07, setting the activation price at 113.45. - Then, JNJ announced a dividend, and my broker cancelled the trailing stop order. I've re-entered a \"\"Stop market\"\" order at 113.45. I've also entered an alert for $126.07 -- if the alert gets triggered, I'll cancel the Market Stop and enter a new trailing stop.\"" }, { "docid": "268489", "title": "", "text": "\"The retailer can sell for whatever price they like, with the caveats that if they consistently sell at a loss they will go out of business and if they set the price too high they will not sell anything! As you mentioned, RRP is only a recommended price, the manufacturer cannot enfore it at all for legal reasons. Having said that I used to work in retail (not cars) and if we discounted a certain manufacturers products and they found out about it, we would find they had suddenly run out of stock when we tried to order more. So manufacturers do have some control over this type of thing depending on how \"\"underhand\"\" they want to be about it. My background is in retail management but not selling cars, but my understanding is the law regards RRP is the same.\"" }, { "docid": "411910", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"" }, { "docid": "598562", "title": "", "text": "\"Debt cripples you, it weighs you down and keeps you from living your life the way you want. Debt prevents you from accomplishing your goals, limits your ability to \"\"Do\"\" what you want, \"\"Have\"\" what you want, and \"\"Be\"\" who you want to be, it constricts your opportunities, and constrains your charity. As you said, Graduated in May from school. Student loans are coming due here in January. Bought a new car recently. The added monthly expenses have me concerned that I am budgeting my money correctly. Awesome! Congratulations. You need to develop a plan to repay the student loans. Buying a (new) car before you have planned you budget may have been premature. I currently am spending around 45-50% of my monthly (net)income to cover all my expenses and living. The left over is pretty discretionary, but things like eating dinner outside the house and expenses that are abnormal would come out of this. My question is what percentage is a safe amount to be committing to expenses on a monthly basis? Great! Plan 40-50% for essentials, and decide to spend under 20-30% for lifestyle. Be frugal here and you could allocate 30-40% for financial priorities. Budget - create a budget divided into three broad categories, control your spending and your life. Goals - a Goal is a dream with a plan. Organize your goals into specific items with timelines, and steps to progress to your goals. You should have three classes of goals, what you want to \"\"Have\"\", what you want to \"\"Do\"\", and who you want to \"\"Be\"\"; Ask yourself, what is important to you. Then establish a timeline to achieve each goal. You should place specific goals or steps into three time blocks, Near (under 3-6 months), medium (under 12 months), and Long (under 24 months). It is ok to have longer term plans, but establish steps to get to those goals, and place those steps under one of these three timeframes. Example, Good advice I have heard includes keeping housing costs under 25%, keeping vehicle costs under 10%, and paying off debt quickly. Some advise 10-20% for financial priorities, but I prefer 30-40%. If you put 10% toward retirement (for now), save 10-20%, and pay 10-20% toward debt, you should make good progress on your student loans.\"" }, { "docid": "241599", "title": "", "text": "\"For the most part, saving money usually depends upon having a budget and being able to stick to it. The toughest part of budgeting is usually setting it up (how much do I need for X) and sticking to it each month. In regards to sticking to it, there is software that you can use that helps figure out how much you are spending and how much you have left in a given category and they all pretty much do the same thing: track your spending and how much you have left in the category. If you are good with spreadsheets you might prefer that route (cost: free) but software that you can buy usually has value in that it can also generate reports that help you spot trends that you might not see in the spreadsheet. Sticking to a budget can be tough and a lot of what people have said already is good advice, but one thing that helps for me is having \"\"play money\"\" that can be used for whatever I want. In general this should be a fairly nominal amount ($20 or $40 a week) but it is enough that if you see a new book you want or what to go out for lunch one day you can do it without impacting the overall budget in some way. Likewise, having bigger savings goals can also be useful in that if times get tough it is easier to stop putting $100 a month to the side for a vacation than it is to cut back your grocery budget.\"" }, { "docid": "70730", "title": "", "text": "With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals." }, { "docid": "167879", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of benefits to this type of account. If one has highly appreciated stock (think Apple), donations of the stock are taken at current value, so for example, I donate $10,000 worth of shares, which cost me $100. In the 28% bracket, and itemizing, I see a $2800 benefit. But, I also avoid a $9900 capital gain and the 15% tax on that, or $1485. In this example, the fund comes into play as it would allow me to break up that $10,000 into smaller donations, and over a number of years. Next example - In my article some years ago Fun with Schedule A I describe how a strategy of 'bunching' ones itemized deductions every other year can help push people into the ability to itemize where normally they just miss doing so. Using the charitable fund can help people smooth out their contributions to the end charities while actually making the out of pocket withdrawal every other year. Last - there are many whose income is irregular for whatever reason. This type of account can be useful to help people in this situation make a deposit in high income/high tax rate years, skipping the deposit in low income/low rate years, but still keep up with the annual charity support. Obviously, one's goal is to help the charities they wish to support, it's silly to donate 'for the deduction.' But, for those who are charitable, these strategies help them divert more money to the charity and less to Uncle Sam. Sorry, I'm not sure about the math to show that 6.46%. My answer was to share the benefits of using these types of accounts." }, { "docid": "148346", "title": "", "text": "The average of a dozen good answers is close to what would be right, the wisdom of crowds. But any one answer will be skewed by one's own opinions. The question is missing too much detail. I look at $400K as $16K/yr of ongoing withdrawals. How much do you make now? When the kids are all in school full time, can your wife work? $400K seems on the low side to me, especially with 3 kids. How much have you saved for college? The $150K for your wife is also a bit low. Without a long tangent on the monetary value of the stay at home spouse, what will you spent on childcare if she passes? Term life also has a expiration date. When my daughter was born, my wife and I got 20 year term. She is now 16, her college account fully funded, and we are semi-retired. The need for insurance is over. If one of us dies, the survivor doesn't need this big of a house, and will have more than they need to be comfortable in a downsized one. My belief is that the term value should bridge the gap to the kids getting through college and the spouse getting resettled. Too much less, I'd have left my wife at risk. Too much more, she'd be better off if I were dead. (I say that half joking, the insurance company will often limit the size policy to something reasonable.)" }, { "docid": "233922", "title": "", "text": "\"The standard double-entry approach would just be to create a Liability account for the loan, and then make a transfer from that account to your Asset (Savings) account when the loan proceeds are distributed to you. After that point, the loan doesn't \"\"belong\"\" to your Savings account in any way. Each account and transaction is tracked separately. So, you might for instance pay that loan back with a transfer from your Checking account, even though the initial disbursement arrived into your Savings account. In order to see how much of a loan you have remaining, you need to look at the loan's Liability account to see what transactions occurred in it and what its remaining balance is. It sounds like what you're really trying to accomplish is the idea of \"\"earmarking\"\" or \"\"putting into an envelope\"\" certain assets for certain purposes. This kind of budgeting isn't really something that Gnucash excels at. It does have some budget features, but there's more about being able to see how actual expenses are to expected expenses for a reporting period, not about being able to ask \"\"How much 'discretionary' assets do I have left before I start hitting my 'emergency fund'\"\". The closest you get is splitting up your asset accounts into subaccounts as you suggest, in which case you can \"\"allocate\"\" funds for your specific purposes and make transfers between them as needed. That can work well enough depending on your exact goals, though it can sometimes make it a little trickier to reconcile with your actual bank statements. But there's not really an accounting reason to associate the \"\"emergency fund\"\" portion of your assets with the remaining balance of your loan; though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if that's what you're trying to do. Accounting answers questions like \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\". If you want to ask \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\" or \"\"Am I likely to run out of money soon?\"\", you may want a budgeting tool rather than an accounting tool.\"" }, { "docid": "18001", "title": "", "text": "You are wildly over-estimating your taxes. First, remember that your business expenses reduce your gross income. Second, remember that taxes are progressive, so your flat 35% only applies if you're already making a high salary that pushed you into the higher brackets of US and CA. I think the deeper problems are: 1) you are expecting a super early start-up (with no finished product) to pay you the same as a steady job, including health insurance, and 2) you are expecting Kickstarter to independently fund the venture. The best source of funding is yourself. If you believe in this venture and in your game design abilities, then pay for most of the costs out of your own savings. Cut your expenses to the extent you can. You may want to wander over to startups.SE to get more perspective and ideas on your business plan." }, { "docid": "62047", "title": "", "text": "\"I think this question is perfectly on topic, and probably has been asked and answered many times. However, I cannot help myself. Here are some basics however: Personal Finance is not only about math. As a guy who \"\"took vector calculus just for fun\"\", I have learned that superior math skills do not translate into superior net worth. Personal finance is about 50% behavior. Take a look at the housing crisis, car loans, or payday lenders and you will understand that the desire to be accepted by others often trumps the math surrounding a transaction. Outline your goals What is it that you want in life? A pile of money or to retire early? What does your business look like? How much cash will you need? Do you want to own a ton of rental properties? How does all this happen (set intermediate goals). Then get on a budget A budget is a plan to spend your money in advance. Stick to it. From there you can see how much money you have to implement various goals. Are your goals to aggressive? This is really important as people have a tendency to spend more money then they have. Often times when people receive a bonus at work, they spend that one bonus on two or three times over. A budget will prevent this from happening. Get an Emergency Fund Without an emergency fund, you be subject to the financial whims of people involved in your own life and that of the broader marketplace. Once you have one, you are free to invest with impunity and have less stress in a world that deals out plenty. Bad things will happen to you financially, protect against them. The best first investments are simple: Invest in yourself. Find a way to make a very healthy income with upward mobility. Also get out and stay out of debt. These things are not sexy, but they pay off in the long run. The next best investment is also simple: Index funds. These become the bench mark for all other investments. If you do not stand a good chance of beating the S&P 500 index fund, why bother? Just dump the money in the fund and sleep well at night.\"" }, { "docid": "518487", "title": "", "text": "One estimate is to sell today, estimate the taxes, and determine how much cash you need to set aside over the next 12 months. The is no way to calculate what impact dividends and capital gains the funds will have, because unlike interest they aren't guaranteed. The other complexity is that the funds themselves could drop in value. In that case the dividends and capital gains may not even be enough to get you back to even. I use mutual funds to invest over the long term, with the idea of spending the funds over decades. When needing to save for a short term goal, I use banking products. They are guaranteed not to lose value, and the interest changes are slowerand thus easier to predict." }, { "docid": "485776", "title": "", "text": "I've seen agism go the other way on my job. A Generation X'er Accounts Payable Clerk in my department was promoted to an Accounts Payable Supervisory role simply because she has kids and my Baby Boomer boss sympathized with her on a personal level. The punchline is this woman doesn't understand accounting on a fundamental level (she has some junior college education, no degree). I (Generation Y) on the other hand had to train up my Baby Boomer boss in our industry over the course of a year. Attempt to teach him how to use our ERP system (he refuses to learn how to use our accounting system and he's the CFO, big red flag, we're going on year 2 now), cover for him when he make bone-headed Accounting 101 mistakes, and be the defacto department manager (I'm the Senior Accountant) because his Accounts Payable supervisor doesn't know how to debit and credit accounts correctly. The buck should stop with her when it comes to Accounts Payable transactions but she's too incompetent to handle the responsibility. So now my boss is looking hire a new staff to the department and I'm gunning for a Manager's title (I do the managing already I just want the official title and pay raise). In addition I would like to have an official direct report, instead of all this unofficial direct reporting going on. I found out last week that I'm not up for consideration, but the girl that has NO COLLEGE DEGREE who was in my position before me, but left (knew someone who got her a better job) is on the short list for the position. Of course she's a Generation X'er. I'm more experienced technically than she is, I have less years of experience but my skill set is larger, I'm much better educated, and I bring database administration and programming to the table in addition to Accounting (Accounting ERP softwares are essentially databases). I even fixed the tax mess she left the department on the way out. I suspect the reason why I wasn't up for consideration is because I stand out. I'm young (28, look young), gym fit (coworkers are all overweight), and no kids (that seems to REALLY single me out). Everyone else never learned what a condom was and had children around 16-19 years of age. So instead of the workplace becoming a meritocracy, it's a game of who can put themselves in bad situations and garner sympathy for pay raises and promotions they don't deserve." }, { "docid": "185443", "title": "", "text": "\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \"\"target retirement,\"\" \"\"lifecycle,\"\" \"\"balanced,\"\" \"\"conservative/moderate allocation.\"\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \"\"mental accounting\"\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\"" }, { "docid": "82741", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the kind of scenario addressed by Reddit's /r/personalfinance Prime Directive, or \"\"I have $X, what should I do with it?\"\" It follows a fairly linear flowchart for personal spending beginning with a budget and essential costs. The gist of the flowchart is to cover your most immediate costs and risks first, while also maximizing your benefits. It sounds like you would fall somewhere around steps 1 and 3. (Step 2 won't apply since this is not pretax income.) If you don't already have at least $1000 reserved in an emergency fund, that's a great place to start. After that, you'll want to use the rest to pay down your debt. Your credit card debt is very high interest and should be treated as a financial emergency. Besides the balance of your gift, you may want to throw whatever other funds you have saved beyond one month's expenses at this problem. As far as which card, since you have multiple debts you're faced with the classic choice of which payoff method to use: snowball (lowest balance first) or avalanche (highest interest rate first). Avalanche is more financially optimal but less immediately gratifying. Personally, since your 26% APR debt is so large and so high interest, I would recommend focusing every available penny on that card until it is paid off, and then never use it again. Again, per the flowchart, that means using everything left over after steps 0-2 are fulfilled.\"" }, { "docid": "179640", "title": "", "text": "\"Excellent questions! Asking such questions indicates something special about yourself. The desire to learn and adjust your beliefs will increase your chance of success in your life. I would use a wide variety of authors to increase your education. Myself I prefer Dave Ramsey to Clark Howard, but I think Clark is very good. The first thing you should focus on is learning how to do and live by a budget. Often times, adults will assume that you are on a budget because you are broke. It happens with my friends and my youngest child is older than you. Nothing could be further from the truth. A budget is simply a plan on how you will spend your income so you don't run out of money before you run out of month. Along with budgeting I would also focus on goal setting. This is the type of \"\"investing\"\" you should be doing at your age. For example if your primary goal was to become an engineer, my recommendation is to hold off buying stocks/mutual funds and using your current income to get through school with little or no student loans. Another example might be to open your own HVAC business. Your best bet might be to learn the trade, working for someone else, and take night classes for business management. Most 18 year olds have very little earning power. Your focus at this point should be increasing your income and learning how to manage the income you have. Please keep in mind that most debt is bad. It robs you of your income which is your greatest wealth building tool. Car loans and credit card debt is just plain stupid. Often times a business case can be made for reasonable student loans. However, why not challenge yourself to take none. How much further ahead could you be if you graduate, with a degree, when your peers are strapped with a 40K loan? Keep up the good work and keep asking questions.\"" }, { "docid": "593962", "title": "", "text": "In my opinion, the fee is criminal. There are ETFs available to the public that have expenses as low as .05%. The index fund VIIIX an institution level fund available to large 401(k) plans charges .02%. I'll pay a total of under 1% over the next 50 years, Consider that at retirement, the safe withdrawal rate has been thought to be 4%, and today this is considered risky, perhaps too high. Do you think it's fair, in any sense of the word to lose 30% of that withdrawal? Another angle for you - In my working years, I spent most of those years at either the 25% or 28% federal bracket taxable income. I should spend my retirement at 15% marginal rate. On average, the purpose of my 401(k) was to save me (and my wife) 10-13% in tax from deposit to withdrawal. How long does it take for an annual 1.1% excess fee to negate that 10% savings? If one spends their working life paying that rate, they will lose half their wealth to those managing their money. PBS aired a show in its Frontline series titled The Retirement Gamble, it offers a sobering look at how such fees are a killer to your wealth." }, { "docid": "415432", "title": "", "text": "On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)" } ]

[ { "docid": "332314", "title": "", "text": "If you have income in the US, you will owe US income tax on it, unless there is a treaty with your country that says otherwise." } ]

[ { "docid": "194654", "title": "", "text": "I believe that recharacterizing a contribution for a given year can only be done before the tax filing deadline for that year. So it would be too late to recharacterize them now. At this point, I believe the only things you can do are (see What if You Contribute Too Much?): The implications are not at the time of retirement -- rather, the implications are that every year since the excess contribution, you have to pay a penalty of 6% of the excess contribution, until you take it out (or it is absorbed into a future year's contribution limit). If you haven't been reporting that penalty on your tax returns in the last few years since your contribution, that also means you have been underpaying your taxes and you need to go back and fix that." }, { "docid": "483081", "title": "", "text": "1.What are the tax implications - income tax, gift tax, wealth tax etc. for the money credited in the NRO Account? As the funds are transferred by your wife to you, there is NO Income. Hence Income Tax rules don't apply. It would be treated as GIFT and come uder Gift Act. As per gift Act, one can transfer unlimited amount between close releatives. The defination of close relative as per Income Tax includes parents, spouse, siblings etc. The interest you earn in NRO account is taxable in India. 2.Can I transfer this money to my parents and would that attract any tax?. I understand my parents will have bear any tax based on income they earn on my transfer... Are there any tax implications for me? You can transfer this money to your parents. This will not be taxable to you. It will not be taxable to your parents as its Gift. Any income earned by your parents on this will ofcourse be taxable. 3.Can I move this money to NRE account and what is the process for that and how easy it is? Its best if you had your wife send funds into NRE account. Direct transfer as much as know is not allowed. Having said that, it is possible to transfer funds out of India via proper paperwork, there is also a limit [quite large] on the amount that can be transferred a year. Get a CA to help you with the paperwork." }, { "docid": "199789", "title": "", "text": "The money was sent from my US bank to my father in India Your father can receive unlimited amount of money as GIFT from you. There is no tax implication on this transaction. Related question After 3 years, my father received a note from the income tax dept. asking him to pay income taxes. Possibly because the income does not match and there maybe high value transactions. This should be replied preferably with the help of CA. Now, the CA is asking him to pay tax in the money I transferred. Is that correct? This is incorrect. Please change the CA and get someone competent. If not, what should I or he do in this case? Get guidance from another CA. Your father can establish that this was convenience and show evidence of transfer from you [need bank statements from your bank and Indian bank]. Property registration payments receipts, etc. Or he can also show this as Gift. If required get a gift deed created." }, { "docid": "383172", "title": "", "text": "From tax perspective, any income you earn for services performed while you're in the US is US-sourced. The location of the person paying you is of no consequence. From immigration law perspective, you cannot work for anyone other than your employer as listed on your I-20. So freelancing would be in violation of your visa, again - location of the customer is of no consequence." }, { "docid": "441512", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum. So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said \"\"ignoring tax implications\"\". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation.\"" }, { "docid": "589718", "title": "", "text": "If you use the account on a regular basis follow MrChrister's advice. If you don't use the account very often the fastest method is to just transfer the money out and then call to close the account. In the US there is no tax or credit score implications from closing an account." }, { "docid": "407542", "title": "", "text": "\"Why are they calling it freelance? It used to be called self-employed. Freelance used to mean low wage or no wage gigs and was all about the experience and connections you made which would help propel you into what you wanted. Now people are talking about it as though its the way of the future? As an accountant, I understand the long term value of labor subcontractors. Pretty much. . . if you think your job can be done at home, it can be subcontracted out to somebody else who does not have to be a full time employee. Kinda like the, \"\"Can a robot take my job,\"\" sorta thing? In summary, genuinely good/original talent is wasted on \"\"freelance,\"\" because the creator isn't given the tools to make his/her best work when that work is finding them. . . and lining up one after the other.\"" }, { "docid": "272425", "title": "", "text": "I'm assuming you're in the United States for this. I highly recommend getting a CPA to help you navigate the tax implications. Likely, you'll pay taxes as a sole proprietor, on top of any other income you made. Hopefully you kept good records because you'll be essentially paying for the profits, but you'll need to show the revenue and expenditures that you had. If you have any capital expenditures you may be able ton amortize them. But again, definitely hire a professional to help you, it will be well worth the cost." }, { "docid": "107536", "title": "", "text": "Supposedly this also means that I am free from having to pay California corporate taxes? Not in the slightest. Since you (the corporate employee) reside in CA - the corporation is doing business in CA and is liable for CA taxes. Or, does this mean I am required to pay both CA taxes and Delaware fees? (In this case, minimal, just a paid agent from incorporate.com) I believe DE actually does have corporate taxes, check it out. But the bottom line is yes, you're liable for both CA and DE costs of doing corporate business (income taxes, registered agents, CA corp fee, etc). Is there any benefit at all for me to be a Delaware C-Corp or should I dissolve and start over. Or just re-incorporate as California LLC Unless you intend to go public anytime soon or raise money from VCs/investors - there's no benefit whatsoever in incorporating in DE. You should seek a legal advice with an attorney, of course, since benefits are legal issues (usually related to choosing jurisdiction for litigation etc). If you're a one-person freelancer, doing C-Corp was not the best decision as well. Tax-wise you'd be much better off with a S-Corp, or a LLC - both pass-through and have no (Federal) entity-level taxes. Corporate rates are generally higher than individual rates, and less deductions can be taken. In California, check with a CPA/EA licensed in the State, since both S-Corp and LLC would be taxed, and taxed differently." }, { "docid": "365715", "title": "", "text": "If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account. Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable. One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly. The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property. I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero). Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting. Run the numbers. Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer. It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation. Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side. Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting. Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side). Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area. Assuming that the numbers add up to buying: buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small." }, { "docid": "200425", "title": "", "text": "\"Any inward remittance received by your Parents cannot be treated as \"\"Income\"\" as per the definitaion. This can at best be treated as \"\"Gift\"\". However in India there is No Gift tax for certain relations and there is no ceiling on the amount. In your case gifting of money by son to father or viceversa is allowed without any limits and tax implication. However if you father were to invest this money in his name and make gains, the gains would be taxable. However if the Money is being transfered with specific purpose such as to buy a property, etc make sure you have the Bank give your dad an certificate of Inward remittance. This is also advisable even otherwise, the Inwared Remittance certificate from Bank certifies that the credit entry in the account is because or funds comming into India and if the tax authorities were to question the large amount of credits, it would be proof that it is due to Inward remittance and not due to say a sale of property by your dad Helpful Links: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/tax/gift-tax-whatsa-gift_664238.html http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/bline/blnri/exp-tax.htm Edit 1: What you father does with the money is treated as EXPENSE, ie spends on day to day expense or pays off your Loans or Pay off his loans have no relevance from a Tax Prespective in India. The only issue comes in say you have transfered the funds to buy a property and there was no purpose of remittance specified by Bank's letter and one want to reptriate this funds back to US, then its an issue. If you transfer the funds directly to your Loan account again there is no tax implication to you in India as you are NRI.\"" }, { "docid": "318111", "title": "", "text": "This is how a consulting engagement in India works. If you are registered for Service Tax and have a service tax number, no tax is deducted at source and you have to pay 12.36% to service tax department during filing (once a quarter). If you do not have Service tax number i.e. not registered for service tax, the company is liable to deduct 10% at source and give the same to Income Tax Dept. and give you a Form-16 at the end of the financial year. If you fall in 10% tax bracket, no further tax liability, if you are in 30%, 20% more needs to be paid to Income Tax Dept.(calculate for 20% tax bracket). The tax slabs given above are fine. If you fail to pay the remainder tax (if applicable) Income Tax Dept. will send you a demand notice, politely asking you to pay at the end of the FY. I would suggest you talk to a CA, as there are implications of advance tax (on your consulting income) to be paid once a quarter." }, { "docid": "179066", "title": "", "text": "\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \"\"limited\"\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \"\"not sustainable\"\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \"\"very satisfied\"\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\"" }, { "docid": "467251", "title": "", "text": "Other than the satisfaction of working in a field you are passionate about, the beauty of copywriting is in all the money you can conceivably make doing it as a freelancer. However, the idea is to start and continue generating that money by making as few costly errors as possible. There are many mistakes you can avoid if you simply know what they are. In this article, see some of the most common mistakes your fellow freelance copywriters have made so you can avoid them and the stress they can cause." }, { "docid": "45069", "title": "", "text": "I can't answer from the Indian side but on the UK side, if you and your friend are not related then there is no tax implication - you are effectively giving each other gifts - other than a possible inheritance tax liability if one of you dies within 7 years of the transfer and has an estate above the IHT allowance." }, { "docid": "306800", "title": "", "text": "If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication." }, { "docid": "34139", "title": "", "text": "Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity." }, { "docid": "145999", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.dnsassociates.co.uk/blog/bitcoins-tax-implications-uk) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Tax practices of bitcoin activities in UK The HMRC guidelines on the tax treatment of transactions relating to the sale or use of bitcoins and other similar cryptocurrencies are applicable for bitcoin. &gt; Different taxes and their activities concerning bitcoins In the case of activities concerning bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies, the taxes like income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax transactions will hinge on the very activities taking place and the parties involved, in the similar way as transactions involving a normal currency, such as sterling, are decided. &gt; No special instructions are there for income tax, corporation tax and capital gain tax for the transactions relating to bitcoins. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72z5sg/bitcoin_tax_in_the_uk_explained/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~218069 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bitcoin**^#1 **tax**^#2 **activity**^#3 **currency**^#4 **transaction**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "30596", "title": "", "text": "Answering for US tax only: The bank account makes absolutely zero difference. If you are not a US national and not resident in the US, but earn income from a US employer/client/customer, generally that income is not subject to US tax (no matter where it is banked). However there are (complicated) exceptions, particularly if you are considered to be operating a 'trade or business' in the US or US real estate is involved. Start at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/nonresident-aliens and proceed through pub 519 if you have time to spend. I do not know (or answer) about Argentinian taxes. Whether you can find a US bank that wants to open and maintain an account for a foreigner (which is extra paperwork and regulation for them) is a different Q, that is already asked and answered: B1/B2 visas do not allow you to work, but that isn't really in scope of money.SX and belongs over on travel.SX (or expatriates.SX for longer stay); https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/25416/work-as-freelancer-while-tourist-in-us-for-an-already-existing-us-client seems to cover it." } ]

[ { "docid": "530570", "title": "", "text": "Get a lawyer to put this in contract form, with everything spelled out explicitly. What is fair is what the two of you agree upon. My own suggestion: Divide the property into things which are yours, his, and shared, then have each of you be responsible for all your costs plus half the shared costs, but get all the benefits of your half. That would mean that if he rents out his half, all the rental income is his; if you decide to live in your half, all the savings of not paying rent are yours. Each of you pays your half of mortgage, insurance, and other shared costs. Repairs to shared infrastructure should be done by someone both of you trust. If you agree the work is needed and he does it rather than your hiring someone, you owe him the appropriate percentage of the costs; the two of you will need to agree on whether you owe him for that percentage of his time as well. Make sure you agree on some mechanism for one person offering to buy the other out, or to sell their half to the other party... or potentially to someone else entirely. (Personally, I would try to do that at soonest opportunity, to avoid some of the ways this can go wrong -- see past comments about the hazards of guaranteeing a loan; this works or doesn't work similarly.) Does that address your question?" } ]

[ { "docid": "304971", "title": "", "text": "Because a paying down a liability and thus gaining asset equity is not technically an expense, GnuCash will not include it in any expense reports. However, you can abuse the system a bit to do what you want. The mortgage payment should be divided into principle, interest, and escrow / tax / insurance accounts. For example: A mortgage payment will then be a split transaction that puts money into these accounts from your bank account: For completeness, the escrow account will periodically be used to pay actual expenses, which just moves the expense from escrow into insurance or tax. This is nice so that expenses for a month aren't inflated due to a tax payment being made: Now, this is all fairly typical and results in all but the principle part of the mortgage payment being included in expense reports. The trick then is to duplicate the principle portion in a way that it makes its way into your expenses. One way to do this is to create a principle expense account and also a fictional equity account that provides the funds to pay it: Every time you record a mortgage payment, add a transfer from this equity account into the Principle Payments expense account. This will mess things up at some level, since you're inventing an expense that does not truly exist, but if you're using GnuCash more to monitor monthly cash flow, it causes the Income/Expense report to finally make sense. Example transaction split:" }, { "docid": "253319", "title": "", "text": "Banks consider investment mortgages (and any mortgage where you don't live in the property), as a riskier investment than an owner occupied, home collateral mortgage. The sources of increased risk range from concerns that you will screw up as a landlord, your tenants will destroy the place, you won't have tenants and can't afford to pay the bank, and/or you'll take out several other investment mortgages and over extend yourself. All of these risks are compounded by the fact that it is harder for the bank to convince you to pay when they can't put you out on the street if you default. Banks lend and invest in money, not real estate, so they would much rather have a paying loan than a foreclosed house, especially with the modern foreclosure glut. The increased risk means the bank will charge higher interest for the loan, may require a higher downpayment, and will require higher lending standards before issuing the loan. A new housing investor can get around these higher prices by living in the home for a few years before renting it out (though your lender could possibly require you to renegotiate the loan if you move out too soon)." }, { "docid": "493768", "title": "", "text": "For those wondering who voted for it (Yea vote being to disallow consumers to sue): &gt; It passed the House on July 25 231-190, split right down party lines except for one defecting Republican who voted nay with the Democrats. In the Senate, it was split 50/50, with two Republicans — Louisiana’s John Neely Kennedy and South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham — joining the Democrats with nays. The VP broke the tie and the Joint Resolution passed shortly before 10PM Eastern time. The Monopoly Man was not present." }, { "docid": "489539", "title": "", "text": "If your mortgage is an interest only one then the full amount of the payment you make should be to an expense account perhaps called mortgage interest. If the mortgage is a repayment mortgage you need to split the amount of the payment between such an expense account called mortgage interest and between a liability account which is the amount of the loan. In practice I have not found it very easy to do all this as the actual amounts vary depending on number of days in the month and then there are occasional charges etc made by the mortgage company so some approximations seem to be needed unless one is to spend hours trying to get it exactly correct...... Steve" }, { "docid": "249450", "title": "", "text": "\"Split transactions are indispensable to anybody interested in accurately tracking their spending. If I go to the big-box pharmacy down the road to pick up a prescription and then also grab a loaf of bread and a jug of milk while there, then I'd want to enter the transaction into my software as: I desire entering precise data into the software so that I can rely on the reports it produces. Often, I don't need an exact amount and estimated category totals would have been fine, e.g. to inform budgeting, or compare to a prior period. However, in other cases, the expenses I'm tracking must be tracked accurately because I'd be using the total to claim an income tax deduction (or credit). Consider how Internet access might be commingled on the same bill with the home's cable TV service. One is a reasonable business expense and deduction for the work-at-home web developer, whereas the other is a personal non-deductible expense. Were split transaction capability not available, the somewhat unattractive alternatives are: Ignore the category difference and, say, categorize the entire transaction as the larger or more important category. But, this deliberately introduces error in the tracked data, rendering it useless for cases where the category totals need to be accurate, or, Split the transaction manually. This doesn't introduce error into the tracked data, but suffers another problem: It makes a lot of work. First, one would need to manually enter two (or more) top-level transactions instead of the single one with sub-amounts. Perhaps not that much more work than if a split were entered. Worse is when it comes time to reconcile: Now there are two (or more) transactions in the register, but the credit card statement has only one. Reconciling would require manually adding up those transactions from the register just to confirm the amount on the statement is correct. Major pain! I'd place split transaction capability near the top of the list of \"\"must have\"\" features for any finance management software.\"" }, { "docid": "86482", "title": "", "text": "There's no objectively correct answer to this question, given your circumstances. Ideally, the stepmom would put in 60% of the downpayment and 60% of the monthly maintenance costs and mortgage. You and your partner would evenly split the 40%. Then, it is very obvious. However, my guess is that this isn't going to be the situation. Without knowing the numbers, I suggest that, upon sale of the house, the exact value of each person's downpayment is immediately returned without interest. What's left of the equity is returned to everyone as per the amount they paid in mortgage. The monthly maintenance costs are excluded from this calculation entirely. You are, of course, free to take any other approach all three of you deem to be fair. In my example, consider a home that costs $200,000. Your stepmom puts in $40,000 for a downpayment, you put in $10,000, and your parter puts in $10,000. The mortgage payments are $1500/month. Your stepmom puts in $500 a month, you put in $250 a month, and your partner puts in $750 a month. You sell the place for $300,000 after paying off the entire mortgage. Your stepmom gets $40,000 + $80,000. You get $10,000 + $40,000. Your partner gets $10,000 + $120,000. Keep in mind, though, that you may have to sell the house for a loss. In which case, some or all of the downpayment may not even be returned. In fact, you may end up having to cover money over and above the downpayment and the payments you've made. Any good lawyer will make you consider this. Additionally, any good lawyer will make you spell out under what circumstances, people can force sale of the home." }, { "docid": "595029", "title": "", "text": "This is an all too common problem and is not easy to resolve. Divorce agreements do not alter prior mortgage contracts. Most importantly, the bank is not required, and will not normally, remove the girlfriend from the mortgage even if she quitclaimed it to her Ex. If he has abandoned the property there is a good chance he will not make any more future payments. She should be prepared to make the payments if he doesn't or expect her credit to continue to deteriorate rapidly. She needs to contact her divorce attorney to review their mutual obligations. A court can issue orders to try to force the Ex to fulfill the divorce agreement. However, a court cannot impose a change to the mortgage obligations the borrowers made to the bank. Focus on this. It's far more important than adding her to a car loan or credit card. Sorry for the bad news. As for the car loan, it's best to leave her off the loan. You will get better terms without her as a joint owner. You can add her as an additional driver for insurance purposes. Adding her to your credit cards will help her credit but not a lot if the mortgage goes to default or foreclosure." }, { "docid": "105542", "title": "", "text": "\"Note that these used to be a single \"\"common\"\" share that has \"\"split\"\" (actually a \"\"special dividend\"\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\"" }, { "docid": "482963", "title": "", "text": "If someone owns a house that is not paid off...can someone buy it by taking another mortgage? Yes, but I'm not sure why you think the buyer would need to take another mortgage to buy it. If someone sells their home for X dollars, then the buyer needs X dollars to buy the house. How they get that money (use cash, take out a mortgage) is up to them. During the closing process, a portion of the funds generated from the sale are diverted to pay off the seller's loan and any leftover funds after closing are pocketed by the seller. What kind of offer would be most sensible? I assume that in this case the current owner of the house would want to make a profit. The amount that the house is sold for is determined by the market value of their home, not by the size of the mortgage they have left to pay off. You make the same offer whether they own their home or have a mortgage." }, { "docid": "517299", "title": "", "text": "You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance." }, { "docid": "110769", "title": "", "text": "Lenders may sell your mortgage to other lenders for a fee. For example, your lender might sell your mortgage to the highest bidder who may want to purchase your mortgage by making a one time payment. For your lender that's a quick profit, for the new owner of your mortgage, that's long term returns for a one time fee. For your lender, that is forgoing long term returns for short term gains (and transfer of risk in case you default). (Very similar to how bonds work in a stock exchange!) What does this mean to you? Nothing. You will still keep making payments to your original lender. What does 'transfer of ownership has not been publicly recorded mean'? It means, when you are asked about ownership details regarding your mortgage, and this could be in tax forms or refinancing etc., you would enter your original lender's information and not Freddit Mac's! Pro-tip There are lots of scams based on this. You might receive an official looking letter in mail claiming your loan has been sold and you should start making payments to the new owner. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS! Call your original lender (use the phone number from your loan papers, not mail you received) and verify this information. And if this were to happen, your original lender would always inform you first. And hey, congrats on your new home! :)" }, { "docid": "91838", "title": "", "text": "It looks to me like this is a 'call an attorney' situation, which is always a good idea in situations like this (family legal disputes). But, some information. First off, if your family is going to take the car, you certainly won't need to make payments on it any more at that point, in my opinion. If the will goes through probate (which is the only way they'd really be able to take it), the probate judge should either leave you with the car and the payments, or neither (presumably requiring the family to pay off the loan and settle your interest in the car). Since the car has negative net value, it seems unlikely that the probate judge would take the car away from you, but who knows. Either way, if they do take the car away from you, they'll be doing you a service: you have a $6,000 car that you owe $12,000 on. Let them, and walk away and buy another car for $6,000. Second, I'm not sure they would be allowed to in any event. See the Illinois DMV page on correcting titles in the case of a deceased owner; Illinois I believe is a joint tenancy state, meaning that once one owner dies, the other just gets the car (and the loan, though the loan documents would cover that). Unless you had an explicit agreement with your grandfather, anyway. From that page: Joint Ownership A title in the names of two or more persons is considered to be in joint tenancy. Upon the death of one of them, the surviving joint tenant(s) becomes the owner(s) of the vehicle by law. Third, your grandfather can fix all of this fairly easily by mentioning the disposition of the car and loan in his will, if he's still mentally competent and wishes to do so. If he transfers his ownership of the car to you in the will, it seems like that would be that (though again, it's not clear that the ownership wouldn't just be yours anyway). Finally, I am not a lawyer, and I am not your lawyer, so do not construe any of the text of this post as legal advice; contact a lawyer." }, { "docid": "542678", "title": "", "text": "Could it be done? Yes, it could, subject to local law. A variant of such an approach has been suggested for those countries experiencing collapse of demand. One might consider whether whether it applied to secured loans (such as mortgages), unsecured loans, or both; whether it would be capped at a certain absolute (say £100k) or proportional (first 50%) of each mortgage; whether it would cover first homes only, or all homes; and so on. These details would radically change the feasibility and consequences of any such intervention. See the related question: https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/146/104 Such a policy of debt cancellation would have several consequences beyond initial stimulation of demand, that would need additional policies to deal with them. Inflation The resultant surge in demand would, in the absence of any other intervention, result in a massive surge in inflation. There are some interesting questions about whether this burst of inflation would be a one-off, or not. One could make an argument that as housing has become much more affordable (at least for home-owners), it would increase the downward pressure on wages, which would be in itself counter-inflationary in the medium-long term. Nevertheless, it would be injecting much more money into the economy than has been seen in QE to date, so the risks would be of extraordinarily high inflation, which might or might not get entrenched. In order to manage the short-term risk, and long-term inflation expectations, it might be necessary to incorporate a lot of tightening, either fiscal (higher taxes and/or lower public spending), or monetary: (higher interest rates, unwinding QE, new requirements for higher core capital for banks) Moral hazard There are risks of moral hazard for individuals: however, as a society, we were prepared to accept the moral hazard for financial institutions and their staff, so that may or may not be an issue: it is likely to be a question of long-term expectations. If the expectation is that this is at most a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, then the consequential risk from moral hazard ought to be lower. Excess profits to lenders Lenders will typically work on the basis of a certain proportion of defaults, so paying off all loans effectively gives them an artificial boost to their profits. Worsening balance of payments There is to a degree a prisoners' dilemma facing nations here. Pressing the reset-button on personal debt across many of the countries experiencing demand-collapse would benefit all of them. However, if just one such country were to do it alone, they alone would increase domestic demand, resulting in a large increase in imports, but no significant increase in exports." }, { "docid": "99521", "title": "", "text": "With an annual income of $120,000 you can be approved for a $2800 monthly payment on your mortgage. The trickier problem is that you will save quite a bit on that mortgage payment if you can avoid PMI, which means that you should be targeting a 20% down-payment on your next purchase. With a $500,000 budget for a new home, that means you should put $100,000 down. You only have $75,000 saved, so you can either wait until you save another $25,000, or you can refinance your current property for $95k+ $25k = $120k which would give you about a $575 monthly payment (at 30 years at 4%) on your current property. Your new property should be a little over $1,900 per month if you finance $400,000 of it. Those figures do not include property tax or home owners insurance escrow payments. Are you prepared to have about $2,500 in mortgage payments should your renters stop paying or you can't find renters? Those numbers also do not include an emergency fund. You may want to wait even longer before making this move so that you can save enough to still have an emergency fund (worth 6 months of your new higher expenses including the higher mortgage payment on the new house.) I don't know enough about the rest of your expenses, but I think it's likely that if you're willing to borrow a little more refinancing your current place that you can probably make the numbers work to purchase a new home now. If I were you, I would not count on rental money when running the numbers to be sure it will work. I would probably also wait until I had saved $100,000 outright for the down-payment on the new place instead of refinancing the current place, but that's just a reflection of my more conservative approach to finances. You may have a larger appetite for risk, and that's fine, then rental income will probably help you pay down any money you borrow in the refinancing to make this all worth it." }, { "docid": "296355", "title": "", "text": "Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people. I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners." }, { "docid": "38611", "title": "", "text": "\"There are different approaches, but here is what we do and what I recommend. Now that you are officially a married couple, open a joint bank account, and eliminate your individual accounts. There are several reasons for this. Having a joint account promotes unity and teamwork. When you only have a joint account, you do not have \"\"your income\"\" and \"\"her income,\"\" or \"\"your expenses\"\" and \"\"her expenses.\"\" You work together in everything. You discuss your goals and set your household budget together. If one of you makes more money than the other, that person is no longer \"\"worth more,\"\" because your incomes are pooled together. If one person with a higher income has more in their account than the other person does, it can lead to envy, which you do not want in your marriage. Having a joint account is more efficient and makes more sense. With separate accounts, who pays the rent/mortgage? Who pays the utilities, or buys the food? If you have separate accounts, it takes a lot of work to worry about what is \"\"fair\"\" when deciding how to divide up the expenses. With a single household budget and a joint account, you decide together what the household expenses are, and they get paid from one account. If one of you has debt, you both have debt. You work together to get it paid off and strengthen your financial situation in the process. Having a joint account forces you to discuss your finances together. Working toward common financial goals together is crucial in a strong marriage, but if you maintain your separate accounts, you might be tempted to put off these discussions until you are forced to by life circumstances. It is better to work together from the start, and joining your finances facilitates that. You are intending your marriage to last. Live your financial life like you believe that you are a team for life. If you live in a community property state, separate accounts are a fiction anyway; everything is treated as if it was pooled together in the event of a divorce. I understand that if you are used to having your own money, it can be difficult to give up that sole control over your income, but in my opinion, it is worth it. You will certainly hear of examples from couples who maintain separate accounts and make it work. In my humble opinion, combining your finances completely is easier to do right.\"" }, { "docid": "15356", "title": "", "text": "On last nights episode of The Profit Marcus made an offer to the owner of a coffee company. The owner said up front he has 51% with the remaining 49% split between two early investors. Marcus asked for 40%, said the owner will have 40% and the investors will be reduced to 20%. Question is how can the owner agree to that deal and take equity away from the investors? It's not his percentage to sell." }, { "docid": "375542", "title": "", "text": "\"I would call the bank and ask how the person is on the account. If they are an owner, or are an authorized user, or what type of owner they are, etc. If the bank makes the distinction between \"\"user\"\" and \"\"owner\"\" then most likely, your funds are not able to be seized. If they are a joint owner, then, typically, 100% of the money is yours and 100% of the money is theirs and either of you could withdraw all the money, close the account, or have the money seized as part of a legal action.\"" }, { "docid": "137972", "title": "", "text": "People arent disagreeing with him because hes being honest, its because his comment is a bit ignorant. No one likes having shitty lazy coworkers even the people who work hard and smoke a joint when they get home. So to lump those two together is ignorant." } ]

[ { "docid": "219274", "title": "", "text": "Definitely get a lawyer to write up all the details of the partnership in a formal agreement. If your ex does not want to do this, that is a bad sign. You both need to be clear about expectations and responsibilities in this partnership, and define an exit strategy in the case one of you wants out. This is the most fair to both parties. Generally, what is common is that property is split cleanly when the relationship ends. I would strongly recommend you both work towards a clean split with no joint property ownership. How this looks depends on your unique situation. To address your questions 2 and 3: You have two roles here - tenant and owner. As a 50% owner, you are running a business with a partner. That business will have assets (home), income, expenses, and profit. You basically need to run this partnership as a simple business. All the rent income (your rent and the other tenant's) should go into a separate account. The mortgage and all other housing expenses are then paid from only this account. Any excess is then profit that may be split 50/50. All expenses should be agreed upon by both of you, either by contract or by direct communication. You should see a financial professional to make sure accounting and taxes are set up properly. Under this system, your ex could do work on the house and be paid from the business income. However, they are responsible to you to provide an estimate and scope of work, just like any other contractor. If you as a joint owner agree to his price, he then could be paid out of the business income. This reduces the business cash flow for the year accordingly. You can probably see how this can get very complicated very fast. There is really no right or wrong answer on what both of you decide is fair and best. For the sake of simplicity and the least chance of a disaster, the usual and recommended action is to cleanly split all property. Good Luck!" } ]

[ { "docid": "6882", "title": "", "text": "In the US, a surviving family member that inherits the entire property may also assume the mortgage. If the new mortgagee fails to uphold the terms of the mortgage (i.e. make timely payments), the mortgagor can begin foreclosure proceedings. There is generally no requirement to pay off the mortgage quickly. This is obviously the simple case where one person inherits the entire property. If the estate is split and no one person inherits the house, or if the house is left to a non-relative, things get more complicated. Effectively in that case the house is either sold to pay off the mortgage or the inheritor needs to take out a new mortgage to pay off the old one." }, { "docid": "206258", "title": "", "text": "\"First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a \"\"friend\"\" or \"\"roommate\"\". \"\"Spouses\"\", \"\"business partners\"\", \"\"domestic partners\"\" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not \"\"roommates\"\". Going \"\"halvsies\"\" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two \"\"friends\"\" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't \"\"own\"\" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a \"\"buyer's option\"\". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts \"\"first-time homebuyers\"\", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation.\"" }, { "docid": "60163", "title": "", "text": "You are thinking about this very well. With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract. What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance? If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person. (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one. The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own. If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage. Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic." }, { "docid": "445053", "title": "", "text": "To add a little to mhoran_psprep's answer, the clause in question is not binding in perpetuity but only for the duration of the construction loan. I assume that you are getting the loan from a bank rather than through the builder. The way a construction loan works is that the bank agrees to loan you a certain amount of money for you to pay the builder but you don't get the money upfront to hold till the construction is complete, or to pay to the builder each month. Each month, or whenever a major phase of the construction is completed, the builder submits a request for payment of (say) $X to you stating what part of the whole work has been completed and attaching lien waivers from all the subcontractors that did any part of the work that they have been paid in full. It is up to you to verify (for your own protection) that the work has in fact been completed and that the work is satisfactory. If everything looks OK, you send the request (together with the lien waivers) to the bank which sends its own home inspector to verify that the work has in fact been completed. After the inspector's OK, the bank pays the builder $X (more commonly $0.95X or $0.9X) and gets a lien waiver from the builder in the amount of the payment. At this point, the amount that you owe the bank increases by the amount paid. This goes on till the house is completed, the municipality or county issues a Certificate of Occupancy (meaning that that august body is satisfied that there are no building code violations etc. and the place is habitable) and the penultimate request for payment is made. Penultimate because a good construction contract withholds some amount (5% or 10%) of the money owed to the builder for anywhere from three months to a year to ensure that the builder will come back and fix things that were done incorrectly but not noticed till the house was lived in. (For example, one drywall nail had penetrated an electrical wire creating leakage. This was not discovered during inspection - flip the switch; light turns on? yes, so flip the switch back and move on - but when the light was turned on for three hours after the house was occupied, an electrical fire began inside the wall!) So, after this settle-down period is over, the builder submits the final payment request and gives a final lien waiver to the effect that everything owed to him has been paid. It is during this period of time that the bank wants to make sure that you don't take on additional loans or debts, or make any material changes to the facts that the bank used in assessing your credit-worthiness and making the decision to loan you the money. Hence the clause that is causing you to worry. Construction loans usually are at higher interest rates than regular mortgages so that once construction is complete, it is in your best interest to replace the construction loan (paying off its mortgage) with a regular home-owner loan and mortgage. If you get the regular mortgage from the same bank, you might be able to get some of the fees waived while going to another bank will mean that appraisal fee, termite inspection fee, etc will have to be paid. But in either case, the prohibition against buying that Beemer will disappear; just don't take out that auto loan between the mortgage application and the closing on the regular mortgage as mhoran_psprep's buyer did!" }, { "docid": "440063", "title": "", "text": "bank islam home financing,bank rakyat home financing,home refinancing best rates,refinancing,refinancing a home,refinancing home after 1 year,refinancing home after chapter 13,refinancing home after chapter 7,refinancing home after divorce,refinancing home after one year,refinancing home after short sale,refinancing home and taxes,refinancing home appraisal,refinancing home appraisal tips,refinancing home bad credit,refinancing home bad idea,refinancing home bank of america,refinancing home basics,refinancing home before divorce,refinancing home benefits,refinancing home calculator,refinancing home closing costs,refinancing home cost,refinancing home costs,refinancing home credit score,refinancing home definition,refinancing home loan,refinancing home loan rates,refinancing home loan with bad credit,refinancing home mortgage,refinancing home mortgage rates,refinancing home rates,refinancing home with bad credit,refinancing mortgage https://www.artrefinance.com/" }, { "docid": "99521", "title": "", "text": "With an annual income of $120,000 you can be approved for a $2800 monthly payment on your mortgage. The trickier problem is that you will save quite a bit on that mortgage payment if you can avoid PMI, which means that you should be targeting a 20% down-payment on your next purchase. With a $500,000 budget for a new home, that means you should put $100,000 down. You only have $75,000 saved, so you can either wait until you save another $25,000, or you can refinance your current property for $95k+ $25k = $120k which would give you about a $575 monthly payment (at 30 years at 4%) on your current property. Your new property should be a little over $1,900 per month if you finance $400,000 of it. Those figures do not include property tax or home owners insurance escrow payments. Are you prepared to have about $2,500 in mortgage payments should your renters stop paying or you can't find renters? Those numbers also do not include an emergency fund. You may want to wait even longer before making this move so that you can save enough to still have an emergency fund (worth 6 months of your new higher expenses including the higher mortgage payment on the new house.) I don't know enough about the rest of your expenses, but I think it's likely that if you're willing to borrow a little more refinancing your current place that you can probably make the numbers work to purchase a new home now. If I were you, I would not count on rental money when running the numbers to be sure it will work. I would probably also wait until I had saved $100,000 outright for the down-payment on the new place instead of refinancing the current place, but that's just a reflection of my more conservative approach to finances. You may have a larger appetite for risk, and that's fine, then rental income will probably help you pay down any money you borrow in the refinancing to make this all worth it." }, { "docid": "142966", "title": "", "text": "I believe different banks have slightly different experiences. My wife and I have both joint and individual accounts. When I sign in, I see Joint, Mortgage and Joe. When She logs in, she sees Joint, Mortgage, and Jane. It happens that the Mortgage and Joint accounts have her Social Security number attached. Aside from that, I don't feel like I am an afterthought." }, { "docid": "91838", "title": "", "text": "It looks to me like this is a 'call an attorney' situation, which is always a good idea in situations like this (family legal disputes). But, some information. First off, if your family is going to take the car, you certainly won't need to make payments on it any more at that point, in my opinion. If the will goes through probate (which is the only way they'd really be able to take it), the probate judge should either leave you with the car and the payments, or neither (presumably requiring the family to pay off the loan and settle your interest in the car). Since the car has negative net value, it seems unlikely that the probate judge would take the car away from you, but who knows. Either way, if they do take the car away from you, they'll be doing you a service: you have a $6,000 car that you owe $12,000 on. Let them, and walk away and buy another car for $6,000. Second, I'm not sure they would be allowed to in any event. See the Illinois DMV page on correcting titles in the case of a deceased owner; Illinois I believe is a joint tenancy state, meaning that once one owner dies, the other just gets the car (and the loan, though the loan documents would cover that). Unless you had an explicit agreement with your grandfather, anyway. From that page: Joint Ownership A title in the names of two or more persons is considered to be in joint tenancy. Upon the death of one of them, the surviving joint tenant(s) becomes the owner(s) of the vehicle by law. Third, your grandfather can fix all of this fairly easily by mentioning the disposition of the car and loan in his will, if he's still mentally competent and wishes to do so. If he transfers his ownership of the car to you in the will, it seems like that would be that (though again, it's not clear that the ownership wouldn't just be yours anyway). Finally, I am not a lawyer, and I am not your lawyer, so do not construe any of the text of this post as legal advice; contact a lawyer." }, { "docid": "485898", "title": "", "text": "Getting the first year right for any rental property is key. It is even more complex when you rent a room, or rent via a service like AirBnB. Get professional tax advice. For you the IRS rules are covered in Tax Topic 415 Renting Residential and Vacation Property and IRS pub 527 Residential Rental Property There is a special rule if you use a dwelling unit as a personal residence and rent it for fewer than 15 days. In this case, do not report any of the rental income and do not deduct any expenses as rental expenses. If you reach that reporting threshold the IRS will now expect you to to have to report the income, and address the items such as depreciation. When you go to sell the house you will again have to address depreciation. All of this adds complexity to your tax situation. The best advice is to make sure that in a tax year you don't cross that threshold. When you have a house that is part personal residence, and part rental property some parts of the tax code become complex. You will have to divide all the expenses (mortgage, property tax, insurance) and split it between the two uses. You will also have to take that rental portion of the property and depreciation it. You will need to determine the value of the property before the split and then determine the value of the rental portion at the time of the split. From then on, you will follow the IRS regulations for depreciation of the rental portion until you either convert it back to non-rental or sell the property. When the property is sold the portion of the sales price will be associated with the rental property, and you will need to determine if the rental property is sold for a profit or a loss. You will also have to recapture the depreciation. It is possible that one portion of the property could show a loss, and the other part of the property a gain depending on house prices over the decades. You can expect that AirBnB will collect tax info and send it to the IRS As a US company, we’re required by US law to collect taxpayer information from hosts who appear to have US-sourced income. Virginia will piggyback onto the IRS rules. Local law must be researched because they may limit what type of rentals are allowed. Local law could be state, or county/city/town. Even zoning regulations could apply. Also check any documents from your Home Owners Association, they may address running a business or renting a property. You may need to adjust your insurance policy regarding having tenants. You may also want to look at insurance to protect you if a renter is injured." }, { "docid": "138113", "title": "", "text": "Idk if I would ask on reddit, personal finance will tell you the only way is joint bank accounts and relationship advice will tell you to break up. Personally I will always want my own bank account, with a joint account for a mortgage or utilities. I think it depends on if you are both financially savvy, if one of you aren't you might want to have a joint account to keep an eye on spending. I think this site give you a good pro/con: https://www.thebalance.com/should-you-have-joint-or-separate-bank-accounts-1289664" }, { "docid": "299591", "title": "", "text": "The home owner does not start foreclosure, the bank decides when to foreclose. Therefore you cannot really decide a time to foreclose if you are trying to time the decision. The process You miss payments, and the banks will send you a late notice for the missing payments. Expect many notices. The bank will call you at home, on your cell phone and at work. They will mail you letters regarding the missing payments. If you continue to miss payments, the bank will probably demand the loan be paid in full. You will owe the bank the full balance of the principle, all past due interest, all past due late charges and junk fees. The bank won't even take a normal monthly payment from you should you try to pay your regular payment again. Some law enforcement will notify you on the bank's intent to foreclose. The bank has begun legal proceedings. Legal notices are published in the local newspaper. Soon the notices and the legal waiting period will expire. Court proceedings happen. The court will then allow the bank to foreclose. Notices to into the paper again about the updated status of the foreclosure. The house is sold at auction. Money from the auction is used to pay taxes owned, then mortgages, then other liens or creditors who file. Further debt for the home owner Taxes When sold, if the mortgage debt exceeds the home's fair market value, US Federal Tax rules say the selling price as the fair market value. The fair market value can still be higher than the tax basis (which I think is the value of the house at the time of original purchase plus improvements.). If the fair market value is higher, you will own taxes on sale. However tax rules in the US say if you have owned the home more than two years and make less than $250,000 in the transaction ($500,000 if married) you will not owe any tax. State taxes can be different. Additionally, if the mortgage lender forgives the debt and doesn't create a deficiency, that income is taxable as well. This is more an more common these days. There are exceptions if the home is your primary residence. This whole process an take several months to occur, but depends on where you live. If you continue to live in the home after the auction, the new owner must evict you from the property which is another set of legal proceedings. Your credit and ability to buy are home will be damaged for the next several years. I am not so sure on how PMI works for the banks, but I know they are getting some money back." }, { "docid": "579919", "title": "", "text": "A share of stock is an asset not much different than any other asset. If the share is being held in a joint account, it's being jointly owned. If the share is being held by a company with multiple owners then the share is owned by the various owners. If you're married and in a community property state, then it's technically owned by both parties." }, { "docid": "516381", "title": "", "text": "Option three is our preferred method, and we never argue about money. First we did a budget to work out ALL monthly joint out-goings (mortgage, bills, grocery etc). Then we each agreed who would pay what into the joint or household account - at the moment, I earn more than my wife, so I pay more, but we sit down every three or four months, to see if it needs adjusting. This way, we each keep our own individual accounts private, but pay what is necessary into the household account. We also set up a joint savings account; often at the end of the month, we'll have a little extra left in the household acount, and we siphon that off into joint savings to cover future unexpected costs - looks like our tumble dryer is on its last spin cycle at the moment, for example, and the joint savings account will be able to cover the cost of replacement. it all takes a bit of administration - but, as I say, we've never had a cross word about money, so the system seems to work." }, { "docid": "560897", "title": "", "text": "You and your husband are fronting all the money upfront. I'm guessing this will cost you around 67,000 once closing costs and fees are included. So obviously you would be hundred percent owners at the beginning. You'll then pay 31% of the mortgage and have your sister pay the remaining 69%. This puts your total investment at the end at 67k + 74.4k + 31% of interest accrued, and your sisters total investment at 165.6k+69% of interest accrued. If you hold the full length of the mortgage, your sister will have invested much more than you( assuming 30 year fixed rate, and 3.75%, she'd pay 116.6k in interest as opposed to your 49.6k) She will have spent 282.2k and y'all will have spent 191k. However if you sell early, your percentage could be much higher. These calculations don't take into account the opportunity cost of fronting all the cash. It could be earning you more in the stock market or in a different investment property. Liability also could be an issue in the case of her not being able to pay. The bank can still come after you for the whole amount. Lastly and most importantly, this also doesn't include the fact that she will be living there and y'all will not. What kind of rent would she be paying to live in a similar home? If it is more than 1400, you will basically be subsidizing her living, as well as tying up funds, and increasing your risk exposure. If it is more than 1400, she shouldn't be any percent owner." }, { "docid": "285745", "title": "", "text": "\"Its best to seek a lawyer, but it is unlikely you can force him to pay. You probably know couples, that are in some part of the divorce process, that have trouble obtaining court ordered payments. In your case you have less of a legal standing (exception: if you have children together). As far as the house goes, the two of you entered into some sort of business arrangement and it will be difficult to \"\"force\"\" him to pay. One thing that works for you is that he has excellent credit. If he is interested in keeping a high credit rating he will ensure that no payments are late on the home. Your question suggests that the two of you are not getting along very well right now, and that needs to stop. The best financial decision you can make right now is to get along with him. It seems that the two of you have not officially broken up. If you do decide to depart ways, do so as amicably as possible. You will have to work to get the home in your name only, and him off the deed. This benefits both of you as you will have sole control of the house and this ill advised business decision can end. He will have the home off his credit and will not be responsible if you miss a payment and can also buy a home or whatever of his own. Good luck and do your best to work this out. Seeking peace will cost you a lot less money in the long run. Fighting in court cost a lot of money. Giving in to semi-reasonable demands are far cheaper then fighting. Here is an example. Lets say he normally contributes $500 to the mortgage, and he decides to move out. I would ask him to contribute $200 until you can get his name off the loan, say 6 months at the most. After that you will put the house up for sale if you cannot obtain a mortgage in your own name and will split any profits.\"" }, { "docid": "258439", "title": "", "text": "My experience (two purchases, Ontario, Canada) is that the property taxes are paid by whomever is the owner on the date the tax bill comes due. The bill might be due before the owners even decide to sell. However: A part of the closing process is a Statement of Adjustments, in which various costs that span the tenure of two owners are split on a per-diem basis. In your case, there would have been a charge against you of 2/365 of the tax bill on this statement at the time of closing (if you hadn't paid any 2014 taxes) The statement also includes things like flat-rate water bills, monthly cable bills, security system monitoring... All paid by one owner or the other, but split fairly on a per diem basis at the time of closing..." }, { "docid": "550420", "title": "", "text": "\"As I understand it, if the \"\"borrower\"\" puts a down payment of 20% and the bank puts down 80%, then the bank and the \"\"borrower\"\" own the home jointly as tenants in common with a 20%-80% split of the asset amongst them. The \"\"borrower\"\" moves into the home and pays the bank 80% of the fair rental value of the home each month. {Material added/changed in edit: For the purposes of illustration, suppose that the \"\"borrower\"\" and the bank agree that the fair rental per month is 0.5% of the purchase cost. The \"\"borrower\"\" pays 80% of that amount i.e. 0.4% of the purchase cost to the bank on a monthly basis. The \"\"borrower\"\" is not required to do so but may choose to pay more money than this 0.4% of the purchase cost each month, or pay some amount in a lump sum. If he does so, he will own a larger percentage of the house, and so future monthly payments will be a smaller fraction of the agreed-upon fair rental per month. So there is an incentive to pay off the bank.} If and when the house is sold, the sale price is divided between \"\"borrower\"\" and bank according to the percentage of ownership as of the date of sale. So the bank gets to share in the profits, if any. On the other hand, if the house is sold for less than the original purchase price, then the bank also suffers in the loss. It is not a case of a mortgage being paid off from the proceeds and the home-owner gets whatever is left, or even suffering a loss when the dust has settled; the bank gets only its percentage of the sale price even if this amount is less than what it put up in the first place minus any additional payments made by the \"\"borrower\"\". I have no idea how other costs of home ownership (property taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance) or improvements, additions, etc are handled. Ditto what happens on Schedule A if such a \"\"loan\"\" is made to a US taxpayer.\"" }, { "docid": "296355", "title": "", "text": "Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people. I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners." }, { "docid": "156143", "title": "", "text": "It is also possible that the settlement company didn't tell the local government where to send the new tax bill. This would worry me because what else was missed regarding filing the proper documents with the lenders and the local government. It could also be a problem with the local government. Contact the settlement company or your attorney to get the issue resolved. If you owe the money you want to know; if the new owner owes the money they don't want to face a tax lien because the settlement company made a mistake. Generally this is split between the parties based on the number of days each will own the home. At settlement the money should move from one party to the other based on what has been deposited into escrow and when the actual bills are due. For example the payment for the first half of the year due July 1st may be sent in June. If the settlement was in June The new owner would give money to the old owner. But if settlement was in early July Money would move the other way." } ]

[ { "docid": "446928", "title": "", "text": "From Schwab - What are the eligibility requirements for a business to establish a SEP-IRA? Almost any type of business is eligible to establish a SEP-IRA, from self-employed individuals to multi-person corporations (including sole proprietors, partnerships, S and C corporations, and limited liability companies [LLCs]), tax-exempt organizations, and government agencies. What are the contribution limits? You may contribute up to 25% of compensation (20% if you’re self-employed3) or $49,000 for 2011 and $50,000 for 2012, whichever is less. If we set the PC aside, you and the son have an LLC renting office space, this addresses the ability of the LLC to offer the retirement account." } ]

[ { "docid": "144563", "title": "", "text": "The thing you get wrong is that you think the LLC doesn't pay taxes on gains when it sells assets. It does. In fact, in many countries LLC are considered separate entities for tax properties and you have double taxation - the LLC pays its own taxes, and then when you withdraw the money from the LLC to your own account (i.e.: take dividends) - you pay income tax on the withdrawal again. Corporate entities usually do not have preferential tax treatment for investments. In the US, LLC is a pass-though entity (unless explicitly chosen to be taxed as a corporation, and then the above scenario happens). Pass-through entities (LLCs and partnerships) don't pay taxes, but instead report the gains to the owners, which then pay taxes as if the transaction was their personal one. So if you're in the US - investing under LLC would have no effect whatsoever on your taxes, or adverse effect if you chose to treat it as a corporation. In any case, investing in stocks is not a deductible expense, and as such doesn't reduce profits." }, { "docid": "415815", "title": "", "text": "If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported." }, { "docid": "588134", "title": "", "text": "Anybody can contribute to a traditional ira up to the maximum limit. Does it make sense to contribute to a non-deductible IRA? There are a couple of cases where it does: If you're 59 1/2 or older, you're old enough to make IRA withdrawals without penalty. If you choose investments that maximize the value of tax deferral, you can use the nondeductible IRA to manage your tax burden. If you're aware of an upcoming change in tax law that will benefit high earning individuals, it might be beneficial to use a nondeductible IRA. For example - you know that income limits for converting a traditional to a Roth are going to change in the coming year. You set up a nondeductible IRA with the intention of converting it the next year, so you can get around Roth contribution rules. Beyond these cases, the main argument for contributing to a non-deductible IRA is -- compounded returns. If your IRA has a strong, steady growth rate, compounded returns can work wonders for your contributions. Let's take a hypothetical... You are 35. You contribute the max amount of $5,500 every year until you retire at 70. With a modest growth rate of 9.5%, your total contribution of 193K would become 1.46M. The compounded returns are 7.6 times your contributions." }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "408327", "title": "", "text": "If you file your taxes jointly, she can pay for you. The money can be spent on any taxable dependent can for qualified expenses. The rules for how much money can be contributed to the account are based off of the number enrolled. Since your spouse has your children enrolled, she can contribute the higher family limit (current $6250 in 2012) but that has no bearing on how she spends the money so long as the expense is a qualified one. She could not pay for a cousin's expenses if that cousin is not listed on her taxes. Because your wife has the HSA, you are not allowed to contribute to an FSA, so be careful with whatever insure you being provided by the university." }, { "docid": "1134", "title": "", "text": "The HSA money is yours to keep. You can't add new money into the account and get a tax deduction for the new money, but you can spend the old money on medical expenses. First log into the website for the HSA and see if you have money left. This can be important because if there is still money left they might be charging you a monthly fee. You should have gotten a letter from the old company or the administrator when you left the High deductible insurance plan. This would have told you your options regarding the spending or transferring of old funds. HSA related numbers would have appeared on your W2, and you should have a 1099-SA from the administrator. It is likely that there is a copy of the 1099 on the administrators website. The numbers you enter on the tax forms depends on how much you contributed from your paycheck, how much your company contributed, and how much you sent (if any) from other sources besides payroll deduction. You will also have to know how much money was withdrawn from the HSA and how much was used for medical purposes. The last month rule is for those people who start in the middle of the year. If you start partway through the year you are allowed to make the maximum contribution if you still have it at the end of the year, and you expect to keep it. The Last Month Rule The Last Month Rule states that if you are covered by an HSA eligible health plan on the first day of the last month of a given year, you are considered an eligible individual for the entire year. In turn, you can then contribute to the HSA for that full year. If you are covered by an HDHP on Dec 1st of a given year, you may contribute the maximum for that year. For example, you could begin coverage and open up my HSA in November of a given year. Come December 1st, you are covered and per the Last Month Rule, considered an eligible employee for that full year. That allows you to contribute up to that year’s contribution limit, even waiting a few months to make a prior year contribution if you like. Back up the truck and load up the HSA! However, there is a catch. The Testing Period The Testing Period states if you use the Last Month Rule, you must remain an eligible individual (covered by HDHP) for the following 12 months. If you fail to remain an eligible individual (change insurance plans, lose insurance plan, receive other health coverage) any “extra” contributions you made as a result of the Last Month Rule will be taxed and penalized. If you contribute per the Last Month Rule and end your HDHP insurance within 1 year, you will have to pay tax on any excess contributions you were allowed to make and pay a 10% penalty. In this case, “excess” contributions are determined by the contribution limit / 12 months, compared to your time eligible." }, { "docid": "334603", "title": "", "text": "\"If you have a single member LLC there is no need to separate expenses in this way since it is simply treated as part of the owner's normal tax returns. This is the way I've been operating. Owner of Single-Member LLC If a single-member LLC does not elect to be treated as a corporation, the LLC is a \"\"disregarded entity,\"\" and the LLC's activities should be reflected on its owner's federal tax return. If the owner is an individual, the activities of the LLC will generally be reflected on: Form 1040 Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship) (PDF) Form 1040 Schedule E, Supplemental Income or Loss (PDF) Form 1040 Schedule F, Profit or Loss from Farming (PDF) An individual owner of a single-member LLC that operates a trade or business is subject to the tax on net earnings from self employment in the same manner as a sole proprietorship. If the single-member LLC is owned by a corporation or partnership, the LLC should be reflected on its owner's federal tax return as a division of the corporation or partnership. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/single-member-limited-liability-companies\"" }, { "docid": "341258", "title": "", "text": "If you have a single-member LLC that is treated as a disregarded entity (i.e. you didn't elect to be taxed as a corporation), and that LLC had no activity, you're off the hook for federal reporting. The LLC's activity would normally be reported on your personal tax return on a Schedule C. If the LLC had under $400 in taxable earnings, no Schedule C is needed. So an inactive LLC does not have a tax reporting requirement. (If you had taxable income but under $400, you include that amount on your 1040 but don't need a Schedule C.) In Texas, you still must file a Texas franchise tax report every year, even for a single-member LLC with no activity." }, { "docid": "161221", "title": "", "text": "Many enterprise owners inside the United States select to form their enterprise as a Delaware LLC because of the felony advantages from the state’s predictable enterprise friendly legal guidelines. Delaware LLC formation is easy, too — there's no need to visit the kingdom and minimal data is needed to form your LLC in Delaware. The method may be accomplished online; IncNow can assist shape a Delaware LLC in your enterprise in just five mins. You can form an LLC in Delaware without visiting, opening an office, or maintaining a bank account in Delaware." }, { "docid": "495642", "title": "", "text": "I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/utricksblog] [What is the best way to move my LLC to another State?](https://np.reddit.com/r/UtricksBlog/comments/70psch/what_is_the_best_way_to_move_my_llc_to_another/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)" }, { "docid": "564475", "title": "", "text": "\"You can file an LLC yourself in most states, although it might be helpful to use a service if you're not sure what to do to ensure it is correct. I filed my LLC here in Colorado online with the Secretary of State's office, which provided the fill-in-the-blank forms and made it easy. In the U.S., taxation of an LLC is \"\"pass-through\"\", meaning the LLC itself does not have any tax liability. Taxes are based on what you take out of the LLC as distributions to yourself, so you pay personal income tax on that. There are many good books on how to form and then operate an LLC, and I personally like NoLo (link to their web site) because they cater to novices. As for hiring people in India, I can't speak to that, so hopefully someone else can answer that specific topic. As for what you need to know about how to run it, I'll refer back to the NoLo books and web site.\"" }, { "docid": "329812", "title": "", "text": "This depends in part on who officially owns the account. Federally, 529 plan contributions are not tax-deductible, regardless of ownership. Anyone can contribute to a 529 plan, though; the earnings of the 529 plan are tax-deferred and are tax-free if they are used for qualified educational expenses. In the state of New York, the account owner is entitled to deduct up to 10,000 (Married filing jointly) from their state taxes; however, that's limited to the account owner only. If they're not in the state of New York, they may be able to have similar benefits from their home state; check their rules. You may have multiple accounts for one child, though, so if you and they both want to contribute for your child, that's perfectly fine. The limits are at the taxpayer level, so you can deduct $10k for all contributions to all children's accounts in sum (5k per kid if you have 2, and want to contribute equally, for example), but they can do the same. Gift tax is the other relevant thing to consider. You can contribute $14k per year without either paying gift tax or adding it to the lifetime maximum (which is currently $1.5MM, but could change at any time either up or down). You can also make a one-time contribution of 70k (5 years' worth) and have that amount exempt as if it were contributed over five years. For more information on all of this, see the New York 529 Page for more details." }, { "docid": "88124", "title": "", "text": "You're confusing a lot of things here. Company B LLC will have it's sales run under Company A LLC, and cease operating as a separate entity These two are contradicting each other. If B LLC ceases to exist - it is not going to have it's sales run under A LLC, since there will be no sales to run for a non-existent company. What happens is that you merge B LLC into A LLC, and then convert A LLC into S Corp. So you're cancelling the EIN for B LLC, you're cancelling the EIN for A LLC - because both entities cease to exist. You then create a EIN for A Corp, which is the converted A LLC, and you create a DBA where A Corp DBA B Shop. You then go to the bank and open the account for A Corp DBA B Shop with the EIN you just created for A Corp. Get a better accountant. Before you convert to S-Corp." }, { "docid": "251392", "title": "", "text": "\"Here's a brief rundown: 1. You're not going to need a lot of capital or debt 2. You aren't in a high-liability or high (MM+) revenue industry unless you're making children's toys out of reclaimed dynamite or something 3. You are operating by yourself The first fact rules out S or C corp. The second fact dings LLC, and the third one rules out a LLP or GP by default, although you can always convert later if you get a partner. Benefits of sole proprietorship include very simple taxes! As a pass-through entity, the business's income is considered your own, and business expenses are tax deductible. You don't need separate tax returns for both. Additionally, if it's just your name, you might not even need a license depending on your state and municipality (figure this out). If you want a different name, you usually need to register \"\"doing business as [name]\"\" with your state or municipality. Lastly, you don't need to use business income in any special way, since you have no additional tax liability or general liability shield. With an LLC, there are a lot of rules and restrictions. Let me know if you have any specific questions.\"" }, { "docid": "457701", "title": "", "text": "SEP IRA deduction goes to line 28 of your 1040, which is above the line (i.e.: pre-AGI). It should not be included in your taxable income (AGI) for Federal purposes." }, { "docid": "155490", "title": "", "text": "This new roof should go on the 2016 LLC business return, but you probably won't be able to expense the entire roof as a repair. A new roof is most likely a capital improvement, which means that it would need to be depreciated over many years instead of expensed all in 2016. The depreciation period for a residential rental property is 27.5 years. Please consider seeking a CPA or Enrolled Agent for the preparation of your LLC business return. See also: IRS Tangible Property Regulations FAQ list When you made the loan to the LLC (by paying the contractor and making a contract with the LLC), did you state an interest rate? If not, you and your brother should correct the contract so that an interest rate is stated, then follow it. The LLC needs to pay you interest until the loan is paid off. You need to report the interest income on your personal return, and the LLC needs to report the interest expense in its business return." }, { "docid": "217748", "title": "", "text": "Edit: Let's forget about Wikipedia. From the horse's mouth: The cafeteria plan rules require that a health FSA provide uniform coverage throughout the coverage period (which is the period when the employee is covered by the plan). See Proposed Treasury Regulations Section 1.125-5(d). Under the uniform coverage rules, the maximum amount of reimbursement from a health FSA must be available at all times during the coverage period. This means that the employee’s entire health FSA election is available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse qualified medical expenses incurred during the coverage period. The cafeteria plan may not, therefore, base its reimbursements to an employee on what that employee may have contributed up to any particular date, such as the date the employee is laid-off or terminated. Thus, if an employee’s reimbursements from the health FSA exceed his contributions to the health FSA at the time of lay-off or termination, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee. (emphasis added) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1012060.pdf Uniform Coverage Rule The IRS has required that “health FSAS must qualify as accident or health plans. This means that, in general, while the health coverage under the FSA need not be provided through a commercial insurance contract, health FSAS must exhibit the risk-shifting and risk-distribution characteristics of insurance.” This concept has led to the “uniform coverage” rule. The uniform­coverage rule requires that the maximum amount of an employee’s projected elective contributions to a health FSA must be available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse the employee’s qualified medical expenses, regardless of the amount actually contributed to the plan at the time that reimbursement is sought. Citing proposed Treasury Regulations Section the IRS General Counsel has determined that: “Under the uniform coverage rules, the maximum amount of reimbursement from a health FSA must be available at all times during the coverage period. The cafeteria plan may not, therefore, base its reimbursements to an employee on what that employee may have contributed up to any particular date, such as the date the employee is laid-off or terminated. Thus, if an employee’s reimbursements from the health FSA exceed his contributions to the health FSA at the time of or termination, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee.” This rule is unfair and also constitutes a disincentive to establishing FSAS because of the exposure to out-of pocket expenditures arising from employees who leave the company. NSBA believes that the uniform coverage rule should also be revised if the or lose- it rule is changed. Revising the use-it or lose-it rule while leaving the uniform coverage rule unchanged will introduce an inappropriate asymmetry to FSAS. An employer should be allowed to deduct any negative amount arising from insuftîcient employee contributions from a terminating partieipant’s last paycheck. http://www.ecfc.org/files/legislative-news/NSBA_(David_Burton).pdf (emphasis added) Now, that's some fresh bitterness for you right there. (Dated August 17, 2012)" }, { "docid": "459677", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K. Yes, you pay taxes upfront. All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules). This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever. Contributions can be funded past age 70.5. Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties. All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties. For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions. This is like getting paid for retirement saving. These funds are \"\"locked\"\" up until age 59.5, with exceptions. All contributed funds and all earnings are \"\"untaxed\"\" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars. The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity.\"" }, { "docid": "295828", "title": "", "text": "Registering it as an LLC turns it into a business, and will have to be maintained regardless of whether you do any actual business with it or not. Strictly speaking, it also doesn't necessarily grant you any specific protections against the use of the name. Small business names are notoriously hard to protect when they are active. If you aren't actually using it, a judge is more likely to not rule in your favor. A regular Trademark isn't what you're looking for either. That is more for business product line names and similar. What you're looking for is a Registered Trademark (®), which is a federal legal designation disallowing other businesses from using your name or business branding. See [this article](http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-copyright-trademark-registration-780.html) for more information." } ]

[ { "docid": "376499", "title": "", "text": "The two banks involved may have different policies about honoring the check. It might not be written on the check. Your bank may decide that the stale check has to be treated differently and will withhold funds for a longer period of time before giving you access to the money. They will give time for the first bank to refuse to honor the check. They may be concerned about insufficient funds, the age of the check, and the fact that the original account could have been closed. If you are concerned about the age of the check. You could go to your bank in person, instead of using deposit by ATM, scanner, or smart phone. This allows you to talk to a knowledgeable person. And if they are going to treat the check differently or reject the check, they can let you know right away. The audit may not have been concerned about the fact that the check hadn't been cashed because when they did the audit the check was still considered fresh. Some companies will contact you eventually to reissue the check so you they can get the liability off their books. If the bank does refuse the check contact the company to see how you can get a replacement check issued. They may want proof the check can't be cashed so they don't have to worry about paying you twice." } ]

[ { "docid": "70443", "title": "", "text": "Intuitive? I doubt it. Derivatives are not the simplest thing to understand. The price is either in the money or it isn't. (by the way, exactly 'at the money' is not 'in the money.') An option that's not in the money has time value only. As the price rises, and the option is more and more in the money, the time value drops. We have a $40 stock. It makes sense to me that a $40 strike price is all just a bet the stock will rise, there's no intrinsic value. The option prices at about $4.00 for one year out, with 25% volatility. But the strike of $30 is at $10.68, with $10 in the money and only .68 in time premium. There's a great calculator on line to tinker with. Volatility is a key component of options trading. Think about it. If a stock rises 5%/yr but rarely goes up any more or less, just steady up, why would you even buy an option that was even 10% out of the money? The only way I can describe this is to look at a bell curve and how there's a 1/6 chance the event will be above one standard deviation. If that standard deviation is small, the chance of hitting the higher strikes is also small. I wrote an article Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 in which I describe how a pair of option trades was set up so that a 35% rise in Apple stock would return 354% and Apple had two years to reach its target. I offer this as an example of options trading not being theory, but something that many are engaged in. What I found curious about the trade was that Apple's volatility was high enough that a 35% move didn't seem like the 4.5 to 1 risk the market said it was. As of today, Apple needs to rise 13% in the next 10 months for the trade to pay off. (Disclosure - the long time to expiration was both good and bad, two years to recover 35% seemed reasonable, but 2 years could bring anything in the macro sense. Another recession, some worldwide event that would impact Apple's market, etc. The average investor will not have the patience for these long term option trades.)" }, { "docid": "401447", "title": "", "text": "SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&amp;P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price." }, { "docid": "394525", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; I really dont understand your argument man. Most people \"\"escape\"\" in alot of ways alcohol being the most popular why dont you find issue with this ? I have an issue with people using any drug everyday. But most people don't drink and get drunk daily. &gt; Im assuming u live in the la area as do i almost 60% of this state voted for legalization and 60% of our nation approves of legalzation according to polls Yes, doesn't mean they are smart or right. Most Americans are retards. Honestly, I've seen and been around people from all countries and for as educated as Americans are, they are some of the dumbest and the easiest to manipulate and brainwash. You have liberals living at home and can't move out that are ready to give almost their whole paycheck in taxes to a government that wastes tons of money and is plagued with corruption. Yet they think its okay to give them more and more when its not necessary and it doesn't benefit us very often. &gt; There is absoulety no compelling evidence that suggests that mj is more dangerous than legal substances like tobacco and alcohol in fact quite the opposite. So i honestly have to say your stance is quite baffling i tend believe people like just dont personally enjoy mj. Well if you open your eyes and see what is going on, this country has gone downhill over the past 20+ years. We are slowly heading in the direction of a 3rd world country. It won't be for a long time, but the people are getting poorer and poorer, everything is becoming more un-affordable, and people are being slaves to debt. In 3rd world countries they want you to be high all the time so you can't think, can't fight back, and keep quiet. I see that happening here and many people agree. But to reply to what you said, things like alcohol have rules. You can't drink everywhere, you can't drink and drive, etc... There needs to be some rules for MJ. I'm completely okay with medicinal use, but most people don't use it in that way.\"" }, { "docid": "260363", "title": "", "text": "\"You ask a few different, though not unrelated, questions. Everywhere you turn today, you hear people talk about how much they need to save or how important it is to find a good deal on things \"\"in this economy\"\". They use phrases like \"\"now more than ever\"\" and \"\"in these uncertain times\"\". It seems to be a lot of doom and gloom. Some of this is marketing spiel. You may notice that when the economy goes south the number of ads for the cheaper alternatives goes north. (e.g. hair clippers, discount grocery stores, discount just about anything) Truth is, we should always be looking for ways to save money on goods and services we purchase. The question is, what is acceptable to you for your desired lifestyle. (And, is that desired lifestyle reasonable for your income, age and personal situation.) Generally speaking, the harder times are the more we find discounted/cheaper alternatives acceptable. Is there really a good reason that people should be saving more than spending right now? How much you are putting away is a personal matter. I can still remember my dad griping whenever he couldn't save half of his paycheck. That said, putting away half your paycheck may lead to a rather austere lifestyle. This, of course, depends on the size of your paycheck and your desired lifestyle. You could be raking it, living simply and potentially put away more than half your income with relative ease. If you have a stable job, and a decent cash reserve, is it anymore \"\"dangerous\"\" to make a large purchase now than it was seven years ago? Who knows? Honestly, no one. Predicting the future is a fool's errand. (If you are interested in reading more on this view point, I suggest The Black Swan.) You mention the correct approach in this question. Ensure that you have liquid assets (cash or cash equivalents, i.e. money that you can draw on immediately and isn't credit) which covers at least 3-6 months of your necessary expenses (rent/mortgage, bills, car payments, food). (There is no reason that you couldn't try to increase this to 1 year, especially \"\"in this economy.\"\") You should also strive to have money available for emergencies that don't necessarily include loss of income. Of course, make sure you're putting away for retirement, as appropriate for your retirement goals. After that should come discretionary items, including investing, entertainment, the large purchase you mentioned, etc. You should never use money that you may need immediately (5-10 years) for investing. This doesn't necessarily include the large purchase you are contemplating. For example, if you are considering purchasing a home, the down-payment may be one of the items for which you need money in the \"\"immediate\"\" future. Is it really only because of unemployment numbers? This is probably the big one that is the focus of everyone's attention. That said, the human attention span is limited. We have a natural need to simplify things. This is one of the reasons that we tend to focus on a few, hopefully important, things. However, the unemployment numbers are not that the only thing of concern. Credit is still pretty hard to come by these days. The overall economy is still hurting, even if we are technically no longer in a recession. There are also concerns about U.S. government borrowing, consumer spending, recent trucking numbers, etc. (It may not be obvious, but trucking is used as a barometer of economic activity. If there aren't as many trucks carting goods across the country, it probably means that there is less economic activity.) The headline number these days is unemployment, as most census workers have now been returned to the pool. To answer the overall question, we should always be saving money, in good times or in bad. Be that by squeezing more value out of our purchases or by putting some money away. We should always try to reduce our risks, by having an emergency \"\"cash\"\" cushion. We should always be saving for retirement. Truth be told, it is probably more important to put money away in good times, before the hardships hit.\"" }, { "docid": "398415", "title": "", "text": "If you're really strapped for cash, you can get one on the off-chance the furnace or air conditioner goes. But if you do have the cash to self-insure against these kinds of things, I wouldn't bother with the home warranty. Here was our experience. Our daughter was only a few months old, and the air conditioner went in June, in Virginia. We called in the warranty. They came out, tried the cheapest fix they could to fix the leak. It didn't work again in two days. Two weeks later, they try again with the next cheapest fix. (By this point, we had gotten a window unit for our bedroom.) It didn't work again in two days. Two more weeks later, they finally got authorization to replace the unit. They replaced it with the cheapest one they could, and wanted to charge me $75 to haul the old one away. When I said no thanks to that extra service (I was calling from work at the time), the guy ended the conversation in a huff, walked away from the phone and drove off. I later found out (when I called a reputable HVAC guy) that they didn't even hook the thing up correctly! What happens is the contractors get squeezed by the warranty company at every turn. These calls get low priority, and the quality of service is as low as they can get away with without violating the terms of their contract with the warranty company. For the big stuff, it's better than nothing, but not much better. Check to see that the big stuff is still covered before buying it at all, and drop it after getting a payout (like we did)." }, { "docid": "316980", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate. About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR. The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is \"\"I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!\"\". I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do. Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone.\"" }, { "docid": "199069", "title": "", "text": "I still use checks to pay rent and occasionally some bills/liabilities. That said, I did notice an (elderly) lady paying by check at the supermarket a while ago. So is it really common to get a paycheck in the sense that you get a piece of paper? Yes and no. There are some people that opt for the physical paycheck. Even if they do not, there is a pay stub which serves as a record of it. My last employer went to online pay stubs and a bunch of us opted out, sticking with the good old paper in an envelope. We sure were glad of that when there were technical issues and security concerns with the online service." }, { "docid": "140775", "title": "", "text": "\"First and foremost, being \"\"cool\"\" stops being a thing you have to worry about once you graduate from secondary school. Nobody's really going to care what car you drive; the ones that do care aren't worth maintaining personal friendships or relationships with. The notable exception would be a sales job, requiring you to look successful to be successful, and in that case you'll need to either have a nice-looking car or buy one very quickly. Also, consider what you're buying. An E46 (which for the U.S. crowd was the previous generation of 3-series coupes and sedans) will be, at best, a 6-year-old car, and they made these as long ago as '98 which would make it 15 years old. The standard in the U.S. is to put about 10k miles (which would be about 17k km) per year on it, so you would expect even the newest E46s to have at least 100 000 km on them. At this point, even the best cars start needing increasing amounts of maintenance, and on a BMW that maintenance doesn't come cheap. Consider why a BMW would be sold. It sounds cliche, but in the U.S. at least there are three \"\"tiers\"\" of used car in the luxury class; there are the one- and two-year-olds, used by the dealer as a loaner or owned by the type of guy who buys a new car every year; they're practically new, for 30-50% off sticker, and a great deal when you find them. There are the 15-year-old (or older) cars which were used up and traded in; the majority of these end up auctioned off and cannibalized for parts with the remaining hulk sold for salvage. Then there are the in-betweens; between three and ten years old, you get a wide variety. This car could have been garaged all its life and driven to and from work and around town before its owner got a raise and decided to splurge, or its previous owner could have driven the wheels off all over the continent for work or travel. It could have a major problem that developed or was discovered after the warranty expired (and there isn't an E46 on the road that's still under warranty) which caused the owner to sell. Overall, I would wait until you have your first real job to spend real money on a car like this; the one that will actually pay the bills with enough left over for fun. When you're making 35k a year with only your own personal expenses, as long as you manage your debt well and don't get in trouble with credit, you should have no trouble buying a car like this (or even a newer one). If you are going to buy used even then, I recommend you do your homework on required maintenance for the brand and in general, what each milestone will cost you, and (based on mileage) how soon, and I would find a reputable used car dealer (which is stereotypically a contradiction in terms, but there are guys out there who aren't out to completely screw you over).\"" }, { "docid": "384165", "title": "", "text": "\"Your scenario depicts 2 \"\"in the money\"\" options, not \"\"at the money\"\". The former is when the share price is higher than the option strike, the second is when share price is right at strike. I agree this is a highly unlikely scenario, because everyone pricing options knows what everyone else in that stock is doing. Much about an option has everything to do with the remaining time to expiration. Depending on how much more the buyer believes the stock will go up before hitting the expiration date, that could make a big difference in which option they would buy. I agree with the others that if you're seeing this as \"\"real world\"\" then there must be something going on behind the scenes that someone else knows and you don't. I would tread with caution in such a situation and do my homework before making any move. The other big factor that makes your question harder to answer more concisely is that you didn't tell us what the expiration dates on the options are. This makes a difference in how you evaluate them. We could probably be much more helpful to you if you could give us that information.\"" }, { "docid": "339648", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure if you are including the use of credit cards in the intent of your quesiton. However, I will give you some good reasons I use them even when I can pay cash: 1) I get an interest free loan for almost 30 days as long as I don't carry balances. 2) I get a statement detailing where I am spending my money that is helpful for budgeting. I'd never keep track to this level of detail if I were using cash. 3) Many cards offer reward programs that can be used for cash back. 4) It helps maintain my credit rating for those times I NEED to buy something and pay it off over time (car, house, etc.) 5) Not so much an issue for me personally, but for people that live paycheck to paycheck, it might help to time your cash outflows to match up with your inflows. For a business, I think it is mostly a cash flow issue. That is, in a lot of B2B type businesses customers can pay very slowly (managing their own cash flows). So your revenue can sometimes lag quite a bit behind the expenses that were associated with them (e.g payroll). A business line of credit can smooth out the cash flow, especially for companies that don't have a lot of cash reserves." }, { "docid": "26492", "title": "", "text": "\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \"\"impressive\"\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\"" }, { "docid": "3104", "title": "", "text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "522713", "title": "", "text": "\"Not sure how I came across the Motley Fool blog in the first instance, but found the writing style refreshing - then along came some free advice on ASX share prospects, then the next day and email expounding the benefits I would get by joining up for two years at 60% off if I hit the button \"\"now\"\", getting in at ground floor on the next technology stock rocket - I replied: \"\"What a hard sell - why wouldn't I apply the age old adage of \"\" If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\" Their reply was; \"\"Thanks for your note. The honest answer is that despite people knowing they should do something to help themselves prepare for their financial futures, few actually do it. We find these messages actually work in getting people to hit 'yes', much better than an understated email that just says 'here are our results and our philosophy - let us know if you're interested', unfortunately. Yours Foolishly\"\" So I have put some of these recommendations onto a watch list, time will tell.\"" }, { "docid": "88223", "title": "", "text": "Correct, long/short strategies should have zero beta with the stock market. But this is intentional, and investors in true *hedged* funds seek this *portable alpha* as a complement to their long-only sleeve in the portfolio. My question is: if for example, you are long low P/E stocks, and a short high P/E stocks what *creates* the alpha? Your portfolio should have zero beta. I believe in the long-run this long/short P/E strategy [generates ~300 basis points of return per year (un-levered)](http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html). Is not reasonable to assume if returns from long only investing is driven by beta (and investors use 6% to 12% discount rates in their valuation models), then an an un-levered long/short strategy should always under-perform a long-only strategy in the long-run. The purpose of long/short strategies is not to beat long-only investing, it is to create [portable alpha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_alpha). In fact, at a high level of abstraction, the *average* long/short strategy should not earn a return greater than the risk free rate in the long-run because the strategy has zero beta." }, { "docid": "71768", "title": "", "text": "\"Maybe it is a matter of how long a perspective you take. If you are focused on very close things, like only the coming quarterly results, then *anything* which did not maximize cash flow might seem suboptimal. But what if it strengthened the long term prospects of the business? What if it contributed to a planet that did not get destroyed, thereby maintaining a better business climate (pun intended) for the future. Clearly survival is preferable to a business than extinction. But we make short-term choices based on kind of old ways of looking at things. It's not \"\"profitable\"\", even though pursing short-term cash profit may lead to ruin.\"" }, { "docid": "271609", "title": "", "text": "I don't think there is a definite single answer for this. I think it largely depends on where you are on your financial journey. In the ideal world you'd have everything in bucket 2 built into your budget and be putting a little bit aside every paycheck to cover each of those things when they do come up but that takes a fair bit of discipline to do and experience (and data) to estimate reasonably. When you are just starting out in actually setting and keeping a budget or digging yourself out of CC debt/living paycheck to paycheck the odds are you aren't going to have the experience or disciple necessary to actually budget for those things in bucket 2 and even if you did the better option might well be to pay off that high interest debt you already have rather than saving up for an eventual expense. How ever as you start to improve your situation and pay off that debt, develop the disciple to set and follow a budget that is when you should start adding more of those things into your budget. How you track them doesn't really matter. A separate account at your bank. A total for a category in your budgeting software. An XLS file or even paper (ick). Ultimately it isn't about how you plan for and track things but more about actually doing that. So my question to the OP is where are you? If you already have a budget and do a good job of following it but don't have those items in it then consider that the next step in your financial journey." }, { "docid": "77658", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a \"\"normal\"\" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say \"\"plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money\"\", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. \"\"I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!\"\" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than \"\"please try not to spend it\"\". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living.\"" }, { "docid": "20683", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question. There are two ways to increase the amount of money you have: It's difficult to decrease your expenses past a certain point, and your question is focused on the first aspect anyway. But it's worth noting that controlling spending is a significant part of accumulating wealth. You need to make more money, and there's no trick to it. Ask for a raise, sure, that can't hurt. But also think about what you need to do to get a higher-paying job. There's a lot to think about: Does you current job have growth potential? Are you doing everything you can do to maximize that potential? If you're just phoning it in and collecting your paycheck, that's not going to make you much more money. But if you're working hard, learning new skills, and have an opportunity to grow into more responsibilities and more money, that's a good start. In my experience, the biggest paycheck increases have come from looking for new opportunities and switching jobs. (BTW, I'm not suggesting quitting your job. You need to always have the new job locked up before quitting the old job!) The wealthiest people I know are self-employed, and they worked hard to build up their companies. Do you work in an industry where you can build your skills to a point where you can go out on your own? Does entrepreneurship interest you? Either way, focus on your job, skills, and maximizing your income potential. Be your own advocate. Make sure your boss knows what a good job you're doing. If you need to start looking for other options, take your time and start looking. The often-quoted line, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get\"\" is appropriate.\"" }, { "docid": "72024", "title": "", "text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "66058", "title": "", "text": "The check is just barely over 6 months old. I suspect it will go through with no issues." } ]

[ { "docid": "487196", "title": "", "text": "\"There's not a single answer here, as the premium you pay for car insurance depends on multiple factors, including (but not limited to): All these factors contribute to the likelihood of getting into an accident, and the expected damage from an accident. So just having an accident and making a claim will likely raise your premium (all else being equal), but whether or not it will be cheaper in the long run depends (obviously) on how much your premium goes up, which cannot determined without all of the facts. Your agent could tell you how much it would go up, but even making such an inquiry would likely be noted on your insurance record, and may cause your premium to go up (although probably not by as much). However, the point of insurance is to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses from future accidents, so the question to ask is: How likely am I to have another accident, and if I do, can I pay cash for it or will I need to offset some cost with an insurance claim. Do you risk making a claim and having your rates go up by more than $700 over the next 3-4 years (the rough time it takes for a \"\"surcharge\"\" to expire)? Or do you just pay for the repair out-of-pocket and keep your premiums lower?\"" }, { "docid": "498034", "title": "", "text": "\"This is my opinion as a car nut. It depends on what you want out of a car. For your situation (paying cash, want to keep the car long-term but also save money) I recommend seriously considering a slightly used vehicle, maybe 2 or 3 years old, or a \"\"certified pre-owned vehicle\"\". Reasons: Much less expensive than a brand new car because the first two years have the biggest depreciation hit. Cars come with a 4-year warranty, so a 3 year old car will still be in warranty. Yes, a certified pre-owned car will have a bit of a premium compared to a private-party used car, but the peace of mind of knowing it's in good shape is worth the extra cost considering you want to keep it long term. Consumer Reports will have good advice on the best values in used cars.\"" }, { "docid": "398415", "title": "", "text": "If you're really strapped for cash, you can get one on the off-chance the furnace or air conditioner goes. But if you do have the cash to self-insure against these kinds of things, I wouldn't bother with the home warranty. Here was our experience. Our daughter was only a few months old, and the air conditioner went in June, in Virginia. We called in the warranty. They came out, tried the cheapest fix they could to fix the leak. It didn't work again in two days. Two weeks later, they try again with the next cheapest fix. (By this point, we had gotten a window unit for our bedroom.) It didn't work again in two days. Two more weeks later, they finally got authorization to replace the unit. They replaced it with the cheapest one they could, and wanted to charge me $75 to haul the old one away. When I said no thanks to that extra service (I was calling from work at the time), the guy ended the conversation in a huff, walked away from the phone and drove off. I later found out (when I called a reputable HVAC guy) that they didn't even hook the thing up correctly! What happens is the contractors get squeezed by the warranty company at every turn. These calls get low priority, and the quality of service is as low as they can get away with without violating the terms of their contract with the warranty company. For the big stuff, it's better than nothing, but not much better. Check to see that the big stuff is still covered before buying it at all, and drop it after getting a payout (like we did)." }, { "docid": "200136", "title": "", "text": "In general, currency has no expiration date. Specifically, in Canada, the Bank of Canada has been issuing banknotes since 1935, and these are still considered legal tender, even though they don't look much like the modern banknotes. Before that, Canadian chartered banks issued currency, and these also still have value. However, there are a few things to note. First of all, with currency of that age, it often has more value as a collector's item than the face value. So spending it at a store would be foolish. Second, store clerks are not experts in old currency, and will not accept a bill that they do not recognize. If you want the face value of your old currency, you may need to exchange it for modern currency at a bank. Having said all that, there are certainly cases where currency does expire. Generally this happens when a country changes currency. For example, when the Euro was introduced, the old currencies were discontinued. After a window of exchange, the old currency in many cases lost its value. So if you have some old French Franc notes, for example, they can no longer be exchanged for Euros. These types of events cannot be predicted in the future, of course, so it is impossible to say when, if ever, the Canadian currency you have today will lose its spending value in Canada." }, { "docid": "180686", "title": "", "text": "If he can't manage, best is he sells it off. Its easier to manage cash. Not sure what tax you are talking about. He should have already paid tax on fair market value of the 20 flats. If the intention of Mr X is to gift to son by way of death, then yes the tax will be less. Else whenever Mr X sells there will be tax. how to manage these 20 apartments? Hire a broker. He may front run quite a few things like showing the place etc. There is a risk if he is given a free hand, he may not get good quality tenant. There are quite a few shark brokers [its unregulated] who may arm twist seeing the opportunity of an old man with 20 flats. See if you can do long term lease with companies looking for guest house etc, or certain companies who run guest house. They would like the scale, generally 3-5 years contracts are done. The rent is good and overall less hassle. The risk is most would ask to invest more in furnishing and contracts can be terminated in months notice. If the property is in large metro [Delhi/Bangalore/Chennai/etc] These places have good property management companies. Ensure that you have independent lawyer; there are certain aspects of law that may need to be studied." }, { "docid": "316980", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate. About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR. The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is \"\"I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!\"\". I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do. Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone.\"" }, { "docid": "580747", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is - \"\"Your employer should typically deduct enough every paycheck so you don't owe anything on April 15th, and no more.\"\" The long answer is \"\"Your employer may make an error in how much to deduct, particularly if you have more than 1 job, or have any special deductions/income. Calculate your estimated total taxes for the year by estimating all your income and deductions on a paper copy of a tax return [I say paper copy so that you become familiar with what the income and deductions actually are, whereas plugging into an online spreadsheet makes you blind to what's actually going on]. Compare that with what your employer deducts every paycheck, * the number of paychecks in the year. This tells you how much extra you will pay / be refunded on April 15th, as accurately as you can estimate your income and deductions.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "477357", "title": "", "text": "I have also tried Mvelopes in the past, and my experiences match yours. I currently use the desktop version of YNAB:You Need a Budget (YNAB 4), and I like it much better. Where we failed after a while with Mvelopes, we are succeeding with YNAB, and have been now for the last 3.5 years. I don't want this to sound like a commercial for YNAB (I will give important caveats about YNAB later), but here is why I believe we have done better now with YNAB than before with Mvelopes. I hope that these reasons will be useful to you when you are evaluating your next options. As you said, we also found Mvelopes' interface to be slow and glitchy. YNAB 4 is a desktop app (with synching capabilities) that we found to be much quicker and easier to work with than Mvelopes' Flash-based interface. (That was 4 years ago; hopefully Mvelopes has redone their interface since then.) We also struggled with Mvelopes' connection with our banks. With YNAB 4, there is no connection to the bank: everything has to be entered manually. I initially thought this might be worse, but for us it has been better. I can either enter transactions as they happen on the mobile app, or I can hold on to receipts and enter them every day or two in the evening, categorizing as I go. We always have an up-to-date picture of our finances, and we don't have to mess with trying to match up downloaded transactions that have been screwed up, duplicated, or are missing. We aren't really using YNAB much differently than we were using Mvelopes, but we have learned a few tricks that I think have contributed to our success. One of the things we do differently is that I don't obsess about the cash accounts too much. Cash accounts, for us, are the hardest to keep track of, because most of our cash transactions don't have a receipt: we are paying a friend or family member for something, or leaving a tip, or something like that which we forget about when it comes time to enter into the software. As a result, the cash account balances get off. I periodically enter a correcting transaction to get the balances right, and have a budget category specifically for this that we have to put money in for these unknown transactions. Fortunately for us, our cash spending is a small percent of our total spending (we usually pay with a credit card) so this bit of untracked spending isn't that big of a concern. With YNAB, the current month's budget is right in front of you as soon as you open up the app, which makes it easy to adjust your budget during the month, if necessary. With Mvelopes (at least how their app worked 4 years ago), the budget was somewhat hidden after you funded your budget categories, and it was a bit of a pain to move money around between categories. The ability to adjust your budget in the middle of the month is crucial; if you don't do that, you'll get frustrated the first time you find that you don't have enough money in a category for something you need. YNAB makes it very easy to move money around inside your budget. That having been said, you need to be aware that the current version of YNAB is not a desktop application but a web-based app. YNAB 4, the old desktop version which we have been using, is officially unsupported as of the end of 2016. However, I see that it is still available for sale, if you are interested in it, the YNAB4 help site is still up, and the mobile app you would need to work with it on your phone (called YNAB Classic) is still in the app store. As I said, the current YNAB is now a web app, complete with automatic downloading of transactions from your bank. I have no experience with it (other than playing around with it a little), and so I can't tell you how quick the interface is or how well the auto-downloading of transactions works. As an alternative, another web-based solution is EveryDollar, from Dave Ramsey's company. (I have never tried it.) The advantage of this one is that it is free if you choose not to link it to your banks; the automatic downloading of transactions is a paid feature. I wrote an answer a couple of years ago in which I describe two different approaches that budgeting software packages tend to take. I'm not familiar with Buxfer, so I don't know which approach it takes, but perhaps that answer will help you evaluate all of your software options. On the behavior side of things, besides the relaxing of the cash accounting I mentioned above, we also involve my wife a little less in the budgeting process than we used to. (This is by her choice!) I am the one who enters all the transactions into the software (she hands me all her receipts), I reconcile the accounts at the end of the month, and I set the budget for the next month. We have been doing this long enough now that she knows what the budget is, and we only need to discuss it if we want to do something different with the budget than we have been doing in the past. She has the YNAB app on her phone and can see where we are at with all of our budget categories." }, { "docid": "445739", "title": "", "text": "\"How/when does my employer find out? Do they get a report from their bank stating that \"\"check 1234 for $1212.12 paid to John Doe was never deposited\"\" or does it manifest itself as an eventual accounting discrepancy that somebody has to work to hunt down? The accounting department or the payroll company they use will report that the check was not deposited. The bank has no idea that a check was written, but the accounting deportment will know. The bank reports on all the checks that were cashed. Accounting cares because the un-cashed check for $1212.12 is a liability. They have to keep enough money in the bank to pay all the liabilities. It shouldn't be hard for them to track down the discrepancy, they will know what checks are outstanding. Can my employer punish me for refusing the money in this way? Do they have any means to force me to take what I am \"\"owed?\"\" They can't punish you. But at some time in the future they will will tell their bank not to honor the check. They will assume that it was lost or misplaced, and they will issue a new one to you. When tax time comes, and I still have not accepted the money, would it be appropriate to adjust my reported income down by the refused amount? You can't decide not to report it. The company knows that in year X they gave you a check for the money. They are required to report it, since they also withheld money for Federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, 401K, insurance. They also count your pay as a business expense. If you try and adjust the numbers on the W-2 the IRS will note the discrepancy and want more information. Remember the IRS get a copy of every W-2. The employer has to report it because some people who aren't organized may not have cashed a December check before the company has to generate the W-2 in late January. It would confuse everything if they could skip reporting income just because a check wasn't cashed by the time they had to generate the W-2.\"" }, { "docid": "547773", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally cashiers checks do not expire, since they are \"\"like cash\"\" and fully funded at the time of issue. However, whether they can be cashed after a long period of time (and also what the definition of \"\"long\"\" is) depends on the bank. Eventually, if left uncashed it probably would be escheated to the state to wait for someone to claim it. Being that it's been less than a year I expect it could be cashed by the payee written on the check without any issues. If the payee is deceased then the check can be cashed by the estate, as it should be considered the property of the estate the same way it would be if it had already been cashed and was now sitting in a bank account in your mother's name. Under normal circumstances the \"\"estate\"\" in this case would go to your mother's spouse first, then to you (and your siblings if you have any), unless there is a will specifying otherwise. The only way your aunt would be able to deposit the check on her own is if she was listed as an \"\"OR\"\" on the check, or if she is the executor of OP's mother's estate. It sounds like the second line of the check is indeed referring to your aunt, however, from your description of the check it sounds like the second line is simply a designation of what the check is for rather than an additional payee. I bet a probate attorney in your state could easily tell by simply looking at the check.\"" }, { "docid": "37133", "title": "", "text": "\"withdraw in cash - bank reports it to IRS no matter what. Would this affect my tax filing in the coming year? No, and no. The bank doesn't report to the IRS. In the US - the bank will probably report to FinCEN. It has nothing to do with your tax return. withdraw in check - bank does not seem to report it. Is this correct? Doesn't have to. Still might, if they think it is a suspicious/irregular activity. wire-transfer to another person's account - would this always be slapped with a \"\"gift tax\"\"? If this is a gift it would. Regardless of how you transfer the money. Is it? Answers to your follow up questions: In the US, what documents do we need to prepare in case our large sum withdraw from the bank triggers a flag in relevant government (local and/or federal) divisions and they decide to investigate? Depending on what the investigators request. FinCEN would investigate money laundering, the IRS would investigate tax evasion, the FBI would investigate terrorism sponsorship, etc. Depending on who's investigating and what the suspicions are - different documents may be required. But the bottom line is that you should be able to explain the source of the funds and the destination. For example \"\"I found $1M in cash and sent it to some drug lord because he's such a good friend of mine\"\" will probably not fly. Does the (local/federal) government care if we stash our money (in cash or check) under our mattress, if we purchase foreign properties (taxable? documents needed for proof?), or if we give it away (to individuals or organizations - individual: a gift tax, organization: tax waivable) ? The government cares about taxes, and illegal activities. Stashing money under a mattress is not illegal, but earning cash and not paying income tax on it usually is. In many cases money stashed under the mattress was obtained illegally and/or income taxes were not paid. It seems that no matter what we do (except spreading thin our assets to multiple accounts in multiple banks), the government will always be notified of any large bank transaction and we would be forever flagged since. Is this correct ? Yes, reportable transactions will be reported. Also spreading around in multiple accounts/transactions to avoid reporting is called \"\"structuring\"\" and is on its own a crime. This is for cash/cash equivalent transactions only, of course. Not sure about the \"\"forever flagged since\"\", that part is probably sourced in your imagination.\"" }, { "docid": "518453", "title": "", "text": "Let's base teacher performance off of student value added growth scores! Surely nothing bad will happen when we create incentivize teachers to make sure that student performance continuously rises. I mean, Campbell's law is just a load of horseshit, right? It's not like these policies led to widespread test cheating in Atlanta and Washington, DC, and several other cities. In all seriousness, look at what happened in Washington, DC. Student performance was used as the metric by which the district meted out both the carrot and the stick: the $160k paycheck or dismissal. 103 schools out of 200 or so were found to have statistical indicators of cheating, in some schools nearly 100% of tested classrooms were found to have wrong-to-right erasures in statistically aberrant levels. This wasn't found out until years after these test scores were used to evaluate a whole crop of teachers. Suppose you were the teacher whose children had previously been scored by cheating teachers or administrators. The model used to evaluate you expects that these children will see test score growth of *x* percent each year. If you don't cheat, you will get fired. If you do cheat, you become eligible to get a shitton of money. All that aside, the debate shouldn't even be about using student performance to evaluate teachers. The debate shouldn't be about who gets laid off. The debate should be about how we prevent teachers from getting laid off." }, { "docid": "388899", "title": "", "text": "\"Lachlan has $600 cash and a car worth $500. That's $1,100. The new car is priced at $21,800. Lachlan needs a loan for $20,700. However, the finance company insists that the buyer must pay a 10% deposit, which is $2,180. Lachlan only has $1,100, so no loan. The car dealer wants to make a sale, so suggests some tricks. The car dealer could buy Lachlan's old banger for $1,500 instead of $500, and sell the new car for $22,800 instead of $21,800. Doesn't make a difference to the dealer, he gets the same amount of cash. Now Lachlan has $600 cash and $1,500 for his car or $2,100 in total. He needs 10% of $22,800 as deposit which is $2,280. That's not quite there but you see how the principle works. Lachlan is about $200 short. So the dealer adds $1,200 to both car prices. Lachlan has $600 cash and a car \"\"worth\"\" $1,700, total $2,300. The new car is sold for $23,000 requiring a $2,300 deposit which works out exactly. How could we have found the right amount without guessing? Lachlan had $1,100. The new car costs $21,800. The dealer increases both prices by x dollars. Lachlan has now $1,100 + x deposit. The car now costs $21,800 + x. The deposit should be 10%, so $1,100 + x = 10% of ($21,800 + x) = $2,180 + 0.1 x. $1,100 + x = $2,180 + 0.1 x : Subtract $1,100 x = $1,080 + 0.1 x : Subtract 0.1 x 0.9 x = $1,080 : Divide by 0.9 x = $1,080 / 0.9 = $1,200 The dealer inflates the cost of the new car and the value of the old car by $1,200. Now that's the theory. In practice I don't know how the finance company feels about this, and if they would be happy if they found out.\"" }, { "docid": "160612", "title": "", "text": "\"The store owners don't know what your intentions are. All they know is they gave you good cash for a bad check. Part of this is that you're paying for the bad acts of others in the past, and these people aren't in the business of trying to understand your intentions. If you show good faith by going in and paying whatever you can, it will go a long way toward getting them to work with you on the balance. I don't know if they'd have much of a criminal case if the check you gave them was clearly marked as \"\"void\"\" and you've shown a willingness to resolve the situation. Of course you can't blame them for not wanting to accept another check from you. Good old hard cash, even if it isn't the full amount, will be a better sign of your intent to repay the debt.\"" }, { "docid": "199069", "title": "", "text": "I still use checks to pay rent and occasionally some bills/liabilities. That said, I did notice an (elderly) lady paying by check at the supermarket a while ago. So is it really common to get a paycheck in the sense that you get a piece of paper? Yes and no. There are some people that opt for the physical paycheck. Even if they do not, there is a pay stub which serves as a record of it. My last employer went to online pay stubs and a bunch of us opted out, sticking with the good old paper in an envelope. We sure were glad of that when there were technical issues and security concerns with the online service." }, { "docid": "315930", "title": "", "text": "Here is some good advice, read your UCO prospectus. It seems to hold 20% of it's value ($600MM out of $3B) via 13800 of the Apr 21st 2015 contracts. (expiring in 30 days) Those will be rolled very quickly into the May contracts at a significant loss of NAV. (based on current oil futures chains) Meaning if crude oil stays exactly the same price, you'd still lose 1% (5% spread loss * .20% the percentage of NAV based off futures contracts) on the roll each month. Their other $2.4Billion is held in swaptions or cash, unsure how to rate that exposure. All I know is those 13,800 contracts are in contango danger during roll week for the next few months (IMO). I wonder if there is a website that tracks inflows and outflows to see if they match up with before and after the roll periods. http://www.proshares.com/funds/uco_daily_holdings.html How Oil ETFs Work Many oil ETFs invest in oil futures contracts. An oil futures contract is a commitment to buy a given amount of crude oil at a given price on a particular date in the future. Since the purpose of oil ETFs is only to serve as an investment vehicle to track the price of oil, the creators of the fund have no interest in stockpiling actual oil. Therefore, oil ETFs such as USO periodically “roll over” their futures contracts by selling the contracts that are approaching expiration and buying contracts that expire farther into the future. The Contango Problem While this process of continually rolling over futures contracts may seem like a great way to track the price of crude oil, there’s a practical problem with the method: contango. The rollover method would work perfectly if oil funds could sell their expiring contracts for the exact same price that they pay for the futures contracts they buy each month. However, in reality, it’s often true that oil futures contracts get more expensive the farther their expiration date is in the future. That means that every time the oil ETFs roll over their contracts, they lose the difference in value between the contracts they sell and the contracts they buy. That’s why funds like USO, which invests only in WTI light, sweet crude oil futures contracts, don’t directly track the performance of the WTI crude oil spot price. http://www.etftrends.com/2015/01/positioning-for-an-oil-etf-rebound-watch-for-contango/ Due to these reasons, I'd deem UCO for swing trading, not for 'investing' (buy-and-hold). Maybe later I'll remember why one shouldn't buy and hold leveraged vehicles (leverage slippage/decay). Do you have an exit price in mind ? or are you buy and hold ?" }, { "docid": "175951", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California." }, { "docid": "384280", "title": "", "text": "\"Comission is a must when doing sales. That is the best (and only good) incentive to sell more. How much you want to give all depends on margins, the salary level that is accepted in your state/country and what sellers you have (young or old). Salary costs at 30 - 35% of total order value is normal including salary tax and all tax oriented costs around that employee. There are 2 ways of doing it. Only high commission and fixed salary + lower commission. Even if you use fixed salary + commission you can have \"\"restrictions\"\" so they have to sell above a certain level to get that commission. That means that you don't take any risks. An example of a salary model that I found was popular. (The numbers are just made up according to what is normal to have in Sweden). It's a step-model. If you sell for: Step 1: 0 - $3000 you get high commission 20% of everything you sell Step 2: $3000 - $4000 you get fixed salary of $1000 + 10% commission Step 3: $4000 - $6000 you get fixed salary of $1700 + 15% commission And so on. Your weakest points are when going to a higher step. You have to change the steps so it works with your salary statistics so you have most people under a step to motivate them to go to the next instead of having them exactly above one step. As you can see, with a step model, you just put a disquise on the commission model but make it more attractive. What the seller think is that they have a fixed salary. If a seller is happy, he/she is selling a lot. I have also had a criteria saying that if you can keep youself at 1 step for more than 3 months you will start there each month. Then it's up to the team leader to warn if that seller IS good or just LUCKY.\"" }, { "docid": "69395", "title": "", "text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "212713", "title": "", "text": "This varies by jurisdiction somewhat but speaking as a Canadian, a small business owner, and accountant (unregistered but some courses and accounting for multiple businesses) this is the answer if you were in Canada. In Canada the cheque cashing limit is 6 months. Therefor any bank will refuse to cash this cheque. It would be totally morally and legally acceptable to ask for a replacement cheque from your employer. In Canada they would generally have no problem issuing a replacement; in other jurisdictions with differing time limits they might want to cancel the original cheque first." } ]

[ { "docid": "45718", "title": "", "text": "\"I use online banking as much as possible and I think it may help you get closer to your goal. I see you want to know where the money goes and save time so it should work for you like it did for me. I used to charge everything or write checks and then pay a big visa bill. My problem was I never knew exactly how much I spent because neither Visa or check writing are record systems. They just generate transactions records. I made it a goal use online banking to match my spending to the available cash and ended up ok usually 9-10 months out of the year. I started with direct deposit of my paycheck. Each Saturday, I sit down and within a half hour, I've paid the bills for the week and know where I stand for the following week. Any new bill that comes in, I add it to online banking even if it's not a recurring expense. I also pull down cash from the ATM but just enough to allow me to do what I have to do. If it's more than $30 or $40 bucks, I use the debit card so that expense goes right to the online bank statement. My monthly bank statement gives me a single report with everything listed. Mortgage, utilities, car payment, cable bill, phone bill, insurance, newspaper, etc... It does not record these transactions in generic categories; they actually say Verizon or Comcast or Shop Rite. I found this serves as the only report I need to see what's happening with my budget. It may take a while to change to a plan like this one. but you'll now have a system that shows you in a single place where the money goes. Move all bills that are \"\"auto-pay\"\" to the online system and watch your Visa bill go down. The invested time is likely what you're doing now writing checks. Hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "212540", "title": "", "text": "\"So, you have $100k to invest, want a low-maintenance investment, and personal finance bores you to death. Oooohhh, investment companies are gonna love you. You'll hand them a wad of cash, and more or less say \"\"do what you want.\"\" You're making someone's day. (Just probably not yours.) Mutual fund companies make money off of you regardless of whether you make money or not. They don't care one bit how carefully you look at your investments. As long as the money is in their hands, they get their fee. If I had that much cash, I'd be looking around for a couple of distressed homes in good neighborhoods to buy as rentals. I could put down payments on two of them, lock in fixed 30-year mortgages at 4% (do you realize how stupid low that is?) and plop tenants in there. Lots of tax write-offs, cash flow, the works. It's a 10% return if you learn about it and do it correctly. Or, there have been a number of really great websites that were sold on Flippa.com that ran into five figures. You could probably pay those back in a year. But that requires some knowledge, too. Anything worthwhile requires learning, maintenance and effort. You'll have to research stocks, mutual funds, bonds, anything, if you want a better than average chance of getting worthwhile returns (that is, something that beats inflation, which savings accounts and CDs are unlikely to do). There is no magic bullet. If someone does manage to find a magic bullet, what happens? Everyone piles on, drives the price up, and the return goes down. Your thing might not be real estate, but what is your thing? What excites you (i.e., doesn't bore you to death)? There are lots of investments out there, but you'll get out of it what you put into it.\"" }, { "docid": "498034", "title": "", "text": "\"This is my opinion as a car nut. It depends on what you want out of a car. For your situation (paying cash, want to keep the car long-term but also save money) I recommend seriously considering a slightly used vehicle, maybe 2 or 3 years old, or a \"\"certified pre-owned vehicle\"\". Reasons: Much less expensive than a brand new car because the first two years have the biggest depreciation hit. Cars come with a 4-year warranty, so a 3 year old car will still be in warranty. Yes, a certified pre-owned car will have a bit of a premium compared to a private-party used car, but the peace of mind of knowing it's in good shape is worth the extra cost considering you want to keep it long term. Consumer Reports will have good advice on the best values in used cars.\"" }, { "docid": "479781", "title": "", "text": "\"I've found that good old fashioned \"\"Monopoly\"\" teaches children about cash flow, mortgaging properties, and paying income taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "49307", "title": "", "text": "Quickly check the escrow balance with the new lender. What was supposed to happen is that the old lender would send the money they were holding in escrow to the new lender with information regarding how it was calculated, and what you should be charged each month. The new lender would continue servicing the escrow at the same monthly rate, until they did a yearly or semi-annually re-analysis of the escrow account. This is how all the mortgage transfers that I have had happened, as long as it wasn't due to a refinancing of the loan. If it was a refinancing the escrow transfer was done at closing. He said that they close the escrow account and refunded it and they start a new escrow with the new lender. The new company would not want to have the money sent to you, because they would now have to require you to send the money on to them. There could be a gap of several weeks. They would have to pay any bills that come due during that gap, without the cash in the escrow account. If the escrow account is either zero, or very low, expect that the new company will be sending you a notice. The old lender could have convinced the new lender to refund the money back to them, or the old lender never transferred the funds. If a notice comes from the new lender, failure to replace the money will put your loan into default. If the sum of money is large they may have to increase the monthly escrow amount to make it up in 6 to 12 months. After that period the monthly escrow will return to a more reasonable level. If the old lender comes after you expect that the request won't be over the phone. One thing the old lender could do is to request the loan be transferred back to them. The funds would then flow back to their company, but your escrow balance would now be zero, and they would now up your monthly escrow amount to get back on track." }, { "docid": "62655", "title": "", "text": "\"It all depends on what your financial goals are when you are ready. You sound like you could be ready today if you wanted to be. The steps that I would take are. Create a monthly draft budget. This doesn't have to be something hard and fast, just a gague of what your living expenses would be compared to your after-tax salary. Make sure there would be room for \"\"fun\"\" money. a. Consider adding a new car fund line item to this budget, and deducting that amount from your paycheck starting now so that you can save for the car. Based on the most realistic estimate that you can make, you'll get a good idea if you want to spend the money it takes to move out alone now or later. You'll also see the price for various levels of rentals in your area (renting a single family home, townhouse, condo, apartment, living in a rented room or basement, sharing a place with friends, etc) and know some of the costs of setting up for yourself. Since you're looking at the real estate market, you may want to do a cost comparison of renting versus buying. I've found the New York Times interactive graphic on this is excellent. If you are looking to buy, make sure to research the hidden costs of buying thoroughly before taking this step. To answer your last question, if you have the cash you should consider upping your 401K investment (or using Roth or regular IRA). Make sure you are investing enough to get your full employer match, if your employer offers one, and then get as close as you can to government maximum contribution limits. Compound interest is a big deal when you are 23.\"" }, { "docid": "72024", "title": "", "text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"" }, { "docid": "339017", "title": "", "text": "\"Coming from someone who has worked a in the account servicing department of an actual bank in the US, other answers are right, this is probably a scam, the phone number on the letter is probably ringing to a fraudulent call center (these are very well managed and sound professional), and you must independently locate and dial the true contact number to US Bank. NOW. Tell them what happened. Reporting is critical. Securing your money is critical. Every piece of information you provided \"\"the bank\"\" when you called needs to be changed or worked around. Account numbers, passwords, usernames, card numbers get changed. Tax ID numbers get de-prioritized as an authentication mechanism even if the government won't change them. The true bank probably won't transfer you to the branch. If the front-line call center says they will, ask the person on the phone what the branch can do that they cannot. Information is your friend. They will probably transfer you to a special department that handles these reports. Apparently Union Bank's call center transfers you to the branch then has the branch make this transfer. Maybe their front-line call center team is empowered to handle it like I was. Either way, plug your phone in; if the call takes less than 5 minutes they didn't actually do everything. 5 to 8 minutes per department is more likely, plus hold time. There's a lot of forms they're filling out. What if that office is closed because of time differences? Go online and ask for an ATM limit increase. Start doing cash advances at local banks if your card allows it. Just get that money out of that account before it's in a fraudsters account. Keep receipts, even if the machine declines the transaction. Either way, get cash on hand while you wait for a new debit card and checks for the new account you're going to open. What if this was fraud, you draw your US Bank account down to zero $800 at a time, and you don't close it or change passwords? Is it over? No. Then your account WILL get closed, and you will owe EVERYTHING that the fraudsters rack up (these charges can put your account terrifyingly far in the negative) from this point forward. This is called \"\"participation in a scam\"\" in your depository agreement, because you fell victim to it, didn't report, and the info used was voluntarily given. You will also lose any of your money that they spend. What if US Bank really is closing your account? Then they owe you every penny you had in it. (Minus any fees allowed in the depository agreement). This closure can happen several days after the date on the warning, so being able to withdraw doesn't mean you're safe. Banks usually ship an official check shipped to the last known address they had for you. Why would a bank within the United States close my account when it's not below the minimum balance? Probably because your non-resident alien registration from when you were in school has expired and federal law prohibits them from doing business with you now. These need renewed at least every three years. Renewing federally is not enough; the bank must be aware of the updated expiration date. How do I find out why my account is being closed? You ask the real US Bank. They might find that it's not being closed. Good news! Follow the scam reporting procedure, open a new account (with US Bank if you want, or elsewhere) and close the old one. If it IS being closed by the bank, they'll tell you why, and they'll tell you what your next options are. Ask what can be done. Other commenters are right that bitcoin activity may have flagged it. That activity might actually be against your depository agreement. Or it set off a detection system. Or many other reasons. The bank who services your account is the only place that knows for sure. If I offer them $500 per year will they likely keep the account opened? Otherwise I got to go to singapore open another account Legitimate financial institutions in the United States don't work this way. If there is a legal problem with your tax status in the US, money to the bank won't solve it. Let's call the folks you've talked to \"\"FraudBank\"\" and the real USBank \"\"RealBank,\"\" because until RealBank confirms, we have no reason to believe that the letter is real. FraudBank will ask for money. Don't give it. Don't give them any further information. Gather up as much information from them as possible instead. Where to send it, for example. Then report that to RealBank. RealBank won't have a way to charge $500/year to you only. If they offer a type of account to everyone that costs $500, ask for the \"\"Truth in Savings Act disclosures.\"\" Banks are legally required to provide these upon request. Then read them. Don't put or keep your money anywhere you don't understand.\"" }, { "docid": "8341", "title": "", "text": "I just found this old post. I worked in this field 4 years ago. The information is old. I assume the players are mostly the same. AIR in Boston and EQE in Oakland do the computer modeling for cat bonds and reinsurance. Hedge funds will often hire guys who have worked with the software. Swiss Re is the investment bank for cat bonds. The hedge funds that do cat bonds exclusively are pretty boutiquey. The exception is DE Shaw. Reinsurance is a pretty good entry into cat bonds. just some thoughts. get back to me if you have more questions." }, { "docid": "547773", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally cashiers checks do not expire, since they are \"\"like cash\"\" and fully funded at the time of issue. However, whether they can be cashed after a long period of time (and also what the definition of \"\"long\"\" is) depends on the bank. Eventually, if left uncashed it probably would be escheated to the state to wait for someone to claim it. Being that it's been less than a year I expect it could be cashed by the payee written on the check without any issues. If the payee is deceased then the check can be cashed by the estate, as it should be considered the property of the estate the same way it would be if it had already been cashed and was now sitting in a bank account in your mother's name. Under normal circumstances the \"\"estate\"\" in this case would go to your mother's spouse first, then to you (and your siblings if you have any), unless there is a will specifying otherwise. The only way your aunt would be able to deposit the check on her own is if she was listed as an \"\"OR\"\" on the check, or if she is the executor of OP's mother's estate. It sounds like the second line of the check is indeed referring to your aunt, however, from your description of the check it sounds like the second line is simply a designation of what the check is for rather than an additional payee. I bet a probate attorney in your state could easily tell by simply looking at the check.\"" }, { "docid": "148346", "title": "", "text": "The average of a dozen good answers is close to what would be right, the wisdom of crowds. But any one answer will be skewed by one's own opinions. The question is missing too much detail. I look at $400K as $16K/yr of ongoing withdrawals. How much do you make now? When the kids are all in school full time, can your wife work? $400K seems on the low side to me, especially with 3 kids. How much have you saved for college? The $150K for your wife is also a bit low. Without a long tangent on the monetary value of the stay at home spouse, what will you spent on childcare if she passes? Term life also has a expiration date. When my daughter was born, my wife and I got 20 year term. She is now 16, her college account fully funded, and we are semi-retired. The need for insurance is over. If one of us dies, the survivor doesn't need this big of a house, and will have more than they need to be comfortable in a downsized one. My belief is that the term value should bridge the gap to the kids getting through college and the spouse getting resettled. Too much less, I'd have left my wife at risk. Too much more, she'd be better off if I were dead. (I say that half joking, the insurance company will often limit the size policy to something reasonable.)" }, { "docid": "260363", "title": "", "text": "\"You ask a few different, though not unrelated, questions. Everywhere you turn today, you hear people talk about how much they need to save or how important it is to find a good deal on things \"\"in this economy\"\". They use phrases like \"\"now more than ever\"\" and \"\"in these uncertain times\"\". It seems to be a lot of doom and gloom. Some of this is marketing spiel. You may notice that when the economy goes south the number of ads for the cheaper alternatives goes north. (e.g. hair clippers, discount grocery stores, discount just about anything) Truth is, we should always be looking for ways to save money on goods and services we purchase. The question is, what is acceptable to you for your desired lifestyle. (And, is that desired lifestyle reasonable for your income, age and personal situation.) Generally speaking, the harder times are the more we find discounted/cheaper alternatives acceptable. Is there really a good reason that people should be saving more than spending right now? How much you are putting away is a personal matter. I can still remember my dad griping whenever he couldn't save half of his paycheck. That said, putting away half your paycheck may lead to a rather austere lifestyle. This, of course, depends on the size of your paycheck and your desired lifestyle. You could be raking it, living simply and potentially put away more than half your income with relative ease. If you have a stable job, and a decent cash reserve, is it anymore \"\"dangerous\"\" to make a large purchase now than it was seven years ago? Who knows? Honestly, no one. Predicting the future is a fool's errand. (If you are interested in reading more on this view point, I suggest The Black Swan.) You mention the correct approach in this question. Ensure that you have liquid assets (cash or cash equivalents, i.e. money that you can draw on immediately and isn't credit) which covers at least 3-6 months of your necessary expenses (rent/mortgage, bills, car payments, food). (There is no reason that you couldn't try to increase this to 1 year, especially \"\"in this economy.\"\") You should also strive to have money available for emergencies that don't necessarily include loss of income. Of course, make sure you're putting away for retirement, as appropriate for your retirement goals. After that should come discretionary items, including investing, entertainment, the large purchase you mentioned, etc. You should never use money that you may need immediately (5-10 years) for investing. This doesn't necessarily include the large purchase you are contemplating. For example, if you are considering purchasing a home, the down-payment may be one of the items for which you need money in the \"\"immediate\"\" future. Is it really only because of unemployment numbers? This is probably the big one that is the focus of everyone's attention. That said, the human attention span is limited. We have a natural need to simplify things. This is one of the reasons that we tend to focus on a few, hopefully important, things. However, the unemployment numbers are not that the only thing of concern. Credit is still pretty hard to come by these days. The overall economy is still hurting, even if we are technically no longer in a recession. There are also concerns about U.S. government borrowing, consumer spending, recent trucking numbers, etc. (It may not be obvious, but trucking is used as a barometer of economic activity. If there aren't as many trucks carting goods across the country, it probably means that there is less economic activity.) The headline number these days is unemployment, as most census workers have now been returned to the pool. To answer the overall question, we should always be saving money, in good times or in bad. Be that by squeezing more value out of our purchases or by putting some money away. We should always try to reduce our risks, by having an emergency \"\"cash\"\" cushion. We should always be saving for retirement. Truth be told, it is probably more important to put money away in good times, before the hardships hit.\"" }, { "docid": "77658", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a \"\"normal\"\" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say \"\"plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money\"\", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. \"\"I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!\"\" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than \"\"please try not to spend it\"\". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living.\"" }, { "docid": "393866", "title": "", "text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\"" }, { "docid": "71510", "title": "", "text": "\"Value averaging has you shift the balance of your portfolio over time, not the amount of contributions. So you can only do it if you have a portfolio holding both risky assets (shares etc) and some cash. You start out by making a plan about how much you will contribute every month and at what rate you expect the share part of the portfolio to grow. Perhaps based on 20th century data you think an 8% growth rate is reasonable. Or alternatively if you know your desired final amount obviously you can work backwards to a desired rate from that. If in any month the share part is falling below its expected growth path, you would put more money into it: possibly your whole paycheck contribution plus some from the savings cash account. On the other hand if the share component is growing \"\"too fast\"\" you would put all your additional savings into cash. So if your investments are doing well, you're not supposed to spend the excess money, but rather to put it aside into a dedicated cash account to top up your share component when prices fall. In theory, this has the auto-levelling benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging, but even better: when prices are high, you'll automatically buy fewer shares, or even sell some; conversely when prices are low you'll buy extra shares from your reserve account. If it turns out your estimate was unreasonably optimistic, and over your lifetime shares only ever average 3%, you'll end up with an entirely share portfolio, and a bumpier ride than you might have liked. If you have horrible luck and over your entire investing life shares return less than cash (which has happened, though not yet in the USA), then this will be worse than a standard balanced portfolio. The original book Value Averaging by Edelson has a pretty good explanation of various cases, though I would say some of the examples are worked in excessive detail. I have not implemented this myself, one reason being that the amount I'm able to save from year to year varies, as it probably does for you, and so predicting a path is not quite so simple as he assumes. You could still do it I suppose. I think you could get a very crude approximation to this by simply directing your savings into cash when the share market's rate of growth over the last several years is above what you think is the long term average.\"" }, { "docid": "518453", "title": "", "text": "Let's base teacher performance off of student value added growth scores! Surely nothing bad will happen when we create incentivize teachers to make sure that student performance continuously rises. I mean, Campbell's law is just a load of horseshit, right? It's not like these policies led to widespread test cheating in Atlanta and Washington, DC, and several other cities. In all seriousness, look at what happened in Washington, DC. Student performance was used as the metric by which the district meted out both the carrot and the stick: the $160k paycheck or dismissal. 103 schools out of 200 or so were found to have statistical indicators of cheating, in some schools nearly 100% of tested classrooms were found to have wrong-to-right erasures in statistically aberrant levels. This wasn't found out until years after these test scores were used to evaluate a whole crop of teachers. Suppose you were the teacher whose children had previously been scored by cheating teachers or administrators. The model used to evaluate you expects that these children will see test score growth of *x* percent each year. If you don't cheat, you will get fired. If you do cheat, you become eligible to get a shitton of money. All that aside, the debate shouldn't even be about using student performance to evaluate teachers. The debate shouldn't be about who gets laid off. The debate should be about how we prevent teachers from getting laid off." }, { "docid": "20683", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question. There are two ways to increase the amount of money you have: It's difficult to decrease your expenses past a certain point, and your question is focused on the first aspect anyway. But it's worth noting that controlling spending is a significant part of accumulating wealth. You need to make more money, and there's no trick to it. Ask for a raise, sure, that can't hurt. But also think about what you need to do to get a higher-paying job. There's a lot to think about: Does you current job have growth potential? Are you doing everything you can do to maximize that potential? If you're just phoning it in and collecting your paycheck, that's not going to make you much more money. But if you're working hard, learning new skills, and have an opportunity to grow into more responsibilities and more money, that's a good start. In my experience, the biggest paycheck increases have come from looking for new opportunities and switching jobs. (BTW, I'm not suggesting quitting your job. You need to always have the new job locked up before quitting the old job!) The wealthiest people I know are self-employed, and they worked hard to build up their companies. Do you work in an industry where you can build your skills to a point where you can go out on your own? Does entrepreneurship interest you? Either way, focus on your job, skills, and maximizing your income potential. Be your own advocate. Make sure your boss knows what a good job you're doing. If you need to start looking for other options, take your time and start looking. The often-quoted line, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get\"\" is appropriate.\"" }, { "docid": "490867", "title": "", "text": "Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods." }, { "docid": "404362", "title": "", "text": "argument against (in a way) 1.)bad effectiveness of US corps which tend to be international. they want you to be available 24 hours a day. 2.)bad health care - UN and international orgs rate USA as lowest in industrialized nations. Telling the bosss you are sick is often a DEATH BLOW. Some DIABETICS AND OBESE (see the obesity epidemic in USA) are just slow but steady performers. So, they spend a fair amount of UNPAID overtime. 3.) 4.)much of the job training is bad and sometimes COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. so, see need to LEARN ON THE JOB. 5.)by international standards, health care is the worst of the industrialized nations. Letting your boss know about your REAL ILLNESS is often a DEATH BLOW. Moving from job to job is a real HASSLE as to health or medical coverage. So, the boss requires overtime and THE RUSSIANS SAY THE TRUTH: They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. 8.)in many cases, it is better to work and produce what I call anti-work. Obfuscated code and ties into multiple classes. comments that tend to be re-phrasing of the previous, or that is to be specific, in the the possiblilities that are the latter or correction ...the former.... n to n mappings of such code that includes arrive at (go to code) or go to there and go back (circular)...?? 10.)it is not the overtime or the business necessity. The bosses' boss is often playing on the golf course at the club. Yes, my friends know THE BARTENDER and he is a first person witness. It is the control from the culture of the USA - founded in part on slavery as economics?? President Jefferson not enough to work the slaves to death, but to SCREW or female relations with the female slaves. 14.)more are run by MBA and accountants. IT DOES NOT MATTER - that was the title by Harvard Profess Nick Carr. Info Tech and good programming skillsets are WORTHLESS. So, just cut pay and increase the hours or 'request FREE overtime.' 15.)two way street. NO PROBLEM DOING OVERTIME DURING CRITICAL PERIODS, but certain times (my girlfriend gets vacation and I MUST TAKE VACATION AT THE SAME TIME) - boss does not really care. It's a two way street. 16.)the YOUNG and sometimes foolish and often UNWISE IN BECOMING SLAVES. 17.)THE culture of most of the organization is ASS BACKWARDS. the young coder, who does FREE OVERTIME, codes fast and sloppy, and produces large LOC is the HOTSHOT. the old, experienced coder (like me) who gives only the best time, codes SLOW AND THINKS A LOT and produces REAL QUALITY is the outsider and 'NOT TEAM PLAYER.' team player is cheerleader and faith rallies -prevalent in the USA. works on weekends and LOVES THE COMPANY. Always says good things about the boss, even if the boss is plainly WRONG. there is a BAD BAD TREND in the USA towards contracting. relatively low bids using BAD BAD estimating techniques. So, the ONLY WAY TO MEET THE BUDGET IS TO SCHEDULE FREE OVERTIME. very similar to office cleaners using Hispanic ladies. Union rules - show the real productivity. Any complaints about FREE OVERTIME means reprisal and possible firing. look at the law cases won and the legal journals. Labor is at a disadvantage and that includes even strong UNIONS including software engineers in WISCONSIN. Governor Walker. PS. child labor is LEGAL in PRC or communist china. called an internship. dead end job in factory or even in GAME TESTING at the internet center. a kid, two computers and two mice clicking at various spots to make the system crash is called - FREE LABOR IN TESTING. see recent HBR harvard business review articles on effectiveness and NO CORRELATION with time schedules or OVERTIME schedules. PS. much of the silicon valley 'stock options' or the PREFERRED STOCK FOR FACEBOOK sometimes results in valuation of ZERO cash. But, you the programmer feels like an owner and even rich. Facebook is an illustration, but could apply to other orgs." } ]

[ { "docid": "267362", "title": "", "text": "Look up escheatment. Companies that have unclaimed property are supposed to send it to your State government. They should have a unclaimed property department of some sort. In short, the company is going to have to pay either you, or your State (In Your Name) so they have to pay it either way. It would be easier for them to just give you new check. Expect them to give you some grief in verifying it has not been cashed and such... but if you have the original, in hand, it shouldn't be too bad. A 'Lost' check may be harder to get replaced. Not a lawyer, don't want to be." } ]

[ { "docid": "199069", "title": "", "text": "I still use checks to pay rent and occasionally some bills/liabilities. That said, I did notice an (elderly) lady paying by check at the supermarket a while ago. So is it really common to get a paycheck in the sense that you get a piece of paper? Yes and no. There are some people that opt for the physical paycheck. Even if they do not, there is a pay stub which serves as a record of it. My last employer went to online pay stubs and a bunch of us opted out, sticking with the good old paper in an envelope. We sure were glad of that when there were technical issues and security concerns with the online service." }, { "docid": "37133", "title": "", "text": "\"withdraw in cash - bank reports it to IRS no matter what. Would this affect my tax filing in the coming year? No, and no. The bank doesn't report to the IRS. In the US - the bank will probably report to FinCEN. It has nothing to do with your tax return. withdraw in check - bank does not seem to report it. Is this correct? Doesn't have to. Still might, if they think it is a suspicious/irregular activity. wire-transfer to another person's account - would this always be slapped with a \"\"gift tax\"\"? If this is a gift it would. Regardless of how you transfer the money. Is it? Answers to your follow up questions: In the US, what documents do we need to prepare in case our large sum withdraw from the bank triggers a flag in relevant government (local and/or federal) divisions and they decide to investigate? Depending on what the investigators request. FinCEN would investigate money laundering, the IRS would investigate tax evasion, the FBI would investigate terrorism sponsorship, etc. Depending on who's investigating and what the suspicions are - different documents may be required. But the bottom line is that you should be able to explain the source of the funds and the destination. For example \"\"I found $1M in cash and sent it to some drug lord because he's such a good friend of mine\"\" will probably not fly. Does the (local/federal) government care if we stash our money (in cash or check) under our mattress, if we purchase foreign properties (taxable? documents needed for proof?), or if we give it away (to individuals or organizations - individual: a gift tax, organization: tax waivable) ? The government cares about taxes, and illegal activities. Stashing money under a mattress is not illegal, but earning cash and not paying income tax on it usually is. In many cases money stashed under the mattress was obtained illegally and/or income taxes were not paid. It seems that no matter what we do (except spreading thin our assets to multiple accounts in multiple banks), the government will always be notified of any large bank transaction and we would be forever flagged since. Is this correct ? Yes, reportable transactions will be reported. Also spreading around in multiple accounts/transactions to avoid reporting is called \"\"structuring\"\" and is on its own a crime. This is for cash/cash equivalent transactions only, of course. Not sure about the \"\"forever flagged since\"\", that part is probably sourced in your imagination.\"" }, { "docid": "555732", "title": "", "text": "\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \"\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\"\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\"" }, { "docid": "77658", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a \"\"normal\"\" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say \"\"plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money\"\", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. \"\"I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!\"\" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than \"\"please try not to spend it\"\". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living.\"" }, { "docid": "137435", "title": "", "text": "\"I always used Uber until one day they just stopped accepting any payment method I added! No matter what I used, credit cards, debit cards, Paypal, it always claimed that it was an invalid payment method. I worked with Uber support for weeks to resolve this, including being given access to their super-secret web-based option that requires them to explicitly enable for you. THAT worked exactly one time, then I was right back where I was. I created a Lyft account out of desperation, and it worked every time with the same payment methods that Uber had issues with. So, I used Lyft exclusively for awhile. The only difference I noticed was that Uber drivers, at least for awhile, seemed to be professionals in other industries who drive for fun or just extra cash. I would ride with someone who's day job was providing IT consulting for area casinos, and it was always a really fascinating conversation! Conversations with Lyft drivers tended to center around how they had just done a title loan against the REALLY old car I was driving in, because he lost everything in the divorce and couldn't get back on his feet… Eventually, I found that my issue with Uber was a \"\"family\"\" profile I had created and forgotten about that included debit card information that had expired, and once I deleted the profile, things worked again. (NEVER got any feedback from their support department when I shared this with them) So now I tend to favor Lyft just because of the issues with Uber's corporate culture. I was in a LOT of start-ups during Silicon Valley's heyday, and even though I encountered some levels of misogyny, anything even remotely close to the stories I've heard out of Uber would have caused an uproar!\"" }, { "docid": "134419", "title": "", "text": "\"I can't speak authoritatively to your broader question about stocks in general, but in several years tracking AAPL closely, I can tell you that there's little apparent pattern to when their earnings call will be, or when it will be announced. What little I do know: - AAPL's calls tend to occur on a Tuesday more than any other day of the week - it's announced roughly a month in advance, but has been announced w/ less notice - it has a definite range of dates in which it occurs, typically somewhere in the 3rd week of the new quarter plus or minus a few days More broadly for #1: Given the underlying nature of what an option is, then yes, the day an earnings call date is announced could certainly influence the IV/price of options - but only for options that expire inside the \"\"grey area\"\" (~2 weeks long) window in which the call could potentially occur. Options expiring outside that grey area should experience little to no price change in reaction to the announcement of the date - unless the date was itself surprising, e.g. an earlier date would increase the premium on earlier dated options, a later date would increase the premium for later-dated options. As for #2: The exact date will probably always be a mystery, but the main factors are: - the historical pattern of earnings call dates (and announcements of those dates) which you can look up for any given company - when the company's quarter ends - potentially some influence in how long it takes the company to close out their books for the quarter (some types of businesses would be faster than others) - any special considerations for this particular quarter that affect reporting ability And finally: - a surprise of an earnings call occurring (substantively) later than usual is rarely going to be a good sign for the underlying security, and the expectation of catastrophe - while cratering the underlying - may also cause a disproportionate rise in IVs/prices due to fear\"" }, { "docid": "8341", "title": "", "text": "I just found this old post. I worked in this field 4 years ago. The information is old. I assume the players are mostly the same. AIR in Boston and EQE in Oakland do the computer modeling for cat bonds and reinsurance. Hedge funds will often hire guys who have worked with the software. Swiss Re is the investment bank for cat bonds. The hedge funds that do cat bonds exclusively are pretty boutiquey. The exception is DE Shaw. Reinsurance is a pretty good entry into cat bonds. just some thoughts. get back to me if you have more questions." }, { "docid": "160105", "title": "", "text": "\"I was going to ask, \"\"Do you feel lucky, punk?\"\" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old. And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67% compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade. There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded. There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely. Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there. Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded.\"" }, { "docid": "401447", "title": "", "text": "SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&amp;P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price." }, { "docid": "140194", "title": "", "text": "Part of this is the flipper economy that grew out of the last housing downturn. People try to buy a house they can afford that needs some work, but flippers come swooping in, buy it in cash, do some slipshod renovations, and suddenly the house becomes out of reach for a lot of people. Builders are just as bad. Instead of making sensibly sized affordable houses, they all build 20 room McMansions. Upper-middle class people are buying a lot of these houses, and are putting themselves in deep financial straits doing so. They are mortgaged up to the eyeballs where all it takes is a medical issue, a job loss, or some other hiccup in their finances to cause it all to come tumbling down. If you have money (not just a good paycheck, actual free cash on hand) all of the above works for you. But even if you have a good paycheck, if you do not have significant cash reserves you really don't have any hope of competing in this market." }, { "docid": "452837", "title": "", "text": "\"My grandma left a 50K inheritance You don't make clear where in the inheritance process you are. I actually know of one case where the executor (a family member, not a professional) distributed the inheritance before paying the estate taxes. Long story short, the heirs had to pay back part of the inheritance. So the first thing that I would do is verify that the estate is closed and all the taxes paid. If the executor is a professional, just call and ask. If a family member, you may want to approach it more obliquely. Or not. The important thing is not to start spending that money until you're sure that you have it. One good thing is that my husband is in grad school and will be done in 2019 and will then make about 75K/yr with his degree profession. Be a bit careful about relying on this. Outside the student loans, you should build other expenses around the assumption that he won't find a job immediately after grad school. For example, we could be in a recession in 2019. We'll be about due by then. Paying off the $5k \"\"other debt\"\" is probably a no brainer. Chances are that you're paying double-digit interest. Just kill it. Unless the car loan is zero-interest, you probably want to get rid of that loan too. I would tend to agree that the car seems expensive for your income, but I'm not sure that the amount that you could recover by selling it justifies the loss of value. Hopefully it's in good shape and will last for years without significant maintenance. Consider putting $2k (your monthly income) in your checking account. Instead of paying for things paycheck-to-paycheck, this should allow you to buy things on schedule, without having to wait for the money to appear in your account. Put the remainder into an emergency account. Set aside $12k (50% of your annual income/expenses) for real emergencies like a medical emergency or job loss. The other $16k you can use the same way you use the $5k other debt borrowing now, for small emergencies. E.g. a car repair. Make a budget and stick to it. The elimination of the car loan should free up enough monthly income to support a reasonable budget. If it seems like it isn't, then you are spending too much money for your income. Don't forget to explicitly budget for entertainment and vacations. It's easy to overspend there. If you don't make a budget, you'll just find yourself back to your paycheck-to-paycheck existence. That sounds like it is frustrating for you. Budget so that you know how much money you really need to live.\"" }, { "docid": "175951", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California." }, { "docid": "50000", "title": "", "text": "\"What is a good bank to use for storing my pay? Preferrably one that has free student accounts. Can I save money from my paychecks directly to a Canadian bank Otherwise, can I connect my bank account to my Canadian account online? Any (almost...) bank in the US has free college checking accounts. If the bank you entered doesn't - exit, and step into the one next door which most likely will. The big names - Wells Fargo, Bank Of America, Chase, Bank of the West, Union Bank, Citi etc - all have it. Also, check your local credit union. Do I need any ID to open a bank account? I have Canadian citizenship and a J-1 visa Bring your passport and a student card/driving license (usually 2 ID's required). What form of money should I take with me? Cash? Should I apply for a debit card? Can I use my Canadian credit card for purchasing anything in the states? (Canadian dollar is stronger than US dollar currently, so this could be to my advantage?) There's some fuss going on about debit cards right now. Some big banks (Bank of America, notably) decided to charge fees for using it. Check it, most of the banks are not charging fees, and as far as I know none of the credit unions are charging. So same thing - if they charge fees for debit card - step out and move on to the next one down the street. Using debit card is pretty convenient, cash is useful for small amount and in places that don't accept cards. If you're asking about how to move money from Canada - check with your local (Canadian) bank about the conversion rates and fees for transfers, check cashing, ATM, card swipes, etc - and see which one is best for you. When I moved large amounts of money across the border, I chose wire transfer because it was the cheapest, but for small amounts many times during the period of your stay it may be more expensive. You can definitely use your Canadian credit/debit card in the States, you'll be charged some fee by your credit card company, and of course the conversion rate. How much tax does I have to pay at the end of my internship? Let's assume one is earning $5,000 per month plus a one time $5,000 housing stipend, all before taxes. Will I be taxed again by the Canadian government? $5K for internship? Wow... You need to talk to a tax specialist, there's probably some treaty between the US and Canada on that, and keep in mind that the State of California taxes your income as well. What are some other tips I can use to save money in the California? California is a very big place. If you live in SF - you'll save a lot by using the MUNI, if your internship is in LA - consider buying an old clunker if you want to go somewhere. If you're in SD - just enjoy the weather, you won't get it in Canada. You'll probably want a \"\"pay as you go\"\" wireless phone plan. If your Canadian phone is unlocked GSM - you can go to any AT&T or T-Mobile store and get a pre-paid SIM for free. Otherwise, get a prepaid phone at any groceries store. It will definitely be cheaper than paying roaming charges to your Canadian provider. You can look at my blog (I'm writing from California), I accumulated a bunch of saving tips there over the years I'm writing it.\"" }, { "docid": "26492", "title": "", "text": "\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \"\"impressive\"\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\"" }, { "docid": "152210", "title": "", "text": "\"A $1 note and four quarters are both real money, but how (and when) they become real money is different. The important thing is that the Fed's stockpile of cash that it gets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing isn't \"\"real money\"\" (i.e. M0) yet. That cash is only used for fulfilling withdrawals from reserve accounts. You can't use it to buy a car, or a house, or to pay Janet Yellen's salary...no one, not even Janet, can use even a single dollar to buy a Diet Coke. In other words, it's not really an asset. Or a liability. Or anything but a stack of paper in the Fed's vaults that looks astonishingly like money, but isn't. The upside to this is that when the BEP makes a delivery of fresh bills to the Fed, or when the Fed destroys old, ratty bills that aren't usable anymore, the Fed's balance sheet doesn't change. That's good! Those are practical considerations, not financial ones. The downside is that there's nothing on the asset side of the sheet to explain how the Fed's liability to a bank is reduced when the bank makes a cash withdrawal from its reserve account. So the Fed balances it's balance sheet by recording an increase in a different liability: the cash in circulation. Kinda like transferring the balance on a credit card: you're paying down one liability by increasing another one. It looks a bit silly, but less silly than recording the destruction of old bills as an \"\"expense\"\" of the face value of the bills. Coins, on the other hand, become money as soon as the Treasury gets them from the Mint. If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly.\"" }, { "docid": "209635", "title": "", "text": "\"If you were asking if you should buy silver for an emergency fund, I'd say no. But, you already have it... Note: I wrote most of the below under the assumption that this is silver bullion coins/bars; it didn't occur to me till the end that it could be jewelry. Both of you have good arguments for your points of view. Breaking it down: Her points 1. A very good point. And while she may not be irresponsible, maybe the invisibility of it is good for her psychology? It's her's, so her comfort is important here. 2. Good. Make sure it's explicitly listed on the policy. 3. Bad. I think it will as well, at least the long run. But, this is not a good reason for an emergency fund -- the whole point of which is to be stable in case of emergencies. 4. Good. Identity theft is a concern, though unless her info is already \"\"out there\"\", it's insufficient for the emergency fund. And besides, she could keep cash. Your points 1. Iffy. On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, Cyprus. It is good to remember that money in accounts is in someone else's control, not yours, as the Cypriots found out to their chagrin. And of course, it can't happen here, but that's what they thought too. There is value in having some hard assets physically in your control. Think of it as an EMERGENCY emergency fund. Cash works too, but precious metals are better for these mega-upheaval scenarios. Again, find out how having such an EMERGENCY fund would make her feel. Does having that give her some comfort? A gift from a family member of this much silver leads me to assume that her family might have a little bit of a prepper culture. If so, then even if she is not a prepper herself, she may derive some comfort from having it, just in case -- it'll be baked into her background. Definitely a topic to discuss with her. 2. Excellent point. This is precisely why you want your emergency fund in some form of cash. 3. Bad. You can walk into any pawn shop and sell it in a heartbeat. Or you can send it in to a company and have cash in days. 4. Bad. If you know a savings account that pays 3%-4%, please, please, please tell me where it is so I can get one. Fact is, all cash instruments pay negligible interest now, and all such savings are being eroded by inflation. 5. Maybe. There is value to looking at your net worth this way, but my experience has been that those that do take it way too far. I think there's more value at looking at allocation within a few broad \"\"buckets\"\" -- emergency fund, savings (car, house, college, etc), and retirement fund. If this is to be an EMERGENCY fund, as per point #1, then you should look at it as its own bucket (and maybe add a little cash too). Another thought to add: This is a gift from a family member -- they gave her a lot of silver. Of course it's your SO's now, and she can do whatever she wants with it, but how would the family member react if she did liquidate it? If that family member is a prepper, and gave her this with the emotional desire to see her prepped, they may be upset if she sold it. It just occurred to me this may be jewelry. Your SO may not have sentimental attachment to it, but what about the family member's sentiments? They may not like to see family silver they loving maintained and passed on casually discarded for mere cash by your SO. Another thing to discuss with her. Wrap up Generally, you are right about not keeping a 6 month emergency fund in silver. But there are other factors to consider here. There's also the fact that it's already bought -- the cost of buying (paying over market) has already been taken. Edit -- so it's silverware Ah, so it's silverware. Well, scratch everything, except how the family member feels about, which now looms large. This doesn't have much value as an emergency fund. Nor really as an investment. If you did keep it as an investment, think of it as an investment in collectibles/art, less so in precious metals. If no one will get upset, I'd say pick out the nicest set to keep for special occasions, and sell the rest. Find out first if it has collectible or historical value. It may be worth far more than the pure weight in silver. Ebay might be the way to go to sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "361929", "title": "", "text": "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." }, { "docid": "408124", "title": "", "text": "When you start at a new job here in the U.S., the default means of payment is usually a paper check. Most folks will quickly set up direct deposit so that their employer deposits their paycheck directly into their personal bank account - the incentive to do so is that you receive your funds faster than if you deposit a paper check. Even if you set up direct deposit on your first day on the job, you may still receive your first paycheck as a paper check simply because the wheels of payroll processing turn slowly at some (large) companies. A counter example is a self-employed contractor - perhaps a carpenter or house painter. These folks are paid by their customers, homeowners and such. Many larger, well established contracters now accept credit card payments from customers, but smaller independents may be reluctant to set up a credit card merchant account to accept payment by card because of all the fees that are associated with accepting credit card payments. 3% transaction fees and monthly service fees can be scary to any businessman who already has very thin profit margins. In such cases, these contractors prefer to be paid by check or in cash for the simple reason that there are no fees deducted from cash payments. There are a few folks here who don't trust direct deposit, or more specifically, don't trust their employer to perform the deposit correctly and on time. Some feel uncomfortable giving their bank info to their employer, fearing someone at the company could steal money from their account. In my experience, the folks who prefer a paper paycheck are often the same folks who rush to the bank on payday to redeem their paychecks for cash. They may have a bank account (helps with check cashing) but they prefer to carry cash. I operate in a manner similar to you - I use a debit card or credit card (I only have one of each) for nearly all transactions in daily life, I use electronic payments through my bank to pay my regular bills and mortgage, and I receive my paycheck by direct deposit. There have been periods where I haven't written or received paper checks for so long that I have to hunt for where I put my checkbook! Even though I use a debit card for most store purchases, the bank account behind that debit card is actually a checking account according to the bank. Again, the system defaults to paper checks and you have the option of going electronic as well. Before we judge anyone who doesn't use direct deposit or who prefers to be paid in cold hard cash, consider that direct deposit is a luxury of stability. Steady job, home, etc. Direct deposit doesn't make sense for a contractor or day laborer who expect to work for a different person each day or week. I don't think this is all that unique to the US. There are people in every city and country who don't have long-term employment with a single employer and therefore prefer cash or paper check over electronic payments. I'd be willing to bet that this applies to the majority of people on the planet, actually." }, { "docid": "71768", "title": "", "text": "\"Maybe it is a matter of how long a perspective you take. If you are focused on very close things, like only the coming quarterly results, then *anything* which did not maximize cash flow might seem suboptimal. But what if it strengthened the long term prospects of the business? What if it contributed to a planet that did not get destroyed, thereby maintaining a better business climate (pun intended) for the future. Clearly survival is preferable to a business than extinction. But we make short-term choices based on kind of old ways of looking at things. It's not \"\"profitable\"\", even though pursing short-term cash profit may lead to ruin.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "250285", "title": "", "text": "The typical rule in the US is 180 days, but some banks do it differently. However, even if the check is dead, you should be able to call the payroll department for your old job. They can stop payment on the old check and issue you another one." } ]

[ { "docid": "160105", "title": "", "text": "\"I was going to ask, \"\"Do you feel lucky, punk?\"\" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old. And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67% compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade. There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded. There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely. Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there. Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded.\"" }, { "docid": "401447", "title": "", "text": "SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&amp;P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price." }, { "docid": "160612", "title": "", "text": "\"The store owners don't know what your intentions are. All they know is they gave you good cash for a bad check. Part of this is that you're paying for the bad acts of others in the past, and these people aren't in the business of trying to understand your intentions. If you show good faith by going in and paying whatever you can, it will go a long way toward getting them to work with you on the balance. I don't know if they'd have much of a criminal case if the check you gave them was clearly marked as \"\"void\"\" and you've shown a willingness to resolve the situation. Of course you can't blame them for not wanting to accept another check from you. Good old hard cash, even if it isn't the full amount, will be a better sign of your intent to repay the debt.\"" }, { "docid": "58696", "title": "", "text": "Every guess you made is incorrect I'm living fairly well for a 25 year old with a kid on the way. Have my own house my own car 0 debt and work my ass off to keep it that way. I grew up in a poor family and know how to work hard for what I want and believe taxation to be theft and don't like the idea of theft. Also a housing bubble popping can and will ruin an economy ie 2008. Please do yourself and the world a favor and stop looking at everything from your statist liberal glass. Go take a look at switzerland and their economy and tell me how well they are doing with the 4th freest market in the world and more personal freedom than any other European country. No I don't think liberal policies are holding me back I think government holds me back, all of it. This country was founded on freedom and had the smallest government in world history that has now become the largest in world history. Lastly I don't know much about the Kansas situation but what I do know from the limited exposure to the situation is that these tax cuts were followed by spending increases (however minimal) every year. You can't cut revenue and increase spending and expect good things to happen because they dont." }, { "docid": "70443", "title": "", "text": "Intuitive? I doubt it. Derivatives are not the simplest thing to understand. The price is either in the money or it isn't. (by the way, exactly 'at the money' is not 'in the money.') An option that's not in the money has time value only. As the price rises, and the option is more and more in the money, the time value drops. We have a $40 stock. It makes sense to me that a $40 strike price is all just a bet the stock will rise, there's no intrinsic value. The option prices at about $4.00 for one year out, with 25% volatility. But the strike of $30 is at $10.68, with $10 in the money and only .68 in time premium. There's a great calculator on line to tinker with. Volatility is a key component of options trading. Think about it. If a stock rises 5%/yr but rarely goes up any more or less, just steady up, why would you even buy an option that was even 10% out of the money? The only way I can describe this is to look at a bell curve and how there's a 1/6 chance the event will be above one standard deviation. If that standard deviation is small, the chance of hitting the higher strikes is also small. I wrote an article Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 in which I describe how a pair of option trades was set up so that a 35% rise in Apple stock would return 354% and Apple had two years to reach its target. I offer this as an example of options trading not being theory, but something that many are engaged in. What I found curious about the trade was that Apple's volatility was high enough that a 35% move didn't seem like the 4.5 to 1 risk the market said it was. As of today, Apple needs to rise 13% in the next 10 months for the trade to pay off. (Disclosure - the long time to expiration was both good and bad, two years to recover 35% seemed reasonable, but 2 years could bring anything in the macro sense. Another recession, some worldwide event that would impact Apple's market, etc. The average investor will not have the patience for these long term option trades.)" }, { "docid": "316980", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate. About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR. The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is \"\"I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!\"\". I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do. Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone.\"" }, { "docid": "487196", "title": "", "text": "\"There's not a single answer here, as the premium you pay for car insurance depends on multiple factors, including (but not limited to): All these factors contribute to the likelihood of getting into an accident, and the expected damage from an accident. So just having an accident and making a claim will likely raise your premium (all else being equal), but whether or not it will be cheaper in the long run depends (obviously) on how much your premium goes up, which cannot determined without all of the facts. Your agent could tell you how much it would go up, but even making such an inquiry would likely be noted on your insurance record, and may cause your premium to go up (although probably not by as much). However, the point of insurance is to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses from future accidents, so the question to ask is: How likely am I to have another accident, and if I do, can I pay cash for it or will I need to offset some cost with an insurance claim. Do you risk making a claim and having your rates go up by more than $700 over the next 3-4 years (the rough time it takes for a \"\"surcharge\"\" to expire)? Or do you just pay for the repair out-of-pocket and keep your premiums lower?\"" }, { "docid": "339648", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure if you are including the use of credit cards in the intent of your quesiton. However, I will give you some good reasons I use them even when I can pay cash: 1) I get an interest free loan for almost 30 days as long as I don't carry balances. 2) I get a statement detailing where I am spending my money that is helpful for budgeting. I'd never keep track to this level of detail if I were using cash. 3) Many cards offer reward programs that can be used for cash back. 4) It helps maintain my credit rating for those times I NEED to buy something and pay it off over time (car, house, etc.) 5) Not so much an issue for me personally, but for people that live paycheck to paycheck, it might help to time your cash outflows to match up with your inflows. For a business, I think it is mostly a cash flow issue. That is, in a lot of B2B type businesses customers can pay very slowly (managing their own cash flows). So your revenue can sometimes lag quite a bit behind the expenses that were associated with them (e.g payroll). A business line of credit can smooth out the cash flow, especially for companies that don't have a lot of cash reserves." }, { "docid": "201736", "title": "", "text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster." }, { "docid": "393866", "title": "", "text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\"" }, { "docid": "49307", "title": "", "text": "Quickly check the escrow balance with the new lender. What was supposed to happen is that the old lender would send the money they were holding in escrow to the new lender with information regarding how it was calculated, and what you should be charged each month. The new lender would continue servicing the escrow at the same monthly rate, until they did a yearly or semi-annually re-analysis of the escrow account. This is how all the mortgage transfers that I have had happened, as long as it wasn't due to a refinancing of the loan. If it was a refinancing the escrow transfer was done at closing. He said that they close the escrow account and refunded it and they start a new escrow with the new lender. The new company would not want to have the money sent to you, because they would now have to require you to send the money on to them. There could be a gap of several weeks. They would have to pay any bills that come due during that gap, without the cash in the escrow account. If the escrow account is either zero, or very low, expect that the new company will be sending you a notice. The old lender could have convinced the new lender to refund the money back to them, or the old lender never transferred the funds. If a notice comes from the new lender, failure to replace the money will put your loan into default. If the sum of money is large they may have to increase the monthly escrow amount to make it up in 6 to 12 months. After that period the monthly escrow will return to a more reasonable level. If the old lender comes after you expect that the request won't be over the phone. One thing the old lender could do is to request the loan be transferred back to them. The funds would then flow back to their company, but your escrow balance would now be zero, and they would now up your monthly escrow amount to get back on track." }, { "docid": "198394", "title": "", "text": "\"I find this very hard to believe Believe it. The bottom quarter of American households have negative net worth, and the bottom three quarters have no more than a tiny amount saved up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#/media/File:MeanNetWorth2007.png In an emergency, 63% of Americans would not be able to come up with $500 without going into debt. http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/ Nobody can retire with 5k in the U.S. The money will be gone within a year. Is it possible? Now you begin to see why the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare are at present hot topics in American political life. Without them, a great many more Americans would die in poverty. What is the actual figure? The $5000 figure is accurate but irrelevant; that median includes people who are thirty years from retirement and people who are two days from retirement. The more relevant statistics are those restricted to people at or close to retirement age, and they can be found lower down in the article you cite, or in numerous other studies. Here's one from the GAO for example: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-419 The figures here are, unfortunately, no less terrifying: Now $104K is a lot better than $5K, but it's still not much to retire on. Why we believe that it is reasonable to throw out all the zeros before taking the median, I do not know. That seems like bad math to me. UPDATE: There is some discussion of this point in the comments; all I'm saying here is that this is a clumsy and possibly misleading way to characterize the situation. The linked report has the actual data, but let's try to summarize it here in a more meaningful way. Let's suppose that we make buckets for how dependent on SS is a retirement-age household to avoid starving to death, being homeless, and so on? Maybe these buckets are not ideal, and we could move them around a bit. The takeaways here are that the ratios of nothing:inadequate:barely adequate:comfortable is about 40:30:20:10. That only the top decile of retirement-age households can fund a comfortable retirement without help illustrates just how dependent on SS American households are. how do 50% of old Americans survive in their old age? Social Security and Medicare. As the cited GAO report indicates: \"\"Social Security provides most of the income for about half of households age 65 and older.\"\" Do most old Americans rely on their children for financial support? One day I met a woman at a party and we were making small talk about her kids. She had a couple already and one more was on the way. \"\"I want to have lots of children to support me in my old age\"\", she said. \"\"Do you support your parents?\"\" I asked, which frankly seemed like an entirely reasonable question. \"\"Of course not! I can't afford it. I've got a baby on the way and two more kids at home!\"\" I left her to draw her own conclusions as to the viability of her retirement plan.\"" }, { "docid": "26329", "title": "", "text": "I've consulted to a few companies before and I have to say the biggest problem I found among them was their inability to understand growth. Now, most companies become ambitious and in a sense want to grow and increase their profits but are completely off in how to do it. This can be seen from a manufacturing/sales/engineering perspective and administrative functions. The idea that always sticks in their minds is they have to add personal if they wish to grow, though that isn't always true. As an external person with no set bias, you should be able to figure out a creative way to their problems (even if they haven't noticed them yet). Another area I've come to see problems in is debt. I've seen successful companies held down by their insistance they run a cash only business to others that took on too much debt. There is no easy solution to this, yet a gradual and conservative approach to this area can help them in the long-run. On the same topic, I often think there are lots of inefficiencies in finances (and the support groups) that can be remedied in an easy manner. Lastly, the biggest problem I've seen with every single small business is customer service. As they grow, the lack of training is apparent and there is no common ground as to how employees should be portraying their company. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "72024", "title": "", "text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"" }, { "docid": "388899", "title": "", "text": "\"Lachlan has $600 cash and a car worth $500. That's $1,100. The new car is priced at $21,800. Lachlan needs a loan for $20,700. However, the finance company insists that the buyer must pay a 10% deposit, which is $2,180. Lachlan only has $1,100, so no loan. The car dealer wants to make a sale, so suggests some tricks. The car dealer could buy Lachlan's old banger for $1,500 instead of $500, and sell the new car for $22,800 instead of $21,800. Doesn't make a difference to the dealer, he gets the same amount of cash. Now Lachlan has $600 cash and $1,500 for his car or $2,100 in total. He needs 10% of $22,800 as deposit which is $2,280. That's not quite there but you see how the principle works. Lachlan is about $200 short. So the dealer adds $1,200 to both car prices. Lachlan has $600 cash and a car \"\"worth\"\" $1,700, total $2,300. The new car is sold for $23,000 requiring a $2,300 deposit which works out exactly. How could we have found the right amount without guessing? Lachlan had $1,100. The new car costs $21,800. The dealer increases both prices by x dollars. Lachlan has now $1,100 + x deposit. The car now costs $21,800 + x. The deposit should be 10%, so $1,100 + x = 10% of ($21,800 + x) = $2,180 + 0.1 x. $1,100 + x = $2,180 + 0.1 x : Subtract $1,100 x = $1,080 + 0.1 x : Subtract 0.1 x 0.9 x = $1,080 : Divide by 0.9 x = $1,080 / 0.9 = $1,200 The dealer inflates the cost of the new car and the value of the old car by $1,200. Now that's the theory. In practice I don't know how the finance company feels about this, and if they would be happy if they found out.\"" }, { "docid": "74255", "title": "", "text": "You already got good answers on why you can't buy a Toyota from the factory, but my answer is regarding to the implied second part of your question: how to avoid haggling. I found a good way to avoid the haggling at a car dealership can be simply to not haggle. Go in with a different attitude. The main reason car dealers list inflated prices and then haggle is that they expect the customers to haggle. It is fundamentally based on distrust on both sides. Treat the sales person as your advisor, your business partner, as somebody you trust as an expert in his field, and you'll be surprised how the experience changes. Of course, make sure that the trust is justified. Sales reps have a fine line to walk. Of course they like to sell a car for more money, but they also do not want a reputation of overcharging customers. They'd rather you recommend them to your friends and post good reviews on Yelp. In the end, all reputable dealers effectively have a fixed-price policy, or close to it, even those who don't advertise it, and even for used cars. Haggling just prolongs the process to get there. And sales reps are people. Often people who hate the haggling part of their job as much as you do. I was in the market for a new (used) car a few months ago. In the end, it was between two cars (one of them a Toyota), both from the brand-name dealer's respective used car lots. In both cases, I went in knowing in advance what the car's fair market value was and what I was willing to pay (as well as details about the car, mileage, condition etc. - thanks to the Internet). Both cars were marked significantly higher. As soon as the sales rep realized that I wasn't even trying to haggle - the price dropped to the fair value. I didn't even have to ask for it. The rep even offered some extras thrown into the deal, things I hadn't even asked for (things like towing my old car to the junk yard)." }, { "docid": "498034", "title": "", "text": "\"This is my opinion as a car nut. It depends on what you want out of a car. For your situation (paying cash, want to keep the car long-term but also save money) I recommend seriously considering a slightly used vehicle, maybe 2 or 3 years old, or a \"\"certified pre-owned vehicle\"\". Reasons: Much less expensive than a brand new car because the first two years have the biggest depreciation hit. Cars come with a 4-year warranty, so a 3 year old car will still be in warranty. Yes, a certified pre-owned car will have a bit of a premium compared to a private-party used car, but the peace of mind of knowing it's in good shape is worth the extra cost considering you want to keep it long term. Consumer Reports will have good advice on the best values in used cars.\"" }, { "docid": "547773", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally cashiers checks do not expire, since they are \"\"like cash\"\" and fully funded at the time of issue. However, whether they can be cashed after a long period of time (and also what the definition of \"\"long\"\" is) depends on the bank. Eventually, if left uncashed it probably would be escheated to the state to wait for someone to claim it. Being that it's been less than a year I expect it could be cashed by the payee written on the check without any issues. If the payee is deceased then the check can be cashed by the estate, as it should be considered the property of the estate the same way it would be if it had already been cashed and was now sitting in a bank account in your mother's name. Under normal circumstances the \"\"estate\"\" in this case would go to your mother's spouse first, then to you (and your siblings if you have any), unless there is a will specifying otherwise. The only way your aunt would be able to deposit the check on her own is if she was listed as an \"\"OR\"\" on the check, or if she is the executor of OP's mother's estate. It sounds like the second line of the check is indeed referring to your aunt, however, from your description of the check it sounds like the second line is simply a designation of what the check is for rather than an additional payee. I bet a probate attorney in your state could easily tell by simply looking at the check.\"" }, { "docid": "315930", "title": "", "text": "Here is some good advice, read your UCO prospectus. It seems to hold 20% of it's value ($600MM out of $3B) via 13800 of the Apr 21st 2015 contracts. (expiring in 30 days) Those will be rolled very quickly into the May contracts at a significant loss of NAV. (based on current oil futures chains) Meaning if crude oil stays exactly the same price, you'd still lose 1% (5% spread loss * .20% the percentage of NAV based off futures contracts) on the roll each month. Their other $2.4Billion is held in swaptions or cash, unsure how to rate that exposure. All I know is those 13,800 contracts are in contango danger during roll week for the next few months (IMO). I wonder if there is a website that tracks inflows and outflows to see if they match up with before and after the roll periods. http://www.proshares.com/funds/uco_daily_holdings.html How Oil ETFs Work Many oil ETFs invest in oil futures contracts. An oil futures contract is a commitment to buy a given amount of crude oil at a given price on a particular date in the future. Since the purpose of oil ETFs is only to serve as an investment vehicle to track the price of oil, the creators of the fund have no interest in stockpiling actual oil. Therefore, oil ETFs such as USO periodically “roll over” their futures contracts by selling the contracts that are approaching expiration and buying contracts that expire farther into the future. The Contango Problem While this process of continually rolling over futures contracts may seem like a great way to track the price of crude oil, there’s a practical problem with the method: contango. The rollover method would work perfectly if oil funds could sell their expiring contracts for the exact same price that they pay for the futures contracts they buy each month. However, in reality, it’s often true that oil futures contracts get more expensive the farther their expiration date is in the future. That means that every time the oil ETFs roll over their contracts, they lose the difference in value between the contracts they sell and the contracts they buy. That’s why funds like USO, which invests only in WTI light, sweet crude oil futures contracts, don’t directly track the performance of the WTI crude oil spot price. http://www.etftrends.com/2015/01/positioning-for-an-oil-etf-rebound-watch-for-contango/ Due to these reasons, I'd deem UCO for swing trading, not for 'investing' (buy-and-hold). Maybe later I'll remember why one shouldn't buy and hold leveraged vehicles (leverage slippage/decay). Do you have an exit price in mind ? or are you buy and hold ?" } ]

[ { "docid": "220691", "title": "", "text": "In the UK the official rule is that a cheque is valid for 3 years from the date it was wrote. However after 3 months some banks can choose to turn them down. I had a cheque once that was a year old which is when I looked it up to see whether it was stil valid, and I found the laws regarding it then. I was actually quite surprised it was 3 years! Btw if it does bounce your quite entitled to ask your employer for a replacement cheque. They owe it you and it's just sat in their account assigned to you anyway." } ]

[ { "docid": "70443", "title": "", "text": "Intuitive? I doubt it. Derivatives are not the simplest thing to understand. The price is either in the money or it isn't. (by the way, exactly 'at the money' is not 'in the money.') An option that's not in the money has time value only. As the price rises, and the option is more and more in the money, the time value drops. We have a $40 stock. It makes sense to me that a $40 strike price is all just a bet the stock will rise, there's no intrinsic value. The option prices at about $4.00 for one year out, with 25% volatility. But the strike of $30 is at $10.68, with $10 in the money and only .68 in time premium. There's a great calculator on line to tinker with. Volatility is a key component of options trading. Think about it. If a stock rises 5%/yr but rarely goes up any more or less, just steady up, why would you even buy an option that was even 10% out of the money? The only way I can describe this is to look at a bell curve and how there's a 1/6 chance the event will be above one standard deviation. If that standard deviation is small, the chance of hitting the higher strikes is also small. I wrote an article Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 in which I describe how a pair of option trades was set up so that a 35% rise in Apple stock would return 354% and Apple had two years to reach its target. I offer this as an example of options trading not being theory, but something that many are engaged in. What I found curious about the trade was that Apple's volatility was high enough that a 35% move didn't seem like the 4.5 to 1 risk the market said it was. As of today, Apple needs to rise 13% in the next 10 months for the trade to pay off. (Disclosure - the long time to expiration was both good and bad, two years to recover 35% seemed reasonable, but 2 years could bring anything in the macro sense. Another recession, some worldwide event that would impact Apple's market, etc. The average investor will not have the patience for these long term option trades.)" }, { "docid": "464264", "title": "", "text": "Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way." }, { "docid": "62655", "title": "", "text": "\"It all depends on what your financial goals are when you are ready. You sound like you could be ready today if you wanted to be. The steps that I would take are. Create a monthly draft budget. This doesn't have to be something hard and fast, just a gague of what your living expenses would be compared to your after-tax salary. Make sure there would be room for \"\"fun\"\" money. a. Consider adding a new car fund line item to this budget, and deducting that amount from your paycheck starting now so that you can save for the car. Based on the most realistic estimate that you can make, you'll get a good idea if you want to spend the money it takes to move out alone now or later. You'll also see the price for various levels of rentals in your area (renting a single family home, townhouse, condo, apartment, living in a rented room or basement, sharing a place with friends, etc) and know some of the costs of setting up for yourself. Since you're looking at the real estate market, you may want to do a cost comparison of renting versus buying. I've found the New York Times interactive graphic on this is excellent. If you are looking to buy, make sure to research the hidden costs of buying thoroughly before taking this step. To answer your last question, if you have the cash you should consider upping your 401K investment (or using Roth or regular IRA). Make sure you are investing enough to get your full employer match, if your employer offers one, and then get as close as you can to government maximum contribution limits. Compound interest is a big deal when you are 23.\"" }, { "docid": "45718", "title": "", "text": "\"I use online banking as much as possible and I think it may help you get closer to your goal. I see you want to know where the money goes and save time so it should work for you like it did for me. I used to charge everything or write checks and then pay a big visa bill. My problem was I never knew exactly how much I spent because neither Visa or check writing are record systems. They just generate transactions records. I made it a goal use online banking to match my spending to the available cash and ended up ok usually 9-10 months out of the year. I started with direct deposit of my paycheck. Each Saturday, I sit down and within a half hour, I've paid the bills for the week and know where I stand for the following week. Any new bill that comes in, I add it to online banking even if it's not a recurring expense. I also pull down cash from the ATM but just enough to allow me to do what I have to do. If it's more than $30 or $40 bucks, I use the debit card so that expense goes right to the online bank statement. My monthly bank statement gives me a single report with everything listed. Mortgage, utilities, car payment, cable bill, phone bill, insurance, newspaper, etc... It does not record these transactions in generic categories; they actually say Verizon or Comcast or Shop Rite. I found this serves as the only report I need to see what's happening with my budget. It may take a while to change to a plan like this one. but you'll now have a system that shows you in a single place where the money goes. Move all bills that are \"\"auto-pay\"\" to the online system and watch your Visa bill go down. The invested time is likely what you're doing now writing checks. Hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "140194", "title": "", "text": "Part of this is the flipper economy that grew out of the last housing downturn. People try to buy a house they can afford that needs some work, but flippers come swooping in, buy it in cash, do some slipshod renovations, and suddenly the house becomes out of reach for a lot of people. Builders are just as bad. Instead of making sensibly sized affordable houses, they all build 20 room McMansions. Upper-middle class people are buying a lot of these houses, and are putting themselves in deep financial straits doing so. They are mortgaged up to the eyeballs where all it takes is a medical issue, a job loss, or some other hiccup in their finances to cause it all to come tumbling down. If you have money (not just a good paycheck, actual free cash on hand) all of the above works for you. But even if you have a good paycheck, if you do not have significant cash reserves you really don't have any hope of competing in this market." }, { "docid": "119853", "title": "", "text": "US currency doesn't expire, it is always legal tender. I can see some trouble if you tried to spend a $10,000 bill (you'd be foolish to do so, since they are worth considerably more). Maybe some stores raise eyebrows at old-style $100's (many stores don't take $100 bills at all), but you could swap them for new style at a bank if having trouble with a particular store. Old-series currency can be an issue when trying to exchange US bills in other countries, just because it doesn't expire here, doesn't mean you can't run into issues elsewhere. Other countries have different policies, for example, over the last year the UK phased in a new five pound note, and as of last month (5/5/2017) the old fiver is no longer considered legal tender (can still swap out old fivers at the bank for now at least). Edit: I mistook which currency you took where, and focused on US currency instead of Canadian, but it looks like it's the same story there." }, { "docid": "310743", "title": "", "text": "\"Presumably the existing house has some value. If you demolish the existing house, you are destroying that value. If the value of the new house is significantly more than the value of the old house, like if you're talking about replacing a small, run-down old house worth $50,000 with a big new mansion worth $10,000,000, then the value of the old house that is destroyed might just get lost in the rounding errors for all practical purposes. But otherwise, I don't see how you would do this without bringing cash to the table basically equal to what you still owe on the old house. Presumably the new house is worth more than the old, so the value of the property when you're done will be more than it was before. But will the value of the property be more than the old mortgage plus the new mortgage? Unless the old mortgage was almost paid off, or you bring a bunch of cash, the answer is almost certainly \"\"no\"\". Note that from the lienholder's point of view, you are not \"\"temporarily\"\" reducing the value of the property. You are permanently reducing it. The bank that makes the new loan will have a lien on the new house. I don't know what the law says about this, but you would have to either, (a) deliberately destroy property that someone else has a lien on while giving them no compensation, or (b) give two banks a lien on the same property. I wouldn't think either option would be legal. Normally when people tear down a building to put up a new building, it's because the value of the old building is so low as to be negligible compared to the value of the new building. Either the old building is run-down and getting it into decent shape would cost more than tearing it down and putting up a new building, or at least there is some benefit -- real or perceived -- to the new building that makes this worth it.\"" }, { "docid": "361929", "title": "", "text": "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." }, { "docid": "223137", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; \"\"To think in a democracy that one un-elected individual can functionally decide what credit cards go in our wallets.... I mean, that's just anathema to me to the founding principles of this republic,\"\"  Life, liberty, and 30% apr credit cards with $50k limits.\"" }, { "docid": "408124", "title": "", "text": "When you start at a new job here in the U.S., the default means of payment is usually a paper check. Most folks will quickly set up direct deposit so that their employer deposits their paycheck directly into their personal bank account - the incentive to do so is that you receive your funds faster than if you deposit a paper check. Even if you set up direct deposit on your first day on the job, you may still receive your first paycheck as a paper check simply because the wheels of payroll processing turn slowly at some (large) companies. A counter example is a self-employed contractor - perhaps a carpenter or house painter. These folks are paid by their customers, homeowners and such. Many larger, well established contracters now accept credit card payments from customers, but smaller independents may be reluctant to set up a credit card merchant account to accept payment by card because of all the fees that are associated with accepting credit card payments. 3% transaction fees and monthly service fees can be scary to any businessman who already has very thin profit margins. In such cases, these contractors prefer to be paid by check or in cash for the simple reason that there are no fees deducted from cash payments. There are a few folks here who don't trust direct deposit, or more specifically, don't trust their employer to perform the deposit correctly and on time. Some feel uncomfortable giving their bank info to their employer, fearing someone at the company could steal money from their account. In my experience, the folks who prefer a paper paycheck are often the same folks who rush to the bank on payday to redeem their paychecks for cash. They may have a bank account (helps with check cashing) but they prefer to carry cash. I operate in a manner similar to you - I use a debit card or credit card (I only have one of each) for nearly all transactions in daily life, I use electronic payments through my bank to pay my regular bills and mortgage, and I receive my paycheck by direct deposit. There have been periods where I haven't written or received paper checks for so long that I have to hunt for where I put my checkbook! Even though I use a debit card for most store purchases, the bank account behind that debit card is actually a checking account according to the bank. Again, the system defaults to paper checks and you have the option of going electronic as well. Before we judge anyone who doesn't use direct deposit or who prefers to be paid in cold hard cash, consider that direct deposit is a luxury of stability. Steady job, home, etc. Direct deposit doesn't make sense for a contractor or day laborer who expect to work for a different person each day or week. I don't think this is all that unique to the US. There are people in every city and country who don't have long-term employment with a single employer and therefore prefer cash or paper check over electronic payments. I'd be willing to bet that this applies to the majority of people on the planet, actually." }, { "docid": "71768", "title": "", "text": "\"Maybe it is a matter of how long a perspective you take. If you are focused on very close things, like only the coming quarterly results, then *anything* which did not maximize cash flow might seem suboptimal. But what if it strengthened the long term prospects of the business? What if it contributed to a planet that did not get destroyed, thereby maintaining a better business climate (pun intended) for the future. Clearly survival is preferable to a business than extinction. But we make short-term choices based on kind of old ways of looking at things. It's not \"\"profitable\"\", even though pursing short-term cash profit may lead to ruin.\"" }, { "docid": "339648", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure if you are including the use of credit cards in the intent of your quesiton. However, I will give you some good reasons I use them even when I can pay cash: 1) I get an interest free loan for almost 30 days as long as I don't carry balances. 2) I get a statement detailing where I am spending my money that is helpful for budgeting. I'd never keep track to this level of detail if I were using cash. 3) Many cards offer reward programs that can be used for cash back. 4) It helps maintain my credit rating for those times I NEED to buy something and pay it off over time (car, house, etc.) 5) Not so much an issue for me personally, but for people that live paycheck to paycheck, it might help to time your cash outflows to match up with your inflows. For a business, I think it is mostly a cash flow issue. That is, in a lot of B2B type businesses customers can pay very slowly (managing their own cash flows). So your revenue can sometimes lag quite a bit behind the expenses that were associated with them (e.g payroll). A business line of credit can smooth out the cash flow, especially for companies that don't have a lot of cash reserves." }, { "docid": "69395", "title": "", "text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"" }, { "docid": "26492", "title": "", "text": "\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \"\"impressive\"\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\"" }, { "docid": "398415", "title": "", "text": "If you're really strapped for cash, you can get one on the off-chance the furnace or air conditioner goes. But if you do have the cash to self-insure against these kinds of things, I wouldn't bother with the home warranty. Here was our experience. Our daughter was only a few months old, and the air conditioner went in June, in Virginia. We called in the warranty. They came out, tried the cheapest fix they could to fix the leak. It didn't work again in two days. Two weeks later, they try again with the next cheapest fix. (By this point, we had gotten a window unit for our bedroom.) It didn't work again in two days. Two more weeks later, they finally got authorization to replace the unit. They replaced it with the cheapest one they could, and wanted to charge me $75 to haul the old one away. When I said no thanks to that extra service (I was calling from work at the time), the guy ended the conversation in a huff, walked away from the phone and drove off. I later found out (when I called a reputable HVAC guy) that they didn't even hook the thing up correctly! What happens is the contractors get squeezed by the warranty company at every turn. These calls get low priority, and the quality of service is as low as they can get away with without violating the terms of their contract with the warranty company. For the big stuff, it's better than nothing, but not much better. Check to see that the big stuff is still covered before buying it at all, and drop it after getting a payout (like we did)." }, { "docid": "175951", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California." }, { "docid": "404362", "title": "", "text": "argument against (in a way) 1.)bad effectiveness of US corps which tend to be international. they want you to be available 24 hours a day. 2.)bad health care - UN and international orgs rate USA as lowest in industrialized nations. Telling the bosss you are sick is often a DEATH BLOW. Some DIABETICS AND OBESE (see the obesity epidemic in USA) are just slow but steady performers. So, they spend a fair amount of UNPAID overtime. 3.) 4.)much of the job training is bad and sometimes COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. so, see need to LEARN ON THE JOB. 5.)by international standards, health care is the worst of the industrialized nations. Letting your boss know about your REAL ILLNESS is often a DEATH BLOW. Moving from job to job is a real HASSLE as to health or medical coverage. So, the boss requires overtime and THE RUSSIANS SAY THE TRUTH: They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. 8.)in many cases, it is better to work and produce what I call anti-work. Obfuscated code and ties into multiple classes. comments that tend to be re-phrasing of the previous, or that is to be specific, in the the possiblilities that are the latter or correction ...the former.... n to n mappings of such code that includes arrive at (go to code) or go to there and go back (circular)...?? 10.)it is not the overtime or the business necessity. The bosses' boss is often playing on the golf course at the club. Yes, my friends know THE BARTENDER and he is a first person witness. It is the control from the culture of the USA - founded in part on slavery as economics?? President Jefferson not enough to work the slaves to death, but to SCREW or female relations with the female slaves. 14.)more are run by MBA and accountants. IT DOES NOT MATTER - that was the title by Harvard Profess Nick Carr. Info Tech and good programming skillsets are WORTHLESS. So, just cut pay and increase the hours or 'request FREE overtime.' 15.)two way street. NO PROBLEM DOING OVERTIME DURING CRITICAL PERIODS, but certain times (my girlfriend gets vacation and I MUST TAKE VACATION AT THE SAME TIME) - boss does not really care. It's a two way street. 16.)the YOUNG and sometimes foolish and often UNWISE IN BECOMING SLAVES. 17.)THE culture of most of the organization is ASS BACKWARDS. the young coder, who does FREE OVERTIME, codes fast and sloppy, and produces large LOC is the HOTSHOT. the old, experienced coder (like me) who gives only the best time, codes SLOW AND THINKS A LOT and produces REAL QUALITY is the outsider and 'NOT TEAM PLAYER.' team player is cheerleader and faith rallies -prevalent in the USA. works on weekends and LOVES THE COMPANY. Always says good things about the boss, even if the boss is plainly WRONG. there is a BAD BAD TREND in the USA towards contracting. relatively low bids using BAD BAD estimating techniques. So, the ONLY WAY TO MEET THE BUDGET IS TO SCHEDULE FREE OVERTIME. very similar to office cleaners using Hispanic ladies. Union rules - show the real productivity. Any complaints about FREE OVERTIME means reprisal and possible firing. look at the law cases won and the legal journals. Labor is at a disadvantage and that includes even strong UNIONS including software engineers in WISCONSIN. Governor Walker. PS. child labor is LEGAL in PRC or communist china. called an internship. dead end job in factory or even in GAME TESTING at the internet center. a kid, two computers and two mice clicking at various spots to make the system crash is called - FREE LABOR IN TESTING. see recent HBR harvard business review articles on effectiveness and NO CORRELATION with time schedules or OVERTIME schedules. PS. much of the silicon valley 'stock options' or the PREFERRED STOCK FOR FACEBOOK sometimes results in valuation of ZERO cash. But, you the programmer feels like an owner and even rich. Facebook is an illustration, but could apply to other orgs." }, { "docid": "201736", "title": "", "text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster." }, { "docid": "248594", "title": "", "text": "&gt;corporate profits are down [That's not true.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html) &gt;my problem with that statement is that if companies just pay their employees more it will 'create' demand People having more money won't spend that money? Especially people who are currently living paycheck to paycheck? How do you reach this conclusion? &gt;If companies pay their employees more for the same amount of output it will just drive up the cost of goods leaving us with the same shitty demand. Also, how do you figure this?" } ]

[ { "docid": "244808", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, it is possible. Although there may be red tape for a business account, Alliant Credit Union offers completely online signup and their representatives are reachable by email. You'll probably need to send in the LLC articles this way http://www.alliantcu.com/checking-accounts.html (as pointed out by @littleadv this site defaults to \"\"personal checking\"\" accounts, there is a business checking tab which doesn't generate a direct link, some might miss that) And even if there are a ton of regulations that some pencil pushers at larger banks anecdotally cite (without citing), there will be enough banks that don't care. Good Luck\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "535555", "title": "", "text": "\"The Wells Fargo scandal was and still is a big deal because Wells Fargo opened over 1.5 million unauthorized bank and credit card accounts. The credit card accounts were opened without authorization, which means people's credit scores and reports were pulled without permission. That is considered fraud and identity theft. Other than the legal side of it, by opening more bank accounts without authorization, it was showing \"\"synthetic growth\"\", which resulted in an inflated number when quarterly and annual performance numbers were reported. This caused people to invest more in Wells Fargo stock, not knowing that the growth in stock was not organic. After the scandal was uncovered, stocks decreased. However, the root cause of this can be traced to the culture at Wells Fargo, where customer service reps (i.e. bank tellers, and store operations employees) were faced with the challenges of meeting quotas that could be considered a stretch. As a result, faced with pressure from upper management, they opened unauthorized accounts. In addition, these unauthorized accounts cost consumers money either because credit cards had balances, or bank accounts did not meet a minimum balance. It is not about ending \"\"up with 8 rows in their database instead of just 1 row\"\" as OP wrote. It is about stealing consumer money and committing fraud and stealing the consumer's identity. *Suggestions and constructive criticism are welcomed in improving my answer.\"" }, { "docid": "219673", "title": "", "text": "Of course you can. My assumption is you are/will be in UK. I am a student from outside the UK and I am about to start studying at a UK university/college/school. How do I choose which bank is best for me? You should be able to open a ‘basic bank account’ with a number of different banks. A ‘basic bank account’ provides easy access to banking facilities for adults in the UK. Additionally, some banks offer a bank account tailored specifically for your needs as an international student. There is a table on pages 6 & 7 of this leaflet that has a list of basic accounts and other accounts that may be suitable along with brief descriptions of some of their features. Most banks don’t ask you to pay in any money to open a basic account. You should look around to see which bank and account suit you best and then visit the local branch of the bank you have chosen. You may also be able to get other types of account, as detailed in the next section. Please speak to a bank Go through the source I have linked. It is a bit old, but has relevant information for you. SOURCE" }, { "docid": "226568", "title": "", "text": "\"It is unusual to need a consultant to open a bank account for you, and I would also be concerned that perhaps the consultant could take the money and do nothing, or continue to demand various sums of money for \"\"expenses\"\" like permits, licenses, identity check, etc. until you give up. Some of the more accepted ways to open a bank account are: A: Call up an established bank and follow their instructions to open a personal account . Make sure you are calling on a real bank, one that has been around a while. Hints: has permanent locations, in the local phone book, and has shares traded on a national stock exchange. Call the bank directly, don't use a number given to you by a 3rd party consultant, as it may be a trick... Discuss on the phone and find out if you can open an account by mail or if you need to visit in person. B: Create a company or branch office in the foreign country, assuming this is for business or investing. and open an account by appointing someone (like a lawyer or accountant or similar professional) in the foreign country to represent the company to open an account in person. If you are a US citizen, you will want to ask your CPA/accountant/tax lawyer about the TD F 90-22.1 Foreign Account Bank Report form, and the FATCA Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. There can be very large fines for not making the required reports. The requirements to open a bank account have become more strict in many countries, so don't be surprised if they will not open an account for a foreigner with no local address, if that is your situation.\"" }, { "docid": "475478", "title": "", "text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\"" }, { "docid": "35079", "title": "", "text": "Each country will have different rules. I can only speak about the Netherlands. There, there are two options as a resident to open an account. You needed a BSN (Dutch ID number) or a strong reference from an international company sponsoring your residence there at a bank branch that dealt frequently with foreign customers. It was not possible to open an account as a nonresident although high wealth customers probably get special treatment. Recent US reporting requirements have made European banks very unwilling to deal with US people. I have received a letter from my Dutch bank saying they will continue my current products but not offer me anything new. If I call the bank, the normal staff cannot see anything about my accounts. I need to call a special international department even for mundane questions." }, { "docid": "97035", "title": "", "text": "I recommend that you first try to use your card at a store in your home country, just to make sure that the point-of-sale features are enabled. After you've verified that, you need to contact your bank and ask them if the card will work in both ATMs and in stores in the U.S. They may need to enable it to work in another country. If you are going to be living in the U.S. for a while, you should consider opening an American bank account after you get there. If you don't want a credit card, you should be able to get a debit card here." }, { "docid": "107747", "title": "", "text": "Is it possible to open a GBP bank account in Pakistan ? Yes, I have one in HBL. Askari and SCB also offer GBP, USD, Yen and Euro Accounts. They might ask for source of income but that shouldn't be a problem. I work in Singapore (should my Salary Slip to open account) and do online remit from my Singapore Account to HBL GBP, the good thing is the exact amount in GBP gets transferred (although I have to tolerate SG Bank's exchange rates) Are there any risks in doing so ? No Risk but caution. If you are a Tax Filer in Pakistan, then you MUST include this account's balance in opening/closing and also mention any remitances receievd in this account under Income and Assets seperately. All money is legit with bank statements of my pay which is between 35K and 40K per year, am I going to have any trouble at airport as limit is £7K only Cash carry limit while travelling has nothing to do with FC (Foreign Currency) Account. You should never travel with more than 10K USD in total." }, { "docid": "402581", "title": "", "text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service." }, { "docid": "408025", "title": "", "text": "I've used ING Direct for several years. Never had any problems with them. They were (and maybe still are?) ahead of the curve on security arrangements. You don't need to have a brick and mortar bank to transfer money in, but it is faster and easier if you do. (At least this is true with my mail account -- see next item.) You don't have to have an online account. You can bank entirely by mail if you want. (At least I have one account set up this way, I assume you can still open an account by mail.) They offer CDs with somewhat mediocre rates that are easy to open and fund online from your savings account. The website is relatively simple to use. I have never had any problems with transfers in or out. When you have to call, you get a human on the phone, quickly. Someone who speaks American English with reasonable diction. (At least it used to be this way, I don't think I've called them in over a year.) I'm a fan of ING, but I do wish they managed to keep their rates on top of the chief competition." }, { "docid": "535918", "title": "", "text": "\"What would be the best strategy to avoid paying income taxes on the sale after I move to another US state? Leaving the US and terminating your US residency before the sale closes. Otherwise consider checking your home country's tax treaty with the US. In any case, for proper tax planning you should employ a licensed tax adviser - an EA, CPA or an attorney licensed in your State (the one you'd be when the sale closes). No-one else is legally allowed to provide you tax advice on the matter. Because the company abroad is befriended, I have control over when (and e.g. in how many chunks) the earnings of the sale flow into my LLC. So I can plan where I live when that money hits my US account. I'm not familiar with the term \"\"befriended\"\" in this context, but form what I understand your description - its a shell corporation under your own control. This means that the transfer of money between the corporation and your LLC is of no consequence, you constructively received the money when the corporation got it, not the LLC. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that there's importance to when the money hits your US bank account. This is irrelevant. The US taxes your worldwide income, so it is taxed when you earn it, not when you transfer it into the country (as opposed to some other countries, for example India or the UK). As such, in your current scheme, it seems to me that you're breaking the US tax law. This is my personal impression, of course, get a professional advice from a licensed tax professional as I defined earlier.\"" }, { "docid": "188167", "title": "", "text": "\"Do not use a shared bank account. One of you can cash/deposit the check in your personal account and then either pay the others in the group cash or write them a check. You open yourself up to many, many problems sharing a bank account and/or money. Treat it like a business as far as income goes, but I would not recommend any type of formal business, LLC, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc. For federal taxes, you just keep track of how much \"\"you\"\" personally are paid and report that at the end of the year as income, most likely on a 1040EZ 1040SE, along with any other income you have.\"" }, { "docid": "294359", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you will find it hard to do. There are money laundering regulations which require you to provide proof of address when opening an account. I don't know for certain if they require an UK address, but even if they don't, it's very likely that individual banks etc will require that. I doubt that they will view you as a profitable customer for them, since you would not be using the account as your \"\"main\"\" account. Although having a job isn't a legal requirement, in practice I think it's the only way you can get an account without having been resident in the country for a while. My company employs a significant number of people from abroad and they typically need support from the company to open an account when they first move. One thing you could investigate is opening an account with some international bank with branches both in Hungary and the UK, and asking them to arrange the UK account for you. One example of such a bank is HSBC. However such banks will typically charge you a significant amount for the privilege - for example with HSBC you need a \"\"premier account\"\" to get this kind of service.\"" }, { "docid": "506108", "title": "", "text": "\"LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is \"\"sole proprietorship\"\"), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues \"\"you\"\", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from \"\"not needed\"\" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs.\"" }, { "docid": "460325", "title": "", "text": "Recommend using quickbooks for account management. If you use the manufacturing and wholesale you can track POs from vendors, estimates, bill payment quotes and invoicing (there's an editor to customize your set up)Also, most accountants are very familiar with this platform so come tax time they'll be able to give you a hand no problem. For accepting payments I highly suggest asking for checks. If you do accept credit cards keep in mind most payment processors charge a percent (1.5-3%) depending on transaction amounts and quantities of transactions. So you'll want to mark up your products by at least that amount. Another area is sales tax. Since you are not the end user you should be able to avoid sales tax on the items you will be selling to customers. You then charge the customer this sales tax. Not sure about NJ but in Texas we are 8.25%. I then pay the state of Texas the taxes collected quarterly. Edit: also make sure you have separate finances for the LLC. Separate checking, separate credit card, separate everything! If you end up using an account that is tied to you personally then you run into the risk of losing the protective nature of an LLC from a legal standpoint. Edit2: by separate I mean using your IRS issued EIN number to open accounts with the LLC name. When you sign anything on behalf of the company make sure to add the name of the company next to it to show the company is making the signature not you. For instance u/sexlessnights Company name, LLC" }, { "docid": "564301", "title": "", "text": "The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail. My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like." }, { "docid": "58614", "title": "", "text": "This link might help determining if American Express is willing to offer a card in the UK. I did it the other way around when moving from the UK to the US and getting a US card was pretty painless; I also didn't have to close the UK card, although I'm probably going to do that fairly soon. You will need a UK bank account so your employer can pay you; If it is a big enough employer their HR department might have deals with a local bank; a smaller employer might simply be able to refer you to their bank to help you open an account there. My first bank account in the UK after moving over there from Germany was with HSBC (then Midland Bank) - HSBC seems to be pretty open towards customers moving to the UK. Plus, they're pretty much everywhere. If you're planning to come back to the US and especially if you have any US-based ongoing expenses, I'd keep at least one bank account in the US open (but keep an eye on it)." }, { "docid": "213331", "title": "", "text": "\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"" }, { "docid": "303685", "title": "", "text": "You could talk to them, but (assuming you're in the U.S.), it's highly doubtful any bank would honor a check from 26 years ago. Most checks in the U.S. are only valid for 180 days, mainly to help companies and banks keep accounting simple. I would suggest talking to your late husband's former employer. Explain the situation and ask if they'd be willing to research it and perhaps honor his memory and contribution to their company by issuing a new check. They might do it as a gesture of good will. Are they legally bound to do this? To my knowledge, the answer is no. The check was issued and never cashed, which is not all that unusual for companies in business for a long time. A good example of this would be rebate checks, which (you'd be surprised) quite frequently end up in a drawer and forgotten about. There has to be some closure for the issuing company in its accounting, else they'd have money in their bank accounts that doesn't properly show in their ledgers. This is an interesting question, though. I hope others will reply, and perhaps they have a more informed take than me. I'm going to upvote it simply because I'd like to see this discussion continue. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "432828", "title": "", "text": "\"This would inevitably lead to a few gatekeepers from which everyone trusts the bonds (ibm GE etc), and millions of small businesses which will have absolutely no access to capital. Once this happens, you will quickly end up with a shadow banking system, where companies like GE switch from making stuff to basically being banks, giving loans to other small businesses with no access to capital, etc. This is basically done in China in a slightly different way, but, the core state-owned enterprises have near unlimited access to capital, and they use this advantage to invest in, and buy up, any and all interesting companies, simply because they're the only organizations that can essentially \"\"print\"\" money. (Whether you agree with it being printing money or not, the fact is GE / IBM would be able to issue bonds almost whenever they want, similar to the Treasury's monthly bond auctions, and other firms simply unable to.) So... then you have a few key companies with nearly unlimited right to \"\"print\"\" (used loosely) cash. They use this advantage to push on other businesses, buy them up, or control them in many ways. And then they use this position to eventually take over anything that looks interesting. What you're imagining as being an open market where everyone's bonds have full information will quickly devolve into information overload, and people choosing the well known brands as their trusted source. Once that happens, the whole idea falls apart, and those few firms will find a way to control not only the money supply, but also who gets to use their money. You will also have situations where some mom-and-pop takes John-LLC bonds as payment for dinner, and when they try to give John-LLC bonds to their suppliers, their suppliers say 'no thanks, we only deal in IBM bonds.\"\" Mom-and-pop will find themselves stuck with paper that nobody wants to accept. And mom-and-pop will quickly find themselves in a cash flow crisis, as they have tons of paper, but none of their suppliers will accept that paper. The only way to get out of this situation would be to convince IBM or GE to give Mom-and-pop some GE bonds in exchange for the John-LLC they have that nobody will accept. Of course, GE and IBM being in the enviable position as some of the few trusted money printers can refuse to accept John-LLC bonds except at a severe discount. \"\"We know John gave you John-LLC bonds to pay for his dinner worth $100, but, we'll only give you $40 worth of GE bonds for it.\"\" Mom-and-pop will quickly be fucked and go out of business due to having no \"\"hard currency\"\" (aka trusted currency) that they can use to purchase their raw materials. Demand for GE bonds will skyrocket as everyone seeks a safe-haven (a trusted currency almost everyone will accept), adn GE will find the entire market begging them to print bonds even at no interest just so that the money supply can increase to hold the full amount of trade occurring in the territory. This is then no different from the Fed during the recession a few years ago (and up until now) where they sell tons of bonds at rock-bottom interest rates simly because all the world is looking for a safe place to put their cash. The difference, of course, is that GE / IBM can take all this money and issue themselves HUGE bonuses, either on the cash directly or on the profit they've amassed by being the only trusted money issuer, whereas government officials can not.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "401731", "title": "", "text": "\"Sorry, even if you never file a claim for Employment Insurance (EI), you don't get your premiums back. So, yes, if you paid into EI and never filed a claim, your contributions are, as you put it, \"\"wasted\"\" – insofar that your premiums provided no direct benefit to you. However, your premiums may have provided a benefit to society, perhaps even your previous colleagues. Yet, some would point out that a good chunk of EI premiums are likely wasted on excessive administration of the program itself. That's government. A couple of cases I'm aware of where you may be refunded some of the EI premiums paid are: Meaning, a legal way to avoid paying into the EI system altogether is to run your own business. Of course, you won't be able to file an EI claim if your business evaporates overnight. Other kinds of claims unavailable to those who don't pay into EI include maternity, parental*, and sickness benefits .. although they recently made some changes to permit the self-employed to opt-in for some special benefits. * except in the province of Quebec, where there is a separate Quebec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP) that also covers the self-employed.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "214358", "title": "", "text": "Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29." }, { "docid": "536849", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"" }, { "docid": "323934", "title": "", "text": "\"Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only \"\"approximate\"\" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The \"\"spread\"\" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the \"\"automatic rebalancing\"\" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the \"\"free money\"\" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees.\"" }, { "docid": "424961", "title": "", "text": "I suggest taking a look at your pay stub or pay statement. Your employer should provide you with one for each time you get paid. This shows your gross income (pay period and year to date or YTD for short) and all stuff that gets deducted and how your actual payment is calculated. In my case there are nine things that get taken off: Other things that might show up there are various life or accident insurances, Child Care flexible spending account, legal & pet insurances, long term disability, etc. Some of those are under your control (through benefit election or contribution choices), others you just have to live with. Still, it's worth spending the time to look at it occasionally." }, { "docid": "545873", "title": "", "text": "There are some circumstances in which it is a good idea. Chris W Rea has already mentioned the case where you expect your marginal tax rate to decrease. But there is also the case where lack of contributions might cause your marginal rate to increase. Assume your income is $20,000 over the 46% threshold, and you normally contribute $20,000 to RRSP. However this year you have only been able to contribute $10,000. If you wait until next year and contribute an extra $10,000 (making $30,000) the extra $10,000 will only bring 35% tax back. If you can borrow the money and make the contribution this year it will get 46% tax back. That makes the loan worth taking. Making the contribution now can also get you a larger rebate this year. You will have that money for twelve extra months and you can invest it. That probably isn't enough to make it worthwhile alone, but it certainly makes the damage less. However I would always recommend taking out an RRSP loan for as short a time as possible. My recommendation would always be to make the contribution as late in the period as possible, apply for your tax refund as soon as you can, and then pay off the loan with the refund. You shoulod be able to get away with having the loan only for a couple of months." }, { "docid": "441626", "title": "", "text": "\"Another thing that insurance companies try to do with these types of vehicles is to promote the \"\"cash value\"\" of the policy. The longer you participate in the policy, the more your cash value goes up (assuming the investments perform reasonably well). The selling point is that at any time you can take out part of that cash value without impacting your insurance policy. A lot of people see that benefit as being the same as either putting the money in the bank or investing it, when actually they could do better if they did either of those things themselves. One true advantage of the whole term policy is that if you should fall on hard times and are not able to work, the premium payments can be taken out of the cash value. That way even if you can't make the monthly payments, the insurance policy basically pays for itself. I actually experienced this myself many years ago after I lost my job and had some health issues. I was out of work a long time, but my life insurance never lapsed. That in itself made it worthwhile for me.\"" }, { "docid": "29300", "title": "", "text": "It is true that with a job that pays you via payroll check that will result in a W-2 because you are an employee, the threshold that you are worried about before you have to file is in the thousands. Unless of course you make a lot of money from bank interest or you have income tax withheld and you want it refunded to you. Table 2 and table 3 in IRS pub 501, does a great job of telling you when you must. For you table 3 is most likely to apply because you weren't an employee and you will not be getting a W-2. If any of the five conditions listed below applied to you for 2016, you must file a return. You owe any special taxes, including any of the following. a. Alternative minimum tax. (See Form 6251.) b. Additional tax on a qualified plan, including an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), or other tax­favored account. (See Pub. 590­A, Contributions to Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); Pub. 590­B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); and Pub. 969, Health Savings Accounts and Other Tax­Favored Health Plans.) But if you are filing a return only because you owe this tax, you can file Form 5329 by itself. c. Social security or Medicare tax on tips you didn't report to your employer (see Pub. 531, Reporting Tip Income) or on wages you received from an employer who didn't withhold these taxes (see Form 8919). d. Write­in taxes, including uncollected social security, Medicare, or railroad retirement tax on tips you reported to your employer or on group­term life insurance and additional taxes on health savings accounts. (See Pub. 531, Pub. 969, and the Form 1040 instructions for line 62.) e. Household employment taxes. But if you are filing a return only because you owe these taxes, you can file Schedule H (Form 1040) by itself. f. Recapture taxes. (See the Form 1040 instructions for lines 44, 60b, and 62.) You (or your spouse if filing jointly) received Archer MSA, Medicare Advantage MSA, or health savings account distributions. You had net earnings from self­employment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) You had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church­controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) Advance payments of the premium tax credit were made for you, your spouse, or a dependent who enrolled in coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. You should have received Form(s) 1095­A showing the amount of the advance payments, if any. It appears that item 3: You had net earnings from self­employment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) would most likely apply. It obviously is not too late to file for 2016, because taxes aren't due for another month. As to previous years that would depend if you made money those years, and how much." }, { "docid": "436897", "title": "", "text": "As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee. If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit. If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution. My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse. They encourage risky behavior and false promises. Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation. Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions." }, { "docid": "98018", "title": "", "text": "The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds." }, { "docid": "457034", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \"\"off exchange\"\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\"\" While employers and plans are not \"\"required\"\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \"\"ACA\"\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage\"\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \"\"all\"\" and \"\"always\"\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \"\"Hobby Lobby\"\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\"" }, { "docid": "209224", "title": "", "text": "EDIT To answer what I think you question is: I do not know of anything other than trip cancellation insurance. And you must be very careful that the policy you purchase for your trip covers the circumstance you described. Essentially, you opted not to take the flight. Not all trip cancellation policies will cover that. How to Find Trip Cancellation Insurance Getting Your Money Back Now This is an Act of God in the insurance world. You cannot reasonably expect the airline to know the future weather pattern anymore than you could, and therefore, since the plane did fly, you owe them the money based on the ticket you bought. You didn't just buy a ticket, there is a contract with rules about refunds and transferring and such. It is a bummer situation, and I understand you point of view, but this isn't the airline's fault. If anybody is to blame for you missing your flight, and therefore not getting a refund, it is your employer. Their requirements for you be in one city and then another are the cause. While your employer cannot predict the weather, they are ultimately the ones who could give you the okay to be late. If you absolutely cannot be late, and it was critical that you drive out and miss your flight, then your company gets to pay for the flight AND the car. That is the cost of doing business for them. This is also why, when flying for business, that you pay the higher price and get the refundable / transferable ticket. They cost more, but situations like these illustrate they are worth it for the company." }, { "docid": "54400", "title": "", "text": "I understand that if I have multiple health insurance policies, I can only make claim from only one of them if ever I incur medical expenses (I'm from the Philippines). In the US, you cannot simultaneously submit a claim for payment of a medical bill, or request reimbursement for a bill already paid, to multiple insurance companies, but if you are covered by more than one policy, then any part of a claim not paid by one company can be submitted to another company that is also covering you. In fact, if you have employer-paid or employer-provided coverage, most insurance companies will want your employer-provided insurance company to be billed first, and will cover whatever is not paid by the employer coverage. For example, if the employer coverage pays 80% of your doctor's bill, the private insurance will pay the remaining 20%. But, the private insurance policies are also quite expensive. Some professional groups in the US offer major medical coverage to their US members, and might be offering this to non-US members as well (though I suspect not). These policies have large deductibles so that coverage kicks in only when the total medical expenses in that year (whether wholly or partially reimbursed, or not reimbursed at all) exceed the large deductible. These types of policies actually pay out to only a few people - if you have more than, say, $20,000 of medical expenses in a year, you have been quite ill, and thus the premiums are usually much smaller than full-fledged coverage insurance policies which pay out much more frequently because of much smaller deductibles." }, { "docid": "550581", "title": "", "text": "\"In addition to the two options in your question - pay off the entire loan, depleting your emergency fund; or continue as you are today - there is a third, middle-ground option that might be worth considering. Since you currently have an emergency fund, zero credit card debt, and you stated \"\"we can afford these expenses\"\", I think I'd be correct to assume that you're currently making regular contributions to either the emergency fund itself, or to another savings account, etc. Temporarily stop making those contributions, and divert those funds to make larger payments towards the upside-down loan. The additional amount will all be applied to the loan principal, reducing the interest you'll have to pay, but you'll avoid the risk of depleting the emergency fund. Additionally, the insurance premium may possibly be avoided, as in many places in the world it's possible to de-register the car (for example, in California, USA, you can submit an affidavit of Non-Use) then terminate the insurance on it. However, the car will likely have to be parked off-street (or in a location such as a private road governed by rules that do not include legal registration requirements).\"" }, { "docid": "357340", "title": "", "text": "Someone messed up here. My tax accountant says she is supposed to enter the values as they are on the W2 and CompanyB said they will not issue a new W2 because they were not involved in the refund of the money. Correct. We decided that we will enter a value different from 12b-d, subtract the money that was refunded to me because it's already on the 1099. Incorrect. Is there an alternative to avoid paying taxes twice on the 401k overages? If not, is there a better way to do this to minimize the risk of an audit? You should enter the amounts in W2 as they are. Otherwise things won't tie at the IRS and they will come back asking questions. The amount in box 12-D was deducted from your wages pre-tax, so you didn't pay tax on it. The distribution is taxable, and if it was made before the tax day next year - only taxable once. So if you withdrew the same year of the contribution, as it sounds like you did, you will only pay tax on it once because the amounts were not included in your salary. If the 1099-R is marked with the correct code, the IRS will be able to match the excess contribution (box 12-D) and the removal of the excess contribution (1099-R with the code) and it will all tie, no-one will audit you. The accountant is probably clueless as to how her software works. By default, the accounting software will add the excess contribution on W2 box 12-D back into wages, and it will be added to taxable income on your tax return. However, when you type in the 1099 with the proper code, this should be reversed by the software, and if it is not - should be manually overridden. This should be done at the adjustment entry, not the W2 entry screen, since a copy of the W2 will be transmitted with your tax return and should match the actual W2 transmitted by your employer. If she doesn't know what she's doing, find someone who does." }, { "docid": "235046", "title": "", "text": "I like this part: &gt;Because insurance companies are required to take all applicants, healthy people (especially the young) would be wise to pay the penalty rather than buy the insurance. This makes the pool of insured individuals sicker and more costly, on average, and their premiums will higher. With higher premiums, more people will choose to pay the penalty, and a downward spiral will unfold. Which is the exact opposite of reality. If you have more people in an insurance pool, premium costs go down, which is the whole point of the individual mandate. It's like they're trying to scare people to not buy health insurance and waste it on a fine instead. Real nice." }, { "docid": "556668", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the key to this question is your last sentence, because it's applicable to everyone, high net-worth or not: How would one determine whether they are better off without insurance? In general, insurance is a net good when the coverage would prevent a 'catastrophic' event. If a catastrophic event doesn't happen, oh well, you wasted money on insurance. If it does happen, you just saved yourself from bankruptcy. These are two separate outcomes, so taking the 'average' cost of a catastrophic event (and weighing that against the more expensive insurance premiums) is not practical. This is a way of reducing risk, not of maximizing returns. Let the insurance company take the risk - they benefit from having a pool of people paying premiums, and you benefit because your own life has less financial risk. Now for something like cheap home electronics, insurance is a bad idea. This is because you now have a 'pool' of potential risks, and your own life experience could be close to the 'average' expected result. Meaning you'll pay more for insurance than you would just replacing broken things. This answer is another good resource on the topic. So to your question, at what point in terms of net-worth does someone's house become equivalent to you and your toaster? Remember that if you have home fire insurance, you are protecting the value of your house, because that loss would be catastrophic to you. But a high net-worth individual would also likely find the loss of their house catastrophic. Unless they are billionaires with multiple 10M+ mansions, then it is quite likely that regardless of wealth, a significant portion of their worth is tied up in their home. Even 10% of your net worth would be a substantial amount. As an example, would someone worth $1M have only a 100k home? Would someone worth $10M have only a $1M Home? Depends on where they live, and how extravagantly. Similarly, if you were worth $10M, you might not need extra insurance on your Toyota Camry, but you might want it if you drive a $1M Ferrari! Not to mention that things like auto insurance may cover you for liability, which could extend beyond the value of your car, into medical and disability costs for anyone in an accident. In fact, being high net-worth may make you more vulnerable to lawsuits, making this insurance even more important. In addition, high net-worth individuals have insurance that you or I have no need of. Things like kidnapping insurance; business operation insurance, life insurance used to secure bank loans. So yes, even high net-worth individuals may fear catastrophic events, and if they have so much money - why wouldn't they pay to reduce that risk? Insurance provides a service to them the same as to everyone else, it's just that the items they consider too 'cheap' too insure are more expensive than a toaster. Edit to counter concerns in some other answers, which say that insurance is \"\"always a bad idea\"\": Imagine you are in a kafka-esque episode of \"\"Let's Make a Deal\"\". Monty Hall shows you two parallel universes, each with 100 doors. You must choose your universe, then choose a door. The first universe is where you bought insurance, and behind every door is a penalty of $200. The second universe is where you didn't buy insurance, and behind 99 doors is nothing, with one random door containing a penalty of $10,000. On average, playing the game 99,999 times, you will come out ahead 2:1 by not buying insurance. But you play the game only maybe 3 times in your life. So which universe do you choose? Now, you might say \"\"pfft - I can cover the cost of a 10k penalty if it happens\"\". But this is exactly the point - insurance (unless already required by law) is a net good when it covers catastrophic losses. If you are wealthy enough to cover a particular loss, you typically shouldn't buy that insurance. That's why no one should insure their toaster. This is not a question of \"\"average returns\"\", it is a question of \"\"risk reduction\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "564344", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, me too, as I said. Actually what I'd really prefer is single payer, but failing that, getting health insurance separated from employment would be a big step forward. If people really knew how much they are paying for health insurance, things would change. I've never worked for an employer that didn't renegotiate health insurance every year, often changing insurance providers every year. To the extent that HR departments are competent in finding the best value, the current environment is pretty dynamic and competitive. Are individuals going to be as competent and well informed as HR departments? I don't know, but I do know that simply making a market free doesn't guarantee lower prices if consumers are ill-informed and bad at making decisions. As for wages, currently companies are not required to carry health insurance, and many have dropped it already without increasing wages, so I don't see an upward pressure on wages from greater employee mobility. But it's true that if there were a single large pool for insurance to be based off of, large businesses would no longer get the pool advantage of health insurance over small businesses. Hence my preference for single-payer, or single-group/multi-payer." }, { "docid": "333219", "title": "", "text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\"" }, { "docid": "121621", "title": "", "text": "\"As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is \"\"100k\"\", \"\"with healthcare\"\", or then \"\"X\"\" \"\"with no healthcare\"\" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "8057", "title": "", "text": "Actually, most insurance policies DON'T have a cash value if you don't make a claim. The reason that some life insurance policies do this is that they are really tax sheltered investments posing as insurance. With that in mind, the root of your question is really whether insurance premiums are wasted if you never make a claim. It really makes no difference if you are talking about EI, Auto, or Homeowner's insurance. My answer to that is no. What you are paying for when you buy insurance is financial risk avoidance. Look at it this way, you don't buy EI as an investment where you hope to get a return on your investment. You are buying the right to be protected against catastrophic financial difficulty associated with losing your job. Whether you claim it or not you did receive that protection. This is what drives me so crazy when I hear people talk about how an insurance company is ripping you off because you paid more in premiums than they paid out in benefits. Of course you did! If most people didn't pay in more than the company paid out there would be no financial interest for someone to form an insurance company." } ]

[ { "docid": "490223", "title": "", "text": "While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all." }, { "docid": "169312", "title": "", "text": "\"Evaluate if the Rs 5 million term insurance is sufficient. Typically the term insurance provided by employer is in the range of 1 to 3 times the gross. Generally one should be covered in the range of 5 to 10 times the Gross. The sooner you start the lesser the premium and you can get insured for a large amount for a long duration at very nominal rate. NOTE: You can also buy a health insurance for your father, note these typically come at high cost, generally if over 70 years of age, 25% is the premium amount and 25% as co-pay. So if your dad doesn't fall ill once in 3 years, its a loss making proposition. Edit: Accident insurance best take is along with rider on term plan. Additional Health insurance is a good idea and helps if you are in between jobs. Plus the new company health insurance can reject a particular treatment as \"\"Pre-Existing\"\". i.e. certain illness [in certain plans] require one to have coverage for 3 years before the claim for it can be covered.\"" }, { "docid": "565614", "title": "", "text": "In all probability, having lower coverage levels will result in higher premiums. As my insurance agent explained to me, the higher your coverages, the lower the insurance company believes your risk to be - because you think about insurance smartly, you're less likely to make spurious claims. I have my coverages run at various levels every 18-24 months, and it is almost always true that higher coverages result in lower premiums. Also, there is no guarantee you'll still be employed by the same company if an injury happens. Or that they'll continue to offer the same plans every year. Insurance is a calculated risk on the part of the insurer, and a means of sharing/deflecting risk (at a cost known as your premium) on the part of the insured. Even if your premiums are slightly higher (on the order of a couple dollars per month, for example), do you really want to save a couple dollars and then be surprised when your health insurance company doesn't want to cover something?" }, { "docid": "41793", "title": "", "text": "\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"" }, { "docid": "357340", "title": "", "text": "Someone messed up here. My tax accountant says she is supposed to enter the values as they are on the W2 and CompanyB said they will not issue a new W2 because they were not involved in the refund of the money. Correct. We decided that we will enter a value different from 12b-d, subtract the money that was refunded to me because it's already on the 1099. Incorrect. Is there an alternative to avoid paying taxes twice on the 401k overages? If not, is there a better way to do this to minimize the risk of an audit? You should enter the amounts in W2 as they are. Otherwise things won't tie at the IRS and they will come back asking questions. The amount in box 12-D was deducted from your wages pre-tax, so you didn't pay tax on it. The distribution is taxable, and if it was made before the tax day next year - only taxable once. So if you withdrew the same year of the contribution, as it sounds like you did, you will only pay tax on it once because the amounts were not included in your salary. If the 1099-R is marked with the correct code, the IRS will be able to match the excess contribution (box 12-D) and the removal of the excess contribution (1099-R with the code) and it will all tie, no-one will audit you. The accountant is probably clueless as to how her software works. By default, the accounting software will add the excess contribution on W2 box 12-D back into wages, and it will be added to taxable income on your tax return. However, when you type in the 1099 with the proper code, this should be reversed by the software, and if it is not - should be manually overridden. This should be done at the adjustment entry, not the W2 entry screen, since a copy of the W2 will be transmitted with your tax return and should match the actual W2 transmitted by your employer. If she doesn't know what she's doing, find someone who does." }, { "docid": "272590", "title": "", "text": "I need to see the policy you are referring to give a more accurate answer. However what could be happening, it’s again the way these instruments are structured; For example if the insurance premium is say 11,000 of which 1000 is toward expenses and Term insurance amount. The Balance 10,000 is invested in growth. The promise is that this will grow max of 9.5% and never below zero. IE say if we are talking only about a year, you can get anything between 10,000 to 10,950. The S & P long-term average return is in the range of 12 -15% [i don't remember correctly] So the company by capping it at 9.5% is on average basis making a profit of 2.5% to 5.5%. IE in a good year say the S & P return is around 18%, the company has pocketed close to 9% more money; On a bad year say the Index gave a -ve return of say 5% ... The Insurance company would take this loss out of the good years. If say when your policy at the S & P for that year has given poor returns, you would automatically get less returns. Typically one enters into Life Insurance on a long term horizon and hence the long term averages should be used as a better reference, and going by that, one would make more money just by investing this in an Index directly. As you whether you want to invest in such a scheme, should be your judgment, in my opinion I prefer to stay away from things that are not transparent." }, { "docid": "266952", "title": "", "text": "\"As a rule of thumb, go in the order of proximity to the transaction. This would typically mean: Side note: I own a website that provides an online service that accepts PayPal and credit cards (via PayPal), and I personally have experience with all 3 of the above options. I can tell you from the merchant's point of view that I would also prefer the same order. I've had people contact my customer service department asking for a refund and we always immediately comply. Some people never contact us and just file a dispute directly with PayPal, and although refunding through the PayPal dispute is just as easy as refunding directly, it always makes me ask, \"\"Why didn't they just contact us first?\"\" One time we had a customer skip us and PayPal, and filed a dispute directly with their Credit Card. The CC company contacted PayPal and PayPal contacted us. The process was the same from my point of view, I just clicked a button saying issue refund. But my $5 refund cost me an additional $20 due to the CC dispute. Now that I know this I will never approve a CC dispute again. Anytime one happens I would just issue a refund directly, and then notify the dispute that their CC has already been refunded, which should end the dispute.\"" }, { "docid": "32072", "title": "", "text": "I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee." }, { "docid": "536849", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"" }, { "docid": "457034", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \"\"off exchange\"\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\"\" While employers and plans are not \"\"required\"\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \"\"ACA\"\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage\"\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \"\"all\"\" and \"\"always\"\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \"\"Hobby Lobby\"\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\"" }, { "docid": "466625", "title": "", "text": "No, it doesn't, but overhead of a worker adds up. We are talking taxes, health insurance now, and tons of restrictions and safety issues that OSHA would come after me for, for being an employer. That, and I run the risk of getting an employee that manages to crash tooling all the time, which I lose money on. If I fire him, I'd have to cover unemployment, and the list goes on. That's something that was not mentioned in the article." }, { "docid": "486398", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: There may or may not be a medical exam, or a physical, as with a life insurance policy. But your medical history is considered in the underwriting process. Disclosure: I once worked as a financial advisor, and held an insurance license for life, annuity and long-term care. It has been 8 years since I left that line of work. There are some \"\"knock-out\"\" questions that the salesperson is encouraged/required to ask just to see if there would be anything obvious that would disqualify you. The only one I can remember from that list is COPD. If you have that as a diagnosis in your personal medical history, the instruction to the salesperson is to not waste anybody's time. There were several other conditions, all with very long technical names. If you're not disqualified by the no-brainer knock-out questions, your medical history will likely be included in the underwriting process. Not every serious illness is an automatic disqualifier, including cancer. It may cause your premiums to be a little higher, as the underwriters will take a closer look and increase your risk profile due to the history. There may be some group policies where underwriting is limited or not required at all. As with all group insurance policies, the healthy members in the group are paying more in premiums than they otherwise would, in order to \"\"subsidize\"\" the premiums of the less healthy members. It's almost always cheaper to get your own personal policy unless you know you wouldn't qualify for it. Then, the group policy might be your only chance for some coverage. Age 60-62 is statistically the best time to purchase LTCI. On average, if you make it to 62, you have a very high chance of making it to 90. (These were the numbers available to me 8 years ago when I was in the business.) After 62, the prices go up a lot faster with each year of age. I can't answer with anything helpful about your spouse's specific situation. It would be good to talk to a licensed insurance broker about it (not a salesman from a specific company). The broker is not necessarily bound to disclose personal details you might have shared with them. The company salesman would be obligated to disclose it to their company.\"" }, { "docid": "564344", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, me too, as I said. Actually what I'd really prefer is single payer, but failing that, getting health insurance separated from employment would be a big step forward. If people really knew how much they are paying for health insurance, things would change. I've never worked for an employer that didn't renegotiate health insurance every year, often changing insurance providers every year. To the extent that HR departments are competent in finding the best value, the current environment is pretty dynamic and competitive. Are individuals going to be as competent and well informed as HR departments? I don't know, but I do know that simply making a market free doesn't guarantee lower prices if consumers are ill-informed and bad at making decisions. As for wages, currently companies are not required to carry health insurance, and many have dropped it already without increasing wages, so I don't see an upward pressure on wages from greater employee mobility. But it's true that if there were a single large pool for insurance to be based off of, large businesses would no longer get the pool advantage of health insurance over small businesses. Hence my preference for single-payer, or single-group/multi-payer." }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "261087", "title": "", "text": "\"Cash/CD's for a house downpayment = Good. Resist the urge to invest this money unless you're not planning on the house for at least 5 years. Roth IRA - Good. Amounts contributed are able to be withdrawn without tax penalties, though you would really need to be in a crisis for this to be a good idea. It's your long-term, retirement money. The earlier you start, the better. Use your 401K at work, if it's offered. Contribute to the Roth as much as you can, as well. Whole life (\"\"Cash value\"\") life insurance: Be careful... Cash-value life insurance (Whole, Universal, Variable Universal) must be watched more closely as you age. Once they reach that \"\"magical\"\" point of being self-sustaining, you cannot relax. The annual cost of insurance is taken from the cash value, which your premium payments replenish. If you stop making premium payments, eventually the cost of insurance (which goes up every year) will erode your cash value down to nothing, at which point more premium must be paid to keep the policy in force. This often happens in your old age, when you can least afford the surprise, and costs are highest. Some advisors get messed up in their priorities when they start depending on the 8-10% commissions they are paid on insurance policies. Since premiums for cash-value policies are far higher than for term policies, you might get some insight into your advisor if they ignore your attempts to consider a term policy. Because of the insurance costs' effects on your cash value, these types of policies are some of the most inefficient and expensive ways to invest. You are better off not investing via a life insurance policy. You don't need life insurance unless someone depends on your financial contribution to their life (spouse and children, for example). Some people just like the peace of mind it brings, and some people want a lump sum to leave as a gift to their loved ones (which is an expensive way to leave a gift). You can have these \"\"feel-good\"\" benefits with a term policy for much less money, if you must have them. Unless you expect to become uninsurable at some point in the future, you should consider using term insurance to meet your life insurance needs until it is no longer needed.\"" }, { "docid": "240323", "title": "", "text": "Here's how the CBO says the top 1% get their income: Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5%" }, { "docid": "235046", "title": "", "text": "I like this part: &gt;Because insurance companies are required to take all applicants, healthy people (especially the young) would be wise to pay the penalty rather than buy the insurance. This makes the pool of insured individuals sicker and more costly, on average, and their premiums will higher. With higher premiums, more people will choose to pay the penalty, and a downward spiral will unfold. Which is the exact opposite of reality. If you have more people in an insurance pool, premium costs go down, which is the whole point of the individual mandate. It's like they're trying to scare people to not buy health insurance and waste it on a fine instead. Real nice." }, { "docid": "269425", "title": "", "text": "At sixty, you are in a different generation, where at least early on loyalty was rewarded. I sit between the x and y generations, and never have I ever felt a sense of loyalty FROM an employer. We all know the score, they'll fire me in a heartbeat if it helps the quarterly numbers, and I'll bail if I can get a better deal elsewhere. I only stick it out if the deal is good, or I don't want to have to explain a short tenure on.my resume. I'm not gonna tough it out with a struggling company if they can't give me my market value, because I know they'll kick me to the curb if I'm in need. There really is no loyalty anywhere in the system anymore, unless your a sucker. Loyalty MUST go both ways, and employers are the ones who gave up on it." }, { "docid": "564675", "title": "", "text": "\"From the details you have given it looks like you have \"\"Unit Linked\"\" insurance policy. In such policies a part of the premium goes towards the \"\"Insurance\"\", the balance is invested into \"\"Mutual Funds / stock Market\"\". It is generally not advisable to have \"\"Unit Linked\"\" policy compared to pure \"\"Term\"\" policy. Generally the amount of fees charged for \"\"Unit Linked\"\" policy is high and hence the returns to the end user are low. i.e. if you buy a \"\"Term\"\" insurance for the same sum insured and invest on your own the balance in any \"\"Mutual Fund\"\" you will end up making more that what you are getting now. Typically these policies have 3 years lock-in period. As you have purchased this in 2008, you can cancel the policy without any penalties. This will save you future premium and you can buy a term insurance and invest the difference yourself. Note the unit linked policy is useful for people who do not invest on their own and this is a good way to be forced into saving than nothing else.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "181787", "title": "", "text": "It is not wasted: it bought you peace of mind. Perhaps you would have had peace of mind without it, because of the particular industry you are in. But people from any industry can get sick or give birth, and not all industries are as evergreen as people think. A number of my onetime programmer colleagues now drive a truck or run a farm because new programming jobs weren't as easy to get as they once were. Like any insurance, it can't be affordable if it is bought only by those who think they will need it. The premiums you pay, in addition to giving you peace of mind, lower the premiums your neighbours pay. That contributes to social harmony. When your neighbours collect EI while looking for another job, they aren't tempted to turn to crime or legal-but-not-savoury ways to earn money. You probably like that, too. The fact they didn't get to choose whether or not to contribute means that they will be covered even if they aren't prudent and forward-looking people, which again is a benefit for you. And BTW, employers pay $1.40 in premiums for every dollar you pay. And we never collect. It's not for us. But we pay it." } ]

[ { "docid": "29300", "title": "", "text": "It is true that with a job that pays you via payroll check that will result in a W-2 because you are an employee, the threshold that you are worried about before you have to file is in the thousands. Unless of course you make a lot of money from bank interest or you have income tax withheld and you want it refunded to you. Table 2 and table 3 in IRS pub 501, does a great job of telling you when you must. For you table 3 is most likely to apply because you weren't an employee and you will not be getting a W-2. If any of the five conditions listed below applied to you for 2016, you must file a return. You owe any special taxes, including any of the following. a. Alternative minimum tax. (See Form 6251.) b. Additional tax on a qualified plan, including an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), or other tax­favored account. (See Pub. 590­A, Contributions to Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); Pub. 590­B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); and Pub. 969, Health Savings Accounts and Other Tax­Favored Health Plans.) But if you are filing a return only because you owe this tax, you can file Form 5329 by itself. c. Social security or Medicare tax on tips you didn't report to your employer (see Pub. 531, Reporting Tip Income) or on wages you received from an employer who didn't withhold these taxes (see Form 8919). d. Write­in taxes, including uncollected social security, Medicare, or railroad retirement tax on tips you reported to your employer or on group­term life insurance and additional taxes on health savings accounts. (See Pub. 531, Pub. 969, and the Form 1040 instructions for line 62.) e. Household employment taxes. But if you are filing a return only because you owe these taxes, you can file Schedule H (Form 1040) by itself. f. Recapture taxes. (See the Form 1040 instructions for lines 44, 60b, and 62.) You (or your spouse if filing jointly) received Archer MSA, Medicare Advantage MSA, or health savings account distributions. You had net earnings from self­employment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) You had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church­controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) Advance payments of the premium tax credit were made for you, your spouse, or a dependent who enrolled in coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. You should have received Form(s) 1095­A showing the amount of the advance payments, if any. It appears that item 3: You had net earnings from self­employment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) would most likely apply. It obviously is not too late to file for 2016, because taxes aren't due for another month. As to previous years that would depend if you made money those years, and how much." }, { "docid": "41793", "title": "", "text": "\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"" }, { "docid": "542971", "title": "", "text": "For the record I am not the one that downvoted you because you raise a decent point/opinion. However, you should consider the impact this has on the rest of us. Many employers have already said that they are not hiring people because of concerns on what the ruling means for them. That could have been a ploy to pressure politicians to back down from it. However, that probably wouldn't explain everything. They are going to paying more for insurance when hiring no doubt. That isn't good when we are already having a hard time getting them back to work. So I wouldn't write off capitalists concerns so easily. Secondly, they aren't going to be able externalize it anymore than before unless they are forced to pay for part-time workers and others previously exempt. I didn't read enough on this to know one way or the other. However, if workers aren't getting anymore coverage from their employers then the added cost (higher premiums) wouldn't mean much for any of us. Actually they would still be externalizing the cost. Instead of the government picking up the bill it would be Americans who aren't getting insurance from the employer who are forced to pay for the penalty." }, { "docid": "500238", "title": "", "text": "\"Your wife is probably not going to be able to get a policy until all tests are complete and the doctors give her a clean bill of health. A change in your health could make your premiums 50% to 75% higher than they would be if you applied for a policy in perfect health. Health history is one of the biggest factor in calculating an LTCi premium. The average age for purchasing a policy is 59. Including all rate increases, the average long-term care insurance premium is $1,591 per year, based on my calculations from a 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners report with 2014 data. Because of new consumer protections designed to prevent rate increases, policies purchased today do cost more than older policies. In 2015, the average premium for a new policy was $2,532 per year, according to a LIMRA survey of most companies selling long-term care insurance. (Couples can get discounts as high as 30 percent when purchasing policies at the same time.) Do NOT work with just a local insurance agent who sells many different types of insurance. ONLY work with an insurance agent who specializes in LTC insurance and that represents at least 7 of the top companies. There are probably a couple of hundred agents in the country that specialize in LTC, are independent agents representing a lot of companies AND have a lot of experience. Interview at least 3 different agents. Get quotes from every agent you speak with and ask each of them their opinion about which policy you should get. Go with the agent who seems the most knowledgeable and professional. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from a \"\"financial advisor\"\". They are usually limited to offering only a few companies (because of their broker/dealer arrangements) and they rarely understand LTC underwriting. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from the company you get auto insurance or home insurance with. And do NOT buy a policy just because your retirement association or alumni association recommends it. SHOP around. In your wife's case it would probably be wise to apply to more than one company at the same time in case one of them denies her application. Here is an article I wrote for NextAvenue.org (a website owned by PBS) which answers some of the most common misconceptions about LTC insurance: An Insurance Agent’s Case for Buying Long-Term Care Insurance.\"" }, { "docid": "248962", "title": "", "text": "\"What is your biggest wealth building tool? Income. If you \"\"nerf\"\" your income with payments to banks, cable, credit card debt, car payments, and lattes then you are naturally handicapping your wealth building. It is sort of like trying to drive home a nail holding a hammer right underneath the head. Normal is broke, don't be normal. Normal obtains student loans while getting an education. You don't have to. You can work part time, or even full time and get a degree. As an example, here is one way to do it in Florida. Get a job working fast food and get your associates degree using a community college that are cheap. Then apply for the state troopers. Go away for about 5 months, earning an income the whole time. You automatically graduate with a job that pays for state schools. Take the next three years (or more if you want an advanced degree) to get your bachelors. Then start your desirable career. What is better to have \"\"wasted\"\" approx 1.5 years being a state trooper, or to have a student loan payment for 20 years? There is not even pressure to obtain employment right after graduation. BTW, I know someone who is doing exactly what I outlined. Every commercial you watch is geared toward getting you to sign on the line that is dotted, often going into debt to do so. Car commercials will tell you that you are a bad mom or not a real man if you don't drive the 2015 whatever. Think differently, throw out your numbers and shoot for zero debt. EDIT: OP, I have a MS in Comp Sci, and started one in finance. My wife also has a masters. We had debt. We paid that crap off. Work like a fiend and do the same. My wife's was significant. She planned on having her employer pay it off for each year she worked there. (Like 20% each year or something.) Guess what, that did not work out! She went to work somewhere else! Live like you are still in college and use all that extra money to get rid of your debt. Student loans are consumer debt.\"" }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "215289", "title": "", "text": "The basis of homeowner's insurance pricing is the AOI, or Amount of Insurance. This pertains to the cost to rebuild the dwelling in the event of a total loss. The standard coverages (e.g., contents, loss of use, medical payments, liability) are calculated relative to this amount. Consequently, the AOI is selected by appraising the value of the dwelling. This is why it is important that if parts of the dwelling are upgraded, that the cost of those upgrades are taken into account. The question is not one of denying claims should a loss occur, unless the nature of the upgrade is such that policy should not have been underwritten in the first place. (This can happen if, for example, the homeowner builds an extension onto the house that damages the structural integrity of the dwelling.) In the end, the AOI is still just an estimate, but the takeaway is that, like scheduled personal property, jewelry, rare collectibles, or other endorsements, every home (and homeowner) has slightly different insurance needs, and it is in your interest to tailor your coverage to be as accurate as possible in reflecting your needs. Insurance is not a one-size-fits-all product; consequently, the selection of sufficient coverage for your mix of risks is only prudent. Now, if after you get a quote back and you find that the premium is too high, you can typically select a deductible that can reduce it, but you have to consider what amount of exposure you are willing to retain. You should shop around, too: different insurers use different methods and criteria to price their products, so even if the coverage is substantially similar, the premiums may vary: for example, some insurers ask whether you own a dog (exposure to liability claims), but others do not. Some insurers put more weight on your dwelling's geographic location (exposure to fire, theft, wind/hail) than others." }, { "docid": "402982", "title": "", "text": "Here are the advantages to the HDHP/HSA option over the PPO option, some of which you've already mentioned: Lower premiums, saving $240 annually. Your employer is contributing $1500 to your HSA. As you mentioned, this covers your deductible if you need it, and if you don't, the $1500 is yours to keep inside your HSA. The ability to contribute more to your HSA. You will be able to contribute additional funds to your HSA and take a tax deduction. Besides the medical expenses applied to your deductible, HSA funds can be spent on medical expenses that are not covered by your insurance, such as dental, vision, chiropractic, etc. Anything left in your HSA at age 65 can be withdrawn just like with a traditional IRA, with tax due (but no penalty) on anything not spent on medical expenses. With the information that you've provided about your two options, I can't think of any scenario where you'd be better off with the PPO. However, you definitely want to look at all the rest of the details to ensure that it is indeed the same coverage between the two options. If you find differences, I wrote an answer on another question that walks you through comparing insurance options under different scenarios." }, { "docid": "171557", "title": "", "text": "\"Just a real-world counterpoint, in the UK, we negotiate the \"\"before tax\"\" salary as some number of pounds per period of time. Out of this amount, income tax is typically deducted and this calculation is quoted on the payslip. (Like most of the rest of the world.) However, there's another grade of income tax called \"\"Employer’s National Insurance\"\". This is calculated just like the other forms of income tax, paid by the employer directly, but the employee never sees this on their payslip and it is not part of the negotiated salary. https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates So say you're an employer and you've budgeted £1000/month for a potential employee's salary. You'd have to offer that person £878.73/month salary to bring the amount you'd actually be paying to the £1000 you've budgeted. Why they do this, I have no idea. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/4917/what-is-the-rationale-for-employers-national-insurance-in-the-uk\"" }, { "docid": "168561", "title": "", "text": "On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above." }, { "docid": "519692", "title": "", "text": "\"For a car, you're typically compelled to carry insurance, and picking up \"\"comprehensive\"\" coverage (fire, theft, act of god) is normally cheap. If the car was purchased with a loan, the lender will stipulate that you carry comprehensive and collision insurance. People buy insurance because it limits their liability. In the grand scheme of things, pricing in a fixed rate of loss every year (insurance premium + potential deductible) is appealing to many versus having to cover a catastrophic loss when your car is wrecked or stolen.\"" }, { "docid": "593173", "title": "", "text": "No not deductible. But - If you work more than one job, you run the risk of having too much SS withheld. Each employer doesn't know what the others pays you. Tax time reconciles this. And much thanks to Dilip for the following clarification - Not only does each employer not know what the others pays you, but even if you tell him, he will not care. He is required to withhold Social Security tax on the wages he pays you (and send in an equal amount as his contribution) regardless of what anyone else pays you. If the sum of your taxable wages from all employers exceed the maximum wages subject to Social Security, the excess withholding is credited towards the income tax due (and thus reduces the amount to be paid or increases the refund you are owed) but the employer's (excess) contribution that he sent in is not returned to him..... Also, there is no such things as excess Medicare tax having been withheld because there is no maximum wage beyond which Medicare tax does not apply." }, { "docid": "359465", "title": "", "text": "As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all." }, { "docid": "266952", "title": "", "text": "\"As a rule of thumb, go in the order of proximity to the transaction. This would typically mean: Side note: I own a website that provides an online service that accepts PayPal and credit cards (via PayPal), and I personally have experience with all 3 of the above options. I can tell you from the merchant's point of view that I would also prefer the same order. I've had people contact my customer service department asking for a refund and we always immediately comply. Some people never contact us and just file a dispute directly with PayPal, and although refunding through the PayPal dispute is just as easy as refunding directly, it always makes me ask, \"\"Why didn't they just contact us first?\"\" One time we had a customer skip us and PayPal, and filed a dispute directly with their Credit Card. The CC company contacted PayPal and PayPal contacted us. The process was the same from my point of view, I just clicked a button saying issue refund. But my $5 refund cost me an additional $20 due to the CC dispute. Now that I know this I will never approve a CC dispute again. Anytime one happens I would just issue a refund directly, and then notify the dispute that their CC has already been refunded, which should end the dispute.\"" }, { "docid": "490223", "title": "", "text": "While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all." }, { "docid": "424961", "title": "", "text": "I suggest taking a look at your pay stub or pay statement. Your employer should provide you with one for each time you get paid. This shows your gross income (pay period and year to date or YTD for short) and all stuff that gets deducted and how your actual payment is calculated. In my case there are nine things that get taken off: Other things that might show up there are various life or accident insurances, Child Care flexible spending account, legal & pet insurances, long term disability, etc. Some of those are under your control (through benefit election or contribution choices), others you just have to live with. Still, it's worth spending the time to look at it occasionally." }, { "docid": "565614", "title": "", "text": "In all probability, having lower coverage levels will result in higher premiums. As my insurance agent explained to me, the higher your coverages, the lower the insurance company believes your risk to be - because you think about insurance smartly, you're less likely to make spurious claims. I have my coverages run at various levels every 18-24 months, and it is almost always true that higher coverages result in lower premiums. Also, there is no guarantee you'll still be employed by the same company if an injury happens. Or that they'll continue to offer the same plans every year. Insurance is a calculated risk on the part of the insurer, and a means of sharing/deflecting risk (at a cost known as your premium) on the part of the insured. Even if your premiums are slightly higher (on the order of a couple dollars per month, for example), do you really want to save a couple dollars and then be surprised when your health insurance company doesn't want to cover something?" }, { "docid": "32072", "title": "", "text": "I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee." }, { "docid": "486398", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: There may or may not be a medical exam, or a physical, as with a life insurance policy. But your medical history is considered in the underwriting process. Disclosure: I once worked as a financial advisor, and held an insurance license for life, annuity and long-term care. It has been 8 years since I left that line of work. There are some \"\"knock-out\"\" questions that the salesperson is encouraged/required to ask just to see if there would be anything obvious that would disqualify you. The only one I can remember from that list is COPD. If you have that as a diagnosis in your personal medical history, the instruction to the salesperson is to not waste anybody's time. There were several other conditions, all with very long technical names. If you're not disqualified by the no-brainer knock-out questions, your medical history will likely be included in the underwriting process. Not every serious illness is an automatic disqualifier, including cancer. It may cause your premiums to be a little higher, as the underwriters will take a closer look and increase your risk profile due to the history. There may be some group policies where underwriting is limited or not required at all. As with all group insurance policies, the healthy members in the group are paying more in premiums than they otherwise would, in order to \"\"subsidize\"\" the premiums of the less healthy members. It's almost always cheaper to get your own personal policy unless you know you wouldn't qualify for it. Then, the group policy might be your only chance for some coverage. Age 60-62 is statistically the best time to purchase LTCI. On average, if you make it to 62, you have a very high chance of making it to 90. (These were the numbers available to me 8 years ago when I was in the business.) After 62, the prices go up a lot faster with each year of age. I can't answer with anything helpful about your spouse's specific situation. It would be good to talk to a licensed insurance broker about it (not a salesman from a specific company). The broker is not necessarily bound to disclose personal details you might have shared with them. The company salesman would be obligated to disclose it to their company.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "583788", "title": "", "text": "I would suggest they are not wasted because your premiums fund unemployment insurance, which is a net to prevent people from going under if they lose their jobs. Unemployment insurance is in many ways an incubator for success because it allows an entrepreneur to take more risk in starting a business because failure won't mean devastation. Perhaps that person who took the risk because of the ability to fail started the business that you now work for. Society works better (in my opinion) by keeping the bottom closer to the top. Paying into the unemployment insurance fund indirectly provides you opportunity." } ]

[ { "docid": "266952", "title": "", "text": "\"As a rule of thumb, go in the order of proximity to the transaction. This would typically mean: Side note: I own a website that provides an online service that accepts PayPal and credit cards (via PayPal), and I personally have experience with all 3 of the above options. I can tell you from the merchant's point of view that I would also prefer the same order. I've had people contact my customer service department asking for a refund and we always immediately comply. Some people never contact us and just file a dispute directly with PayPal, and although refunding through the PayPal dispute is just as easy as refunding directly, it always makes me ask, \"\"Why didn't they just contact us first?\"\" One time we had a customer skip us and PayPal, and filed a dispute directly with their Credit Card. The CC company contacted PayPal and PayPal contacted us. The process was the same from my point of view, I just clicked a button saying issue refund. But my $5 refund cost me an additional $20 due to the CC dispute. Now that I know this I will never approve a CC dispute again. Anytime one happens I would just issue a refund directly, and then notify the dispute that their CC has already been refunded, which should end the dispute.\"" }, { "docid": "490223", "title": "", "text": "While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all." }, { "docid": "500238", "title": "", "text": "\"Your wife is probably not going to be able to get a policy until all tests are complete and the doctors give her a clean bill of health. A change in your health could make your premiums 50% to 75% higher than they would be if you applied for a policy in perfect health. Health history is one of the biggest factor in calculating an LTCi premium. The average age for purchasing a policy is 59. Including all rate increases, the average long-term care insurance premium is $1,591 per year, based on my calculations from a 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners report with 2014 data. Because of new consumer protections designed to prevent rate increases, policies purchased today do cost more than older policies. In 2015, the average premium for a new policy was $2,532 per year, according to a LIMRA survey of most companies selling long-term care insurance. (Couples can get discounts as high as 30 percent when purchasing policies at the same time.) Do NOT work with just a local insurance agent who sells many different types of insurance. ONLY work with an insurance agent who specializes in LTC insurance and that represents at least 7 of the top companies. There are probably a couple of hundred agents in the country that specialize in LTC, are independent agents representing a lot of companies AND have a lot of experience. Interview at least 3 different agents. Get quotes from every agent you speak with and ask each of them their opinion about which policy you should get. Go with the agent who seems the most knowledgeable and professional. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from a \"\"financial advisor\"\". They are usually limited to offering only a few companies (because of their broker/dealer arrangements) and they rarely understand LTC underwriting. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from the company you get auto insurance or home insurance with. And do NOT buy a policy just because your retirement association or alumni association recommends it. SHOP around. In your wife's case it would probably be wise to apply to more than one company at the same time in case one of them denies her application. Here is an article I wrote for NextAvenue.org (a website owned by PBS) which answers some of the most common misconceptions about LTC insurance: An Insurance Agent’s Case for Buying Long-Term Care Insurance.\"" }, { "docid": "466625", "title": "", "text": "No, it doesn't, but overhead of a worker adds up. We are talking taxes, health insurance now, and tons of restrictions and safety issues that OSHA would come after me for, for being an employer. That, and I run the risk of getting an employee that manages to crash tooling all the time, which I lose money on. If I fire him, I'd have to cover unemployment, and the list goes on. That's something that was not mentioned in the article." }, { "docid": "388471", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/reforming-national-flood-insurance-program-toward-private-flood) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The National Flood Insurance Program was established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, with the intent of reducing the need for post-disaster federal aid by offering flood insurance and providing mitigation incentives to properties that have significant flood risks. &gt; The 2014 Wharton School research outlined earlier demonstrated that private insurance firms have the technical capacity to price insurance more accurately than the NFIP. A proliferation of private insurance offerings could thus lead to savings for those NFIP homeowners who are currently paying overpriced premiums because of overly broad risk aggregation. &gt; Congress took a major step in 2012 toward normalizing private flood insurance by requiring that federally backed lenders accept private insurance, but legal impediments to private flood insurance penetration remain. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z4pad/reforming_the_national_flood_insurance_program/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~207249 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Insurance**^#1 **NFIP**^#2 **Flood**^#3 **private**^#4 **risk**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "41793", "title": "", "text": "\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"" }, { "docid": "168561", "title": "", "text": "On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above." }, { "docid": "81886", "title": "", "text": "Here's how the CBO says the top 1% got their income in 2013 (latest data): Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5% And here are there definitions of the types of income: * Labor income—Cash wages and salaries, including those allocated by employees to 401(k) plans; employer-paid health insurance premiums; the employer’s share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes; and the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers. * Business income—Net income from businesses and farms operated solely by their owners, partnership income, and income from S corporations. * Capital gains—Profits realized from the sale of assets. Increases in the value of assets that have not been realized through sales are not included in the Congressional Budget Office’s measure of market income. * Capital income (excluding capital gains)—Taxable and tax-exempt interest, dividends paid by corporations (but not dividends from S corporations, which are considered part of business income), positive rental income, and the share of corporate income taxes borne by owners of capital. * Other income—Income received in retirement for past services and other sources of income." }, { "docid": "201012", "title": "", "text": "To add to JoeTaxpayer's answer, the cost of providing (term) life insurance for one year increases with the age of the insured. Thus, if you buy a 30-year term policy with level premiums (the premium is the same for 30 years) then, during the earlier years, you pay more than the cost to the insurance company for providing the benefit. In later years, you pay somewhat less than the cost of providing the insurance. The excess premiums that the insurance company charged in earlier years and the earnings from investing that money covers the difference between the premium paid in later years and the true cost of providing the coverage. If after 20 years you decide that you no longer need the protection (children have grown up and now have jobs etc) and you cancel the policy, you will have overpaid for the protection that you got. The insurance company will not give you backsies on the overpayment. As an alternative, you might want to consider a term life insurance policy in which the premiums increase each year (or increase every 5 years) and thus better approximate the actual cost to the insurance company. One advantage is that you pay less in early life and pay more in later years (when hopefully your income will have increased and you can afford to pay more). Thus, you can get a policy with a larger face value (150K for your wife and 400K for yourself is really quite small) with annual premium of $550 now and more in later years. Also if you decide to cancel the policy after 20 years, you will not have overpaid for the level of coverage provided. Finally, in addition to a policy with larger face value, I recommend that you include the mortgage (if any) on your house in the amount that you decide is enough for your family to live on and to send the kids to college, etc., or get a separate (term life insurance) policy to cover the mortgage on your home. Many mortgage contracts have clauses to the effect that the entire principal owed becomes immediately due if either of the borrowers dies. Yes, the widow or widower can get a replacement mortgage, or prove to the lender that the monthly payments will continue as before, (or pay off the mortgage from that $150K or $400K which will leave a heck of a lot less for the family to survive on) etc., but in the middle of dealing with all the hassles created by a death in the family, this is one headache that can be taken care of now. The advantage of including the mortgage amount in a single policy that will support the family when you are gone is that you get a bit of a break; the sum of the annual premiums on ten policies for $100K is more than the premiums for a single $1M policy. There is also the consideration that the principal owed on the mortgage declines over the years (very slowly at first, though) and so there will be more money available for living expenses in later years. Alternatively, consider a special term life insurance policy geared towards mortgage coverage. The face value of this policy reduces each year to match the amount still due on the mortgage. Note that you may already have such a policy in place because the lender has insisted on you getting such a policy as a condition for issuing the loan. In this case, keep in mind that not only is the lender the beneficiary of such a policy, but if you bought the policy through the lender, you are providing extra profit to the lender; you can get a similar policy at lower premiums on the open market than the policy that your lender has so thoughtfully provided you. I bought mine from a source that caters to employees of nonprofit organizations and public sector employees; your mileage may vary." }, { "docid": "98018", "title": "", "text": "The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds." }, { "docid": "457034", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \"\"off exchange\"\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\"\" While employers and plans are not \"\"required\"\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \"\"ACA\"\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage\"\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \"\"all\"\" and \"\"always\"\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \"\"Hobby Lobby\"\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\"" }, { "docid": "269425", "title": "", "text": "At sixty, you are in a different generation, where at least early on loyalty was rewarded. I sit between the x and y generations, and never have I ever felt a sense of loyalty FROM an employer. We all know the score, they'll fire me in a heartbeat if it helps the quarterly numbers, and I'll bail if I can get a better deal elsewhere. I only stick it out if the deal is good, or I don't want to have to explain a short tenure on.my resume. I'm not gonna tough it out with a struggling company if they can't give me my market value, because I know they'll kick me to the curb if I'm in need. There really is no loyalty anywhere in the system anymore, unless your a sucker. Loyalty MUST go both ways, and employers are the ones who gave up on it." }, { "docid": "240685", "title": "", "text": "\"Okay, definitive answer for this particular company (Toyota Finance) is (somewhat surprisingly, and glad I asked) it must be fully insured at all times, including liability, even if being stored. I asked at a dealership and they answered \"\"just fire and theft (of course)\"\" but I ended up calling their finance department and the answer was the opposite. So there you go. Thanks for the answers (and for trying to talk me out of wasting money).\"" }, { "docid": "149210", "title": "", "text": "If you are the only contributor to the premiums, you will not owe income taxes on the benefits. Only the portion of the benefits you receive which were paid by your employer are taxable. Source: IRS 'Life Insurance & Disability Insurance Proceeds' Question: I am receiving long-term disability. Is it considered taxable? If you pay the entire cost of a health or accident insurance plan, do not include any amounts you receive for your disability as income on your tax return EDIT: In regards to @NateEldredge's comment: If you are inquiring about the premiums, then yes, you have to pay income tax on the portion of income that pays the premiums (it's a post-tax expense and is not tax-deductible)" }, { "docid": "564344", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, me too, as I said. Actually what I'd really prefer is single payer, but failing that, getting health insurance separated from employment would be a big step forward. If people really knew how much they are paying for health insurance, things would change. I've never worked for an employer that didn't renegotiate health insurance every year, often changing insurance providers every year. To the extent that HR departments are competent in finding the best value, the current environment is pretty dynamic and competitive. Are individuals going to be as competent and well informed as HR departments? I don't know, but I do know that simply making a market free doesn't guarantee lower prices if consumers are ill-informed and bad at making decisions. As for wages, currently companies are not required to carry health insurance, and many have dropped it already without increasing wages, so I don't see an upward pressure on wages from greater employee mobility. But it's true that if there were a single large pool for insurance to be based off of, large businesses would no longer get the pool advantage of health insurance over small businesses. Hence my preference for single-payer, or single-group/multi-payer." }, { "docid": "121621", "title": "", "text": "\"As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is \"\"100k\"\", \"\"with healthcare\"\", or then \"\"X\"\" \"\"with no healthcare\"\" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either.\"" }, { "docid": "374722", "title": "", "text": "On topic of Healthcare needs, I think it depend on individual. For example, my employer's dental plan offer PPO $34 per month and DMO $12 per month. I have my favor dentist that I have been going for years. He only accept PPO. I already had most of my dental works done so I only use him for teeth clean. He charge $100 without insurance and free with insurance. I can only use my insurance for teeth clean twice a year so $34x12 = $408 vs $200. If I go with DMO, I won't get to see my doctor and since I get my teeth once a year why not just save that money and go to my favor doctor instead the DMO doctors and if I need major dental works done which isn't immediate. I can go to Taiwan for dental works that is way cheaper than U.S. I think if you're a healthy young man/women. You should put more money toward your retirement and only keep insurance for emergency. You can do a medical tourism mentioned in 60 minutes that can be more cost effective and those doctors are U.S. trained. For older folks, a full Health care insurance is more needed than retirement. Just my two cents." }, { "docid": "486398", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: There may or may not be a medical exam, or a physical, as with a life insurance policy. But your medical history is considered in the underwriting process. Disclosure: I once worked as a financial advisor, and held an insurance license for life, annuity and long-term care. It has been 8 years since I left that line of work. There are some \"\"knock-out\"\" questions that the salesperson is encouraged/required to ask just to see if there would be anything obvious that would disqualify you. The only one I can remember from that list is COPD. If you have that as a diagnosis in your personal medical history, the instruction to the salesperson is to not waste anybody's time. There were several other conditions, all with very long technical names. If you're not disqualified by the no-brainer knock-out questions, your medical history will likely be included in the underwriting process. Not every serious illness is an automatic disqualifier, including cancer. It may cause your premiums to be a little higher, as the underwriters will take a closer look and increase your risk profile due to the history. There may be some group policies where underwriting is limited or not required at all. As with all group insurance policies, the healthy members in the group are paying more in premiums than they otherwise would, in order to \"\"subsidize\"\" the premiums of the less healthy members. It's almost always cheaper to get your own personal policy unless you know you wouldn't qualify for it. Then, the group policy might be your only chance for some coverage. Age 60-62 is statistically the best time to purchase LTCI. On average, if you make it to 62, you have a very high chance of making it to 90. (These were the numbers available to me 8 years ago when I was in the business.) After 62, the prices go up a lot faster with each year of age. I can't answer with anything helpful about your spouse's specific situation. It would be good to talk to a licensed insurance broker about it (not a salesman from a specific company). The broker is not necessarily bound to disclose personal details you might have shared with them. The company salesman would be obligated to disclose it to their company.\"" }, { "docid": "536849", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "590276", "title": "", "text": "\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \"\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "176327", "title": "", "text": "\"From my recollection of Warren Buffett's book \"\"Warren Buffett and the Art of Arbitrage\"\", the following factors determine the difference between the market price of a stock and the future expected price of an acquisition or merger: Time: Assuming the deal will close, the market price should approach the offer price as the closing date approaches. The fact that there is a 14% spread partially reflects the time value of money. Probability: Things could happen between now and closing date which could derail the deal. The higher the spread the more likely the market thinks the deal will not occur. For example, LO shareholders could reject the offer saying it is too low, or anti-trust regulators could say the deal is anti-competitive. Part of this 14% spread indicates the probability of the deal completing.\"" }, { "docid": "543874", "title": "", "text": "\"common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns. I guess its more like very few investor can beat the market, a vast Majority cannot / do not. What evidence exists for or against this? Obviously we can have a comparison of all investors. If we start taking a look at some of the Actively Managed Funds. Given that Fund Managers are experts compared to common individual investors, if we compare this, we can potentially extend it more generically to others. Most funds beat the markets for few years, as you keep increasing the timeline, i.e. try seeing 10 year 15 year 20 year return; this is easy the data is available, you would realize that no fund consistently beat the index. Few years quite good, few years quite bad. On Average most funds were below market returns especially if one compares on longer terms or 10 - 20 years. Hence the perception Of course we all know Warren Buffet has beat the market by leaps and bounds. After the initial success, people like Warren Buffet develop the power of \"\"Self Fulfilling Prophecy\"\". There would be many other individuals.\"" }, { "docid": "198229", "title": "", "text": "Remember that unless you participate in the actual fund that these individuals offer to the public, you will not get the same returns they will. If you instead do something like, look at what Warren Buffet's fund bought/sold yesterday (or even 60 minutes ago), and buy/sell it yourself, you will face 2 obstacles to achieving their returns: 1) The timing difference will mean that the value of the stock purchased by Warren Buffet will be different for your purchase and for his purchase. Because these investors often buy large swathes of stock at once, this may create large variances for 2 reasons: (a) simply buying a large volume of a stock will naturally increase the price, as the lowest sell orders are taken up, and fewer willing sellers remain; and (b) many people (including institutional investors) may be watching what someone like Warren Buffet does, and will want to follow suit, chasing the same pricing problem. 2) You cannot buy multiple stocks as efficiently as a fund can. If Warren Buffet's fund holds, say, 50 stocks, and he trades 1 stock per day [I have absolutely no idea about what diversification exists within his fund], his per-share transaction costs will be quite low, due to share volume. Whereas for you to follow him, you would need 50 transactions upfront, + 1 per day. This may appear to be a small cost, but it could be substantial. Imagine if you wanted to invest 50k using this method - that's $1k for each of 50 companies. A $5 transaction fee would equal 1% of the value of each company invested [$5 to buy, and $5 to sell]. How does that 1% compare to the management fee charged by the actual fund available to you? In short, if you feel that a particular investor has a sound strategy, I suggest that you consider investing with them directly, instead of attempting to recreate their portfolio." }, { "docid": "106620", "title": "", "text": "\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "469687", "title": "", "text": "I'll give you my quick and dirty way to value a company: A quick and dirty valuation could be: equity + 10 times profit. This quick way protects you from investing in companies in debt, or losing money. To go more in-depth you need to assess future profit, etc. I recommend the book from Mary Buffett about Warren Buffett's investing style." }, { "docid": "386437", "title": "", "text": "If the cash flow information is complete, the valuation can be determined with relative accuracy and precision. Assuming the monthly rent is correct, the annual revenue is $1,600 per year, $250/mo * 12 months - $1,400/year in taxes. Real estate is best valued as a perpetuity where P is the price, i is the income, and r is the rate of interest. Theoreticians would suggest that the best available rate of interest would be the risk free rate, a 30 year Treasury rate ~3.5%, but the competition can't get these rates, so it is probably unrealistic. Anways, aassuming no expenses, the value of the property is $1,600 / 0.035 at most, $45,714.29. This is the general formula, and it should definitely be adjusted for expenses and a more realistic interest rate. Now, with a better understanding of interest rates and expenses, this will predict the most likely market value; however, it should be known that whatever interest rate is applied to the formula will be the most likely rate of return received from the investment. A Graham-Buffett value investor would suggest using a valuation no less than 15% since to a value investor, there's no point in bidding unless if the profits can be above average, ~7.5%. With a 15% interest rate and no expenses, $1,600 / .15, is $10,666.67. On average, it is unlikely that a bid this low will be successful; nevertheless, if multiple bids are placed using this similar methodology, by the law of small numbers, it is likely to hit the lottery on at most one bid." }, { "docid": "395771", "title": "", "text": "Right. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the tax code is thousands of pages long and so complex that even most tax attorneys probably don't understand it in its entirety, let alone the average tax payer. There couldn't be *any* flaw in the system *except* that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett don't just fund the government all by themselves." }, { "docid": "41809", "title": "", "text": "Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway took a 50% loss in each of the last two bear markets. His stock even lost 10% in 2015 when the S&P lost 8%. He doesn't have a track record to support the claim that his stock performs relatively better in a bear market, so perhaps it's best to take his letter with a grain of salt. Edit: As one commenter points out, Mr. Buffett is comparing the book performance of his fund to the market performance of an index. That is an apples to oranges comparison. It's deceptive at best." }, { "docid": "100283", "title": "", "text": "\"I hate to point this out, but have you heard of this guy Trump, or Warren Buffet (although his son seems to be very competent and grounded, to some degree). The US is also plagued with this problem where family companies remain so through leadership, they also tend to fail at greater rates than our publicly ran companies. I suppose Samsung is public company, but why having stock on the open KRX doesn’t lead to better leadership is beyond me to understand? EDIT:My bad for bringing Trump into this, it was meant as an example of wealth distribution which translates into capacity for business options, and he's well known. However you guys need to do some more research before throwing shade, Howard Buffet has taken over Berkshire Hathaway in a non-executive role, while also holding board positions on a multitude of companies in which BH own significant portions including coca-cola. I wasn't pointing out Warren is incompetent in any way, just he passed the reins off to family too in many ways. \"\"In December 2011, Warren Buffett told CBS News that he would like his son Howard to succeed him as Berkshire Hathaway's non-executive chairman.\"\" Apologies for lack of clarity in my statement.\"" }, { "docid": "470759", "title": "", "text": "A lot of people probably don't agree with him, but Warren Buffett has some great quotes on why he doesn't invest in gold: I will say this about gold. If you took all the gold in the world, it would roughly make a cube 67 feet on a side…Now for that same cube of gold, it would be worth at today’s market prices about $7 trillion dollars – that’s probably about a third of the value of all the stocks in the United States…For $7 trillion dollars…you could have all the farmland in the United States, you could have about seven Exxon Mobils, and you could have a trillion dollars of walking-around money…And if you offered me the choice of looking at some 67 foot cube of gold and looking at it all day, and you know me touching it and fondling it occasionally…Call me crazy, but I’ll take the farmland and the Exxon Mobils. And his classic quote: [Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." }, { "docid": "566601", "title": "", "text": "The steps you outlined are fine by themselves. Step 5, seeking criticism can be less helpful than one may think. See stocktwits.com There are a lot of opposing opinions all of which can be correct over different time-frames. Try and quantify your confidence and develop different strategies for different confidence levels. I was never smart enough or patient with follow through to be a successful value investor. It was very frustrating to watch stocks trade sideways for years before the company's intrinsic value was better reflected in the market. Also, you could make an excellent pick, but a macro change and slump could set you back a year and raise doubts. In my experience portfolio management techniques like asset allocation and dollar-cost-averaging is what made my version of value investing work. Your interest in 10k/10q is something to applaud. Is there something specific about 10k/10q that you do not understand? Context is key, these types of reports are more relevant and understandable when compared to competitors in the same sector. It is good to assess over confidence! It is also good to diversify your knowledge and the effort put into Securities Analysis 6th edition will help with other books in the field. I see a bit of myself in your post, and if you are like me, than subsequent readings, and full mastery of the concepts in 'Securities & Analysis 6th ed.' will lead to over confidence, or a false understanding as there are many factors at play in the market. So many, that even the most scientific approaches to investing can just as equally be described as an 'art'. I'm not aware of the details of your situation, but in general, for you to fully realize the benefits from applying the principals of value investing shared by Graham and more recently Warren Buffett, you must invest on the level that requires use of the consolidation or equity method of accounting, e.g. > 20% ownership. Sure, the same principals used by Buffett can work on a smaller scale, but a small scale investor is best served by wealth accumulation, which can take many forms. Not the addition of instant equity via acquisitions to their consolidated financials. Lastly, to test what you have learned about value investing, and order execution, try the inverse. At least on paper. Short a stock with low value and a high P/E. TWTR may be a good example? Learn what it is like to have your resources at stake, and the anguish of market and security volatility. It would be a lot easier to wait it out as a long-term value investor from a beach house in Santa Barbara :)" }, { "docid": "106786", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd suggest you to separate \"\"doing good\"\" from \"\"earning profit\"\". Look at the guys like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (or Carnegie and Ford for that matters). They understand that you can't reconcile the two goals, so they donate for free what they earned for profit. If you want to make a social impact with your money, you can check the charity programs that have a confirmed record of a positive impact on people's lives. Non-profits that studied such programs publish their results extensively: AidGrade compiles this research and suggests direct donations to the programs that demonstrated best outcomes per dollar invested:\"" }, { "docid": "37561", "title": "", "text": "I have a personal theory that due to Warren Buffett having the entire faith and backing of Wall Street, that it definitely plays into his returns. Look at the mortgage originator he sank money into that was truly a terrible business. A whole lot of Wall Street poured money into it right after as well. I don't think he would be as consistent if he were only buying a handful of shares and couldn't influence the entire price as a whole, but I'm not denying historically he's made a lot of good picks." }, { "docid": "246624", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"" }, { "docid": "123356", "title": "", "text": "\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\"" }, { "docid": "415616", "title": "", "text": "Regarding investing in gold vs. stocks, I don't think I could say it better than Warren Buffett: You could take all the gold that's ever been mined, and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that's worth at current gold prices, you could buy all -- not some -- all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon Mobils, plus have $1 trillion of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take? Which is going to produce more value?" }, { "docid": "306462", "title": "", "text": "\"Possibly, if you can get them at a discount. But not if you have to pay full price. Say there's a $1 million Jackpot for $1 tickets. The seller might sell 1.25 million of these tickets, to raise $1.25 million pay a winner $1 million, and keep $250,000. In this example, the so-called \"\"expected value\"\" of your $1 ticket is $1 million/1.25 million tickets= 80 cents, which is less than $1. If someone were willing to \"\"dump\"\" his ticket for say, 50 cents, what you paid would be less than the expected value, and over enough \"\"trials,\"\" you would make a profit. Warren Buffett used to say that he would never buy a lottery ticket, but would not refuse one given to him free. That's the ultimate \"\"discount.\"\" Larger Jackpots would work on the same principle; you would lose money \"\"on average\"\" for buying a ticket. So it's not the size of the Jackpot but the size of the discount that determines whether or not it is worthwhile to buy a lottery ticket.\"" }, { "docid": "374737", "title": "", "text": "\"Stocks \"\"go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index....\"\" This was true in the 20th century in America. It was not true (over the whole century) for other major countries like Germany, Russia, Japan, or China. (It was more or less true for Britain and certain Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada.) A lot of this had to do with which countries were occupied (or not) during the two world wars. In one of his company's annual reports, Warren Buffett pointed out that the U.S. standard of living went up 6-7 times in the 20th century, that this was unprecedented (and might not be repeatable in the 21st century). The performance of the U.S. stock market in the past century is representative of those (and other) past facts. If a different set of facts prevails going forward, the U.S. stock market would be reflective of those \"\"different\"\" facts.\"" }, { "docid": "105165", "title": "", "text": "\"Excellent question, though any why question can be challenging to answer because it depends on the financial products in question. At least, I haven't seen many target date retirement funds that include a high percent of foreign stocks, so below explains the ones I've seen which are primarily US stocks. The United States (before the last twenty years) has been seen as a country of stability. This is not true anymore, and it's difficult for my generation to understand because we grew up in the U.S.A being challenged (and tend to think that China and India have always been powers), but when we read investors, like Benjamin Graham (who had significant influence with Warren Buffett), we can see this bias - the U.S.A to them is stable, and other countries are \"\"risky.\"\" Again, with the national debt and the political game in our current time, it does not feel this way. But that bias is often reflect in financial instruments. The US Dollar is still the reserve currency, though it's influence is declining and I would expect it to decline. Contrary to my view (because I could be wrong here) is Mish, who argues that no one wants to have the reserve currency because having a reserve currency brings disadvantages (see here: Bogus Threats to US Reserve Currency Status: No Country Really Wants It!; I present this to show that my view could be wrong). Finally, there tends to be the \"\"go with what you know.\"\" Many of these funds are managed by U.S. citizens, so they tend to have a U.S. bias and feel more comfortable investing their money \"\"at home\"\" (in fact a famous mutual fund manager, Peter Lynch, had a similar mentality - buy the company behind the stock and what company do we tend to know best? The ones around us.). One final note, I'm not saying this mentality is correct, just what the attitude is like. I think you may find that younger mutual fund managers tend to include more foreign stocks, as they've seen that different world.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "175524", "title": "", "text": "There are banks and credit unions that don't charge fee for incoming wire transfer. You most likely won't get that from big brick and mortar banks like BofA, Citi but if you are doing it regularly, using another bank that offers it free would save you a lot. Since ACH are free, you can transfer money between those banks to your regular bank (e.g. BofA) for free. There would be delay involved in this process due to additional ACH. You could also use one these banks as your primary bank to avoid that delay. Credit unions are also generally fee friendly and many would offer free incoming wire transfer. However you are limited to what is available to you as all of them would have some membership criteria." } ]

[ { "docid": "40241", "title": "", "text": "\"You understood it pretty right. Every fiscal year (which runs from April 6 year Y to April 5 year Y+1), you can deposit a total GBP15k (this number is subject to an annual increase by HMRC) into your ISAs. You can open 2 new ISA every year but the amount deposited to those ISAs shall not excess GBP15k in total. From the 2016/17 tax year some ISAs now permit you to replace any funds you have withdrawn, without using up your allowance. It used to be that if you deposited GBP15K and then withdrew GBP5K, you could not pay in to that ISA again within that tax year as you had already used your full allowance. Under new Flexible ISA rules this would be allowed providing you replace the funds in the same ISA account and within the same tax year (strongly recommend that you check the small prints related to your account to make sure this is he case). Any gains and losses on the investments held in the ISA accounts are for you to take. i.e. If you make investment gains of GBP5K this does not reduces your allowance. You will still be able to deposit GBP15k (or whatever HMRC increases that number to) in the following year. You are also allowed to consolidate your ISAs. You can ask bank A to transfer the amount held into an ISA with bank held with bank B. This is usually done by filling a special form with the bank that will held the money post transactions. Again here be very careful. DO NOT withdraw the money to transfer it yourself as this would count against the GBP15K limit. Instead follow the procedures from the bank. Finally if you don't use your allowance for a given year, you cannot use it during the following year. i.e. if you don't deposit the GBP15K this year, then you cannot deposit GBP30K next year. NB: I used the word \"\"deposit\"\". It does not matter to HMRC if the money get invested or not. If you are in a rush on April 4th, just make sure the money is wired into the ISA account by the 5th. No need to rush and make bad investment decision. You can invest it later. Hope it helps\"" }, { "docid": "286992", "title": "", "text": "\"Is there a solution here that would allow me to provide him with a debit card in his name that I could fund, that wouldn't have foreign transaction fees associated with it (I'd probably be okay with a small fixed ATM fee). There are separate issues here. There is no law limiting bank accounts to U.S. citizens, but most banks will not open an account for a non-citizen outside their declared service area. There are substantial legal liabilities to the bank in allowing it, whether a citizen or non-citizen. The difficulty will be compliance with the Patriot Act. This is an extension of the older \"\"Know Your Customer\"\" doctrine. It is improbable that the bank could comply with the Act without the potential customer being physically present. You would have to check with your bank in advance as to their policies. Banks are not required to accept a customer outside their policies. As to waiving the foreign transaction fee, that is very improbable. Although a handful of institutions do this in specific cases it is uncommon because the bank isn't actually charging the fee, they are passing it along. With a credit card they collect interest and waiving the fee can be thought of as a reduction in interest income, that isn't possible on a debit card. You would want to make sure you have a scrupulously honest nephew. You could be held criminally liable for any actions he takes at both the state and the federal level. U.S. law is global. A citizen who commits a crime in any country of the world can be charged for it in the United States. By being on the account you can acquire any liabilities that are created as an accomplice. This is a bigger issue at the federal level because 4,000 federal laws do not require criminal intent. Some do not require you to even know the action happened. Unlike state law which generally requires you intended to commit a crime and had to be aware of it, federal law often does not. It is also not adequate that the action is legal in Russia if it would be illegal in the United States. If I get a card in my name, and give it to him to use to withdraw money from ATMs, is that legal? What problems might that cause? It is legal, but you are now strictly liable for its use. See the above answer. It would probably get shut down anyway when they phone you and asked: \"\"are you in Russia right now?\"\" The bank is still liable for you giving away the card. The bank may close out all your accounts and submit a currency transaction report on you to the Treasury for possible money laundering. Wire the money. Plan out how much and when, but just wire it.\"" }, { "docid": "98196", "title": "", "text": "\"Within Canada, to send money to a friend online, you'd typically use the Interac e-Transfer service offered by most Canadian banks & credit unions. Here's a list of those that support it. My bank charges $1.50 to send money via Interac e-Transfer, and zero to receive. Charges are likely to vary by bank. FWIW, Interac is a not-for-profit organization & network founded about 30 years ago by some major Canadian banks to facilitate ATM, debit, and other electronic financial transactions within Canada. It's also possible at some banks to set up another person's bank account as a \"\"personal payee\"\" — at which point the account becomes available as a bill payment candidate in your online banking. I know at least three of the \"\"Big Five\"\" banks have this functionality. I use it at my own bank, but only for payees who also bank at my institution, and I'm not sure if it works between banks. You'll need to ask your candidate banks if they have such a feature, and whether it costs anything. The nice thing about the \"\"personal payee\"\" functionality is that, at least at my bank, there's no cost, so for recurring transfer scenarios it can keep costs down. To send payments outside of Canada, wire transfers remain an option – but doing so through a Canadian bank may be expensive. There exist some non-bank wire transfer providers that have more competitive fees and exchange rates. PayPal remains an option as well.\"" }, { "docid": "319265", "title": "", "text": "Other than the options pointed out by MoneyOne, I would like to add one more. If the bank that you want to transfer money from has bill pay facility, then you can send yourself a check for the required amount. Then you could deposit this check in the bank where you want to money transferred. I do agree that this is a long way method of transferring money between banks, but this is the only way to do it if your (From) bank doesn't allow bank to bank transfers for your (To) bank or charges you money for each transfer. Normally, most banks give you access to bill pay facility free of charge if you use online banking. I also believe that you could even use it with a savings account, but don't quote me on that. Also, I do know that Bank Of America has started accepting checks through their ATMs, so if your (To) bank does something similar, you would not even need to go to a physical branch." }, { "docid": "287896", "title": "", "text": "I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter." }, { "docid": "414772", "title": "", "text": "Buyer A didn't send money to the US government, Buyer A sent money to Seller B, a US resident. I think the most common way to facilitate a transaction like this is a regular old international wire transfer. Buyer A in India goes to their bank to exchange X INR to $1mm USD. $1mm USD is then wire transferred to Seller B's bank account. The USD was sold to Buyer A, either by funds held by Buyer A's bank, or foreign exchange markets, or possibly the US government. Seller B may owe taxes on the gain derived from the sale of this thing to Buyer A, but that taxation would arise regardless of who the buyer was. Buyer A may owe an import tax in India upon importing whatever they bought. I don't think it's common to tax imported money in this sort of transactional setting though." }, { "docid": "196365", "title": "", "text": "There are two (main) ways of transferring large sums of money between banks in such a situation. 1) Have your bank mail a cashier's check. They may or may not charge you for this (some banks charge up to $6, the bank I work at doesn't charge at all). You have to wait for the check to go through the mail, but it usually takes just a few days. 2) Wire the money. This could cost $50 or more in combined fees (usually around $30 to send and $20 to receive), but you get same day credit for the funds. The limits to online transfers are in place to protect you, so that if someone gets into your account the amount of damage they can do is limited. If you need those limits lifted temporarily, check with your bank about doing so - they may be willing to adjust them for you for a brief period (a day or two)." }, { "docid": "541682", "title": "", "text": "If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply." }, { "docid": "412258", "title": "", "text": "Can I wire transfer money from the my NRO account in India to my checking account in the USA? Yes you can. However there is some paperwork you need to follow. As per FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act], any transfer by individuals outside of India need the 15CA & 15CB form. The 15CB is from a CA to state that taxes have been paid on the funds being transferred. The limit is 1 million USD per year. Read more at Liberalized Remittance Scheme and here. Any limit on the amount and do I have to report this to IRS or any other legal formality? Assuming you were already declaring the funds held in Banks outside of US in your regular IRS filings, there is no other formality." }, { "docid": "194167", "title": "", "text": "\"If wire transfer through your bank does not work then perhaps one of the more popular money transfer services may be what you are looking for such as MoneyGram or Western Union. Now these rely on a trusted \"\"registered\"\" third party to do the money transfer so you need to make sure that you are working with a legitimate broker. Each money transfer service has a site that allows you to perform the search on registered parties around your area. There are certain fees that are sometimes applied due to the amount being transferred. All of these you will want to do some detailed research on before you make the transfer so that you do not get scammed. I would suggest doing a lot of research and asking people that you trust to recommend a trusted broker. I have not personally used the services, but doing a quick search brought many options with different competitive conversion rates as well as fees. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "346843", "title": "", "text": "I would look for an alternative wire transfer service that will charge less. I use ofx, but note that they don't do transfers to roubles. The rate adjusts by amount being transferred and there is a $15 fee for under $5000. Upside is it is bank-to-bank. 2 days tops." }, { "docid": "539734", "title": "", "text": "My experience is from travelling in Central Europe and Germany, so I've dealt with much smaller amounts of money, but the general principles are the same. Many Visa-brand ATM cards allow you to withdraw money from European ATMs for a 1% fee (plus any fees the bank may charge, my bank charged zero fee) in local currency. Even if the bank charges a 2-3% fee, the combined max 4% fee is going to be a lot smaller than most currency exchange places will offer. There are a lot of exchange offices that are built to scam tourists out of their money. We had no choice but to use one that ended up taking around 10% of the exchanged money (luckily we were only exchanging a small amount of currency). Call your bank and ask what their fees are, and if they are large, find a bank with small or zero fees and move your accounts there. Be sure to notify your bank that you are going to be travelling for an extended time in a foreign country. Literally any ATM (Geldautomat) accepted our card (thank you VISA). We literally walked off the plane with some USD and no foreign currency, and were able to stop at an ATM right outside our hotel (the taxi had a card reader, as most in Munich did). If you have a source of income secured within the country (which I am hoping you do if you will be living there) you could live off of your income, and use your USD to pay off things like credit card bills. Get a Travel Rewards Credit Card (or similar card that offers no foreign transaction fees or free currency transfers). Use this card for anything and everything you can, and pay it with a transfer from your US bank account. Under this method you'll probably have to convert some currency, but you can do so from an ATM easily enough." }, { "docid": "74842", "title": "", "text": "I don't know which online casino we are talking about, but I would venture to say that online casinos, in general, are probably not the most trustworthy of businesses. Caution is certainly in order. That having been said, this isn't an e-mail from a stranger that contacted you out of the blue; you obviously trust them enough to have deposited some money with them, and it seems that they now owe you money. Let's assume for the moment that they are legitimate, and that they sincerely want to pay out your winnings. If they are to pay you via a wire transfer, they would need your account number and routing number. (This information is on every check that you write.) In addition, if this is an international transfer, they would also need your bank's SWIFT number, or possibly an IBAN code. It does seem odd that they would pay you a partial payment with a check, but the rest has to be done via a wire transfer. You could request that they send the remainder as a check, but I would imagine that if they refuse to send you a check, there is nothing you can do about it. If you decide to go ahead with the wire transfer, you could open up a new savings account with your bank first. Then you could provide the account number for this new account, and if they are intending to clean out your account, there will be nothing in it. (For extra protection, when you set up the account, you could ask the bank if they can set up a savings account that will accept incoming wire deposits, but no outgoing electronic withdrawals.) Either way, when you deposit the check you have and you receive this wire transfer, don't spend this money for a while. Just let it sit in your account (you could transfer it to your main account, if you like), and wait a few weeks. That way, if there is a problem with these payments and your bank insists on the money back, you will not be in trouble. If they send you more than they owe you and ask for some of it back, it will be a clear indication of a scam. Don't send them any money back. After a few weeks, you should be in the clear. Good luck. By the way, online gambling is a terrible idea. The fact that you don't trust the casino to pay out should tell you a lot about this industry. After you receive these winnings (or even if you don't), the best advice I can give you is to stop gambling." }, { "docid": "183880", "title": "", "text": "The safest, quickest and cheapest option would be to do a wire transfer from your HK account to an account in a US bank. You can contact HSBC and ask them if it would be cheaper if the US bank account is at HSBC as well, but I doubt it would be a significant saving. Check the rates in HK about a wire transfer, in the US, on the receiving side, the fees are not dependent on the amount and are about $10-$15 per occurrence (shop around)." }, { "docid": "397897", "title": "", "text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"" }, { "docid": "299963", "title": "", "text": "Just a regular bank transfer. Call your US bank and ask for wire transfer instructions. I've transferred money like that from US to Europe and back a few times. Usually fees were in low two digits ($15-$30), but depending on your bank account a sending and receiving side may charge a fee." }, { "docid": "354298", "title": "", "text": "As of now you are doing that. When you start earning larger sums of money, you will not withdraw and keep it in your house. You will leave it in the bank and they will earn money on it( By lending it out at a higher interest rate). When you are broke, that same bank will offer you a credit card or some other instrument that will help you survive. They will charge you money on that and make interest of you. When you have too much money and you start wiring money they will charge you a wire transfer fees. There are more than 500 ways in which banks make money off you. If you plan receiving $100 and $250 all your life and withdraw it immediately and don't plan doing anything else all your life, then you will probably not let the bank make any money off you. However, there are a very few people like that and banks barely lose anything accepting those customers." }, { "docid": "490529", "title": "", "text": "\"To expand on @JoeTaxpayer's answer, the devil is actually in the fine print. All the \"\"credit-card checks\"\" that I have ever received in the mail explicitly says that the checks cannot be used to pay off (or pay down) the balance on any other credit card issued by the same bank, whether the card is branded with the bank logo or is branded with a department-store or airline logo etc. The checks can be used to pay utilities, or even taxes, without paying the \"\"service fee\"\" that is charged for using a credit card for such payments. The payee is paid the face amount of the check, in contrast to charges on a credit card from a merchant who gets to collect only about 95%-98% of the amount on the \"\"charge slip\"\". Generally speaking, balance transfer offers are a bad deal regardless of whether you pay only the minimum amount due each month or whether you pay each month's statement balance in full by the due date or anything in between. The rest of this answer is an explanation in support of the above assertion. Feel free to TL;DR it if you like. If you make only the minimum payment due each month and some parts of the balance that you are carrying has different interest rates applicable than other parts, then your payment can be applied to any part of the balance at the bank's discretion. It need hardly be said that the bank invariably chooses to apply it to pay off the lowest-rate portion. By law (CARD Act of 2009), anything above the minimum payment due must be applied to pay off the highest-rate part (and then the next highest rate part, etc), but minimum payment or less is at the bank's discretion. As an illustration, suppose that you are not using your credit cards any more and are conscientiously paying down the balances due by making the minimum payment due each month. Suppose also that you have a balance of $1000 carrying 12% APR on Card A, and pay off the entire balance of $500 on Card B, transferring the amount at 0% APR to Card A for which you are billed a 2% fee. Your next minimum payment will be likely be $35; computed as $10 (interest on $1000) + $10 transfer fee + $15 (1% of balance of $1500). If you make only the minimum payment due, that payment will go towards paying off the $500, and so for next month, your balance will be $1500 of which $1035 will be charged 1% interest, and $465 will be charged 0% interest. In the months that follow, the balance on which you owe 1% interest per month will grow and the 0% balance will shrink. You have to pay more than the minimum amount due to reduce the amount that you owe. In this example, in the absence of the balance transfer, the minimum payment would have been $20 = $10 (interest on $1000 at 1% per month) + $10 (1% of balance) and would have left you with $990 due for next month. To be at the same point with the balance transfer offer, you would need to pay $30 more than the minimum payment of $35 due. This extra $30 will pay off the interest and transfer fee ($20) and the rest will be applied to the $1000 balance to reduce it to $990. There would be no balance transfer fee in future months and so the extra that you need to pay will be a little bit smaller etc. If you avoid paying interest charges on credit cards by never taking any cash advances and by paying off the monthly balance (consisting only of purchases made within the past month) in full by the due date, then the only way to avoid paying interest on the purchases made during the month of the balance transfer offer is to pay off that month's statement in full (including the balance just transferred over and the balance transfer fee) by the due date. So, depending on when in the billing cycle the transfer occurs, you are getting a loan of the balance transfer amount for 25 to 55 days and being charged 2% or 3% for the privilege. If you are getting offers of 2% balance transfer fees instead of 3%, you are probably among those who pay their balances in full each month, and the bank is trying to tempt you into doing a balance transfer by offering a lower fee. (It is unlikely that they will make a no-transfer-fee offer.) They would prefer laughing all the way to themselves by collecting a 2% transfer fee from you (and possibly interest too if you fail to read the fine print) than having you decline such offers at 3% as being too expensive. Can you make a balance transfer offer work in your favor? Sure. Don't make any purchases on the card in the month of the balance transfer or during the entire time that the 0% APR is being offered. In the month of the transfer, pay the minimum balance due plus the balance transfer fee. In succeeding months, pay the minimum balance due (typically 1% of the balance owed) each month. All of it will go to reducing the 0% APR balance because that is the only amount owing. Just before the 0% APR expires (anywhere from 6 to 24 months), pay off the remaining balance in full. But remember that you are losing the use of this card for this whole period of time. Put it away in a locked trunk in the attic because using the card to make a purchase will mean paying interest on charges from the day they post, something that might be totally alien to you.\"" }, { "docid": "459824", "title": "", "text": "\"No it is not \"\"Normal\"\" the normal process is that the money is transferred to your account with out issue. This would be an exception. That does not mean that there is anything to worry about. It could be that the transaction met some criteria that triggered closer examination, or it could be that yours is just one randomly being reviewed. And it could just be that your husbands partner misunderstood or lied. Step 1 would be contact the bank and find out what is going on and if there is any action you need to take. Assuming that the bank confirms the status and the amount is significant enough I would probably give my lawyer a heads up of what is going on. If Homeland Security is involved there is a reasonable chance that you will need that representation anyway so getting the lawyer involved early might save you a headache in the end. The lawyer is probably the only person that will be able to get any answers for your anyway. from comments: My husband is a consultant that works for another company - as a consultant. That company received a contract from a government south of the US (Free Trade approved). That government first wired the overall government contract to the company account in that originating country, then... the funds were wired to the US counterpart company ... then then consultants gets paid. It sounds like the contract is not your normal business to business international contract. So normal goes out the window there. When you start getting foreign governments involved things get... lets use the word \"\"interesting.\"\" If the contract involves anything with military or restricted technology applications (even if they are not directly military) then HSA wants to make sure that no one is circumventing export restrictions. With out knowing more specifics it is difficult to guess whether or not there is anything for your husband to worry about. The bottom line for him is that he does not have his money so he should keep that in mind when delivering services to the Prime Contractor.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "364112", "title": "", "text": "Schwab High Yield Investor Checking does not charge for incoming wires." } ]

[ { "docid": "310748", "title": "", "text": "Be aware that ATM withdrawals often generate hidden fees, which are not obviously declared. Many banks operate e.g. with a currency exchange fee, giving you an exchange rate some 1-2% lower than actually applicable. If you withdraw larger amounts, such a currency exchange fee easily adds up to what you would have paid for a wire transfer, where you would get a better exchange rate. Although it's probably much hassle for you to change banks, another option may be to find a bank which operates both in France and the US. Banks with different national branches often offer cheap and fast wire transfers between same-bank accounts in different countries. E.g. Citibank used to offer such services, but I am not sure if they still serve private customers in France." }, { "docid": "553133", "title": "", "text": "\"A couple of thoughts and experiences (Germany/Italy): First of all, I recommend talking to the Belgian bank (and possibly to a Dutch bank of your choice). I have similar conditions for my German bank accounts. But even though they talk about it as salary account (\"\"Gehaltskonto\"\") all they really ask for is a monthly inflow of more than xxxx € - which can be satisfied with an automatic direct transfer (I have some money automatically circulating for this reason which \"\"earns\"\" about 4% p.a. by saving fees). In that case it may be a feasible way to have a Belgian and a Dutch bank account and set up some money circulation. Experiences working in Italy (some years ago, SEPA payments were kind of new and the debits weren't implemented then): My guess with your service providers is that they are allowed to offer you contracts that are bound to rather arbitrary payment conditions. After all, you probably can also get a prepaid phone or a contract with a bill that you can then pay by wire transfer - however, AFAIK they are allowed to offer discounts/ask fees for different payment methods. Just like there is no law that forces the store around your corner to accept credit cards or even large EUR denominations as long as they tell you so beforehand. AFAIK, there is EU regulation saying your bank isn't allowed to charge you more for wire transger to foreign country within the SEPA zone than a national wire transfer.\"" }, { "docid": "286992", "title": "", "text": "\"Is there a solution here that would allow me to provide him with a debit card in his name that I could fund, that wouldn't have foreign transaction fees associated with it (I'd probably be okay with a small fixed ATM fee). There are separate issues here. There is no law limiting bank accounts to U.S. citizens, but most banks will not open an account for a non-citizen outside their declared service area. There are substantial legal liabilities to the bank in allowing it, whether a citizen or non-citizen. The difficulty will be compliance with the Patriot Act. This is an extension of the older \"\"Know Your Customer\"\" doctrine. It is improbable that the bank could comply with the Act without the potential customer being physically present. You would have to check with your bank in advance as to their policies. Banks are not required to accept a customer outside their policies. As to waiving the foreign transaction fee, that is very improbable. Although a handful of institutions do this in specific cases it is uncommon because the bank isn't actually charging the fee, they are passing it along. With a credit card they collect interest and waiving the fee can be thought of as a reduction in interest income, that isn't possible on a debit card. You would want to make sure you have a scrupulously honest nephew. You could be held criminally liable for any actions he takes at both the state and the federal level. U.S. law is global. A citizen who commits a crime in any country of the world can be charged for it in the United States. By being on the account you can acquire any liabilities that are created as an accomplice. This is a bigger issue at the federal level because 4,000 federal laws do not require criminal intent. Some do not require you to even know the action happened. Unlike state law which generally requires you intended to commit a crime and had to be aware of it, federal law often does not. It is also not adequate that the action is legal in Russia if it would be illegal in the United States. If I get a card in my name, and give it to him to use to withdraw money from ATMs, is that legal? What problems might that cause? It is legal, but you are now strictly liable for its use. See the above answer. It would probably get shut down anyway when they phone you and asked: \"\"are you in Russia right now?\"\" The bank is still liable for you giving away the card. The bank may close out all your accounts and submit a currency transaction report on you to the Treasury for possible money laundering. Wire the money. Plan out how much and when, but just wire it.\"" }, { "docid": "291486", "title": "", "text": "Regular wire transfer from bank to bank would be the easiest, safest, and likely the cheapest (next to carrying cash over the border) method. Get the SWIFT info from the US bank you want the many land in (I believe all of the ones you mentioned support SWIFT wire transfers), and give it to your family in China. They'll have to find a local bank that supports SWIFT out-going transfers (might not be as easy as in the US) and send it out from there. Other, more expensive, options would be Western Union/MoneyGram. Or carrying cash over the border, which in these amounts can trigger some questioning from the authorities." }, { "docid": "199808", "title": "", "text": "If your counterparty sent money to a correspondent account at another bank, then it is completely up to the other bank what to do with the money. If the wire transfer completed, then the account is not closed. If I were your business partner, I would immediately contact the bank to which the transfer was made and explain the situation and hopefully they will transfer the money back. Whenever a wire transfer is made, the recipients name, address, and account number are included. If that name, address and account do not belong to you, then you have a problem because you have no legal right to the money in a court of law. For this reason, you should be avoid any situation where you are wiring money to anyone except the intended recipient." }, { "docid": "560622", "title": "", "text": "\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\"" }, { "docid": "467641", "title": "", "text": "You can use xoom.com or western union. They are both pretty much the same, as they do not charge any fees but take a cut of 0.7-0.8% on every dollar. However, there is a minimum and maximum limit of sending money. If you want to transfer more, you can wire money in through a financial institution such as Wells Fargo or Chase bank or look to see if there is a State bank of India around you. I am quite sure that they charge $15 plus 0.20-0.30% on every dollar( The last time I used it). Hope this helps." }, { "docid": "37133", "title": "", "text": "\"withdraw in cash - bank reports it to IRS no matter what. Would this affect my tax filing in the coming year? No, and no. The bank doesn't report to the IRS. In the US - the bank will probably report to FinCEN. It has nothing to do with your tax return. withdraw in check - bank does not seem to report it. Is this correct? Doesn't have to. Still might, if they think it is a suspicious/irregular activity. wire-transfer to another person's account - would this always be slapped with a \"\"gift tax\"\"? If this is a gift it would. Regardless of how you transfer the money. Is it? Answers to your follow up questions: In the US, what documents do we need to prepare in case our large sum withdraw from the bank triggers a flag in relevant government (local and/or federal) divisions and they decide to investigate? Depending on what the investigators request. FinCEN would investigate money laundering, the IRS would investigate tax evasion, the FBI would investigate terrorism sponsorship, etc. Depending on who's investigating and what the suspicions are - different documents may be required. But the bottom line is that you should be able to explain the source of the funds and the destination. For example \"\"I found $1M in cash and sent it to some drug lord because he's such a good friend of mine\"\" will probably not fly. Does the (local/federal) government care if we stash our money (in cash or check) under our mattress, if we purchase foreign properties (taxable? documents needed for proof?), or if we give it away (to individuals or organizations - individual: a gift tax, organization: tax waivable) ? The government cares about taxes, and illegal activities. Stashing money under a mattress is not illegal, but earning cash and not paying income tax on it usually is. In many cases money stashed under the mattress was obtained illegally and/or income taxes were not paid. It seems that no matter what we do (except spreading thin our assets to multiple accounts in multiple banks), the government will always be notified of any large bank transaction and we would be forever flagged since. Is this correct ? Yes, reportable transactions will be reported. Also spreading around in multiple accounts/transactions to avoid reporting is called \"\"structuring\"\" and is on its own a crime. This is for cash/cash equivalent transactions only, of course. Not sure about the \"\"forever flagged since\"\", that part is probably sourced in your imagination.\"" }, { "docid": "183880", "title": "", "text": "The safest, quickest and cheapest option would be to do a wire transfer from your HK account to an account in a US bank. You can contact HSBC and ask them if it would be cheaper if the US bank account is at HSBC as well, but I doubt it would be a significant saving. Check the rates in HK about a wire transfer, in the US, on the receiving side, the fees are not dependent on the amount and are about $10-$15 per occurrence (shop around)." }, { "docid": "539734", "title": "", "text": "My experience is from travelling in Central Europe and Germany, so I've dealt with much smaller amounts of money, but the general principles are the same. Many Visa-brand ATM cards allow you to withdraw money from European ATMs for a 1% fee (plus any fees the bank may charge, my bank charged zero fee) in local currency. Even if the bank charges a 2-3% fee, the combined max 4% fee is going to be a lot smaller than most currency exchange places will offer. There are a lot of exchange offices that are built to scam tourists out of their money. We had no choice but to use one that ended up taking around 10% of the exchanged money (luckily we were only exchanging a small amount of currency). Call your bank and ask what their fees are, and if they are large, find a bank with small or zero fees and move your accounts there. Be sure to notify your bank that you are going to be travelling for an extended time in a foreign country. Literally any ATM (Geldautomat) accepted our card (thank you VISA). We literally walked off the plane with some USD and no foreign currency, and were able to stop at an ATM right outside our hotel (the taxi had a card reader, as most in Munich did). If you have a source of income secured within the country (which I am hoping you do if you will be living there) you could live off of your income, and use your USD to pay off things like credit card bills. Get a Travel Rewards Credit Card (or similar card that offers no foreign transaction fees or free currency transfers). Use this card for anything and everything you can, and pay it with a transfer from your US bank account. Under this method you'll probably have to convert some currency, but you can do so from an ATM easily enough." }, { "docid": "59411", "title": "", "text": "Check with stock brokers. Some of them will offer ILS->USD conversion at a very beneficial rate (very close to the official), without any commission, and flat-priced wire transfers. For large amounts this is perfect. I know for a fact that Gaon Trade used to do that ($15 for a wire transfer of any amount), but they are now defunct... Check with Meitav (their successor) and others if they still do these things. If you're talking about relatively small amounts (up to several thousands $$$) - you may be better off withdrawing cash or using your credit card in the US. For mid range (up to $50K give or take, depending on your shopping and bargaining skills) banks may be cheaper. A quick note about what jamesqf has mentioned in his answer... You probably don't want to tell your banker that you're moving to the US. Some people reported banks freezing their accounts and demanding US tax info to unfreeze, something that you're not required to provide according to the Israeli law. So just don't tell them. In the US you'll need to report your Israeli bank/trading/pension/educational/savings/insurance accounts on FBAR and FATCA forms when you're doing your taxes." }, { "docid": "98196", "title": "", "text": "\"Within Canada, to send money to a friend online, you'd typically use the Interac e-Transfer service offered by most Canadian banks & credit unions. Here's a list of those that support it. My bank charges $1.50 to send money via Interac e-Transfer, and zero to receive. Charges are likely to vary by bank. FWIW, Interac is a not-for-profit organization & network founded about 30 years ago by some major Canadian banks to facilitate ATM, debit, and other electronic financial transactions within Canada. It's also possible at some banks to set up another person's bank account as a \"\"personal payee\"\" — at which point the account becomes available as a bill payment candidate in your online banking. I know at least three of the \"\"Big Five\"\" banks have this functionality. I use it at my own bank, but only for payees who also bank at my institution, and I'm not sure if it works between banks. You'll need to ask your candidate banks if they have such a feature, and whether it costs anything. The nice thing about the \"\"personal payee\"\" functionality is that, at least at my bank, there's no cost, so for recurring transfer scenarios it can keep costs down. To send payments outside of Canada, wire transfers remain an option – but doing so through a Canadian bank may be expensive. There exist some non-bank wire transfer providers that have more competitive fees and exchange rates. PayPal remains an option as well.\"" }, { "docid": "436168", "title": "", "text": "The reason banks charge fees for wires, is because the Federal Reserve charges banks to send the wires. The Fed charges the banks a hefty fee, so the banks have to charge you a hefty fee to make up for it. Any time any business gives you a service for free, its because they think they can make more money off of some other service or product they are selling you. So the question becomes, How can I make myself valuable enough to a bank that they will waive my wire fees? The account you linked to is a good example of this: the monthly service charge, along with the $0.50 charge every time you use your debit card, would make up for the number of wires most people send." }, { "docid": "377357", "title": "", "text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"" }, { "docid": "41383", "title": "", "text": "The money is transferred through an electronic funds transfer, which is an umbrella term that encompasses wire transfers, direct debits, etc. The application form for Key Trade Bank (the only place I can find that uses that exact phrasing) lists a SWIFT number. This usually indicates that the transfer of funds is done through an international wire transfer. In the most basic sense, the process works like this: Key Trade Bank uses the SWIFT number to notify your current bank of the transfer. Your bank instructs the settlement bank, e.g. the central bank of your country, where your bank is located, to transfer funds to Key Trade. If Key Trade is in another country from your current country, your central bank will send money to the central bank where Key Trade is located, which will in turn send the money to Key Trade. Otherwise, your central bank deposits the money into the account that Key Trade also has with them, and the transfer is complete." }, { "docid": "40241", "title": "", "text": "\"You understood it pretty right. Every fiscal year (which runs from April 6 year Y to April 5 year Y+1), you can deposit a total GBP15k (this number is subject to an annual increase by HMRC) into your ISAs. You can open 2 new ISA every year but the amount deposited to those ISAs shall not excess GBP15k in total. From the 2016/17 tax year some ISAs now permit you to replace any funds you have withdrawn, without using up your allowance. It used to be that if you deposited GBP15K and then withdrew GBP5K, you could not pay in to that ISA again within that tax year as you had already used your full allowance. Under new Flexible ISA rules this would be allowed providing you replace the funds in the same ISA account and within the same tax year (strongly recommend that you check the small prints related to your account to make sure this is he case). Any gains and losses on the investments held in the ISA accounts are for you to take. i.e. If you make investment gains of GBP5K this does not reduces your allowance. You will still be able to deposit GBP15k (or whatever HMRC increases that number to) in the following year. You are also allowed to consolidate your ISAs. You can ask bank A to transfer the amount held into an ISA with bank held with bank B. This is usually done by filling a special form with the bank that will held the money post transactions. Again here be very careful. DO NOT withdraw the money to transfer it yourself as this would count against the GBP15K limit. Instead follow the procedures from the bank. Finally if you don't use your allowance for a given year, you cannot use it during the following year. i.e. if you don't deposit the GBP15K this year, then you cannot deposit GBP30K next year. NB: I used the word \"\"deposit\"\". It does not matter to HMRC if the money get invested or not. If you are in a rush on April 4th, just make sure the money is wired into the ISA account by the 5th. No need to rush and make bad investment decision. You can invest it later. Hope it helps\"" }, { "docid": "118383", "title": "", "text": "It seems that your Organizers are not familiar with dealing transfers outside of Euro Zone. You are right IBAN is not used in India. A Bank in France can initiate an International Wire. There are few Banks that offer this online, for most one has to visit the Branch. See this https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/2862/international-money-transfer-online-from-a-french-bank I am not aware of any other term used in France for International Wire, try explaining; Its also called BIC. It would help if you also provide your Correspondent Bank details [This will be a Bank in Europe]. This should be available on your Indian Bank's website." }, { "docid": "120760", "title": "", "text": "I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties, fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace." }, { "docid": "16068", "title": "", "text": "I have not opened any NRE/NRO account before coming to Finland. This is in violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Please get this regularized ASAP. All your savings account need to be converted to NRO. Shall I transfer funds from abroad to both NRE and NRO account or I can transfer only to NRE account in India? You can transfer to NRE or NRO. It is advisable to transfer into NRE as funds from here can be repatriated out of India without any paperwork. Funds from NRO account need paperwork to move out of India. I am a regular tax payer in abroad. The Funds which i'll transfer in future will attract any additional tax in India? As your status is Non Resident and the income is during that period, there is no tax applicable in India on this. Few Mutual Fund SIPs (monthly basis) are linked with my existing saving account in india. Do these SIPs will stop when the savings account will turn into NRO account? Shall I need to submit any documents for KYC compliance? If yes, to whom I should submit these? is there any possibility to submit it Online? Check your Bank / Mutual Fund company. Couple of FDs are also opened online and linked with this existing saving account. Do the maturity amount(s) subject to TDS or any tax implication such as 30.9% as this account will be turned into NRO account till that time and NRO account attracts this higher tax percentage. These are subject to taxes in India. This will be as per standard tax brackets. Which account (NRE/NRO) is better for paying EMIs for Home Loan, SIPs of Mutual Funds, utility bills in India, transfer money to relative's account etc Home Loan would be better from NRE account as if you sell the house, the EMI paid can be credited into NRE account and you can transfer this out of India without much paperwork. Same for SIP's. For other it doesn't really matter as it is an expense. Is there any charge to transfer fund from NRE to NRO account if both account maintain in same Bank same branch. Generally No. Check with your bank. Which Bank account's (NRE/NRO) debit/ATM card should be used in Abroad in case of emergency. Check with your bank. NRE funds are more easy. NRO there will be limits and reporting. Do my other savings accounts, maintained in different Banks, also need to be converted into NRO account? If yes, how can it be done from Abroad? Yes. ASAP. Quite a few leading banks allow you to do this if you are not present. Check you bank for guidance." } ]

[ { "docid": "244185", "title": "", "text": "Being into Business since years and having clients worldwide I receive a lot of payments via wire transfers. Some in business and some in personal checking accounts. I have never been charged by my bank for any incoming wire. And by the way I bank with HSBC and BoA in the US. Actually the charges on the account depends on the type of account you are opening/holding with the bank. With a tight competition in the finance and banking industry you can always demand the bank for the services you want and the pricing you want. The best thing to do is ask your bank if they can wave those incoming wire charges for you and if not you have a whole bunch of options." } ]

[ { "docid": "132167", "title": "", "text": "\"This is not a problem. SWIFT does not need the Beneficiary Account Currency. The settlement account [or the Instruction amount] is of interest to the Banks. As I understand your agreement with client is they pay you \"\"X\"\" EUR. That is what would be specified on the SWIFT along with your details as beneficiary [Account Number etc]. Once the funds are received by your bank in Turkey, they will get EUR. When they apply these funds to your account in USD, they will convert using the standard rates. Unless you are a large customer and have special instructions [like do not credit if funds are received in NON-USD or give me a special rate or Call me and ask me what I want to do etc]. It typically takes 3-5 days for an international wire depending on the countries and currencies involved. Wait for few more days and then if not received, you have to ask your Client to mention to his Bank that Beneficiary is claiming non-receipt of funds. The Bank that initiated the transfer can track the wire not the your bank which is supposed to receive the funds.\"" }, { "docid": "39289", "title": "", "text": "As far as I can tell, the direct deposit option would require you to have a US bank account, which you don't have. So wire transfer is your only option unless you can ask them to try something else, like one of the cheaper money transfer services around. The charges for wire transfers tend to be fairly significant (typically low tens of USD). Depending on your relationship with the payer and the nature of the payment, try to get them to send it with all charges paid so you actually receive the amount you are owed and they cover the charges." }, { "docid": "391177", "title": "", "text": "\"Simple. If they don't allow you easily transfer money then they get to keep your money longer and earn more interest. Not to mention they can continue to charge fees for wire transfers. When I was in Colorado Springs all the banks allowed free bank to bank transfers. Why? Because their clients demanded it. Most of their clients were military members who needed to be able to send money home or to relatives in other states etc. When I moved to Texas I could not find a single bank that allowed free bank to bank tranfers. They had varying fee schedules for wire tranfers ranging from $7 to as high as $22. When I asked why they charged a fee to send money basically over the internet I was told that the Feds made them charge a fee. Big bunch of bull but I had to have a bank. Banks, in this country, will make it as hard as they legally can for you to remove your money from their greedy little mitts. I am going through this now with a bank in Idaho. Supposedly I can send funds bank to bank but I have to jump through a bunch of hoops that are difficult because I work during the bank hours. The bill pay site says I can do external tranfers but the button to \"\"set up external transfers\"\" is mysteriously missing. So I have to fill out paperwork in the presence of someone at the bank and submit it. I was even told that it had to be typed or it may be refused. The more I travel the more I mistrust banks and their schemes to keep my money.\"" }, { "docid": "547737", "title": "", "text": "I doubt you're going to find anywhere that will give you free outgoing wires unless you're depositing a huge amount of money like $500K or more. An alternative would be to find a bank that offers everything else you want and use XETrade for very low cost online wires. I've used them in the past and can recommend their services. Most banks won't charge for incoming wires. I have accounts at E*Trade Bank that don't charge any fees and I can do everything online. You might want to check them out. E*Trade also offers global trading accounts which allow you to have accounts denominated in a few foreign currencies (EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD and HKD I think). I don't think there is a fee for moving money between the different currencies. If your goal is simply to diversify your money into different currencies, you could deposit money there instead of wiring it to other banks." }, { "docid": "164801", "title": "", "text": "\"I live in the UK so it's a little different but generally you'd have one account (a current account) which would have a Visa/MasterCard debit card associated before working and any high street bank (don't know what the US equivalent would be, but big banks such as HSBC/Santander) will offer you a savings account which pays a v small amount of interest as well as bonds as all sorts. From what I know most people have their salary paid into their current account (which would be the spending account with a card associated) and would transfer a set amount to a savings account. Personally, I have a current account and a few different saving accounts (which do not have cards associated). One savings account has incoming transfers/money received and I can use online banking to transfer that to my current account \"\"instantly\"\" (at least I've done it standing at ATM's and the money is there seconds later - but again this is the UK, not US). This way, my primary current account never has more than £10-15 in it, whenever I know I need money I'll transfer it from the instant access account. This has saved me before when I've been called by my bank for transactions a few £100 each which would have been authorised I kept all my money in my current account. If you don't have money (and dont have an overdraft!) what are they meant to do with it? The other savings account I had setup so that I could not transfer money out without going into a branch with ID/etc, less to stop someone stealing my money and more to be physically unable to waste money on a Friday if I don't arrive at the bank before 4/5PM, so saves a lot of time. US banking is a nightmare, I don't imagine any of this will translate well and I think if you had your salary paid into your savings on a Friday and missed the bank with no online banking facilities/transfers that aren't instant you'd be in a lot of trouble. If the whole \"\"current + instant access savings account\"\" thing doesn't work to well, I'm sure a credit/charge (!!!) card will work instead of a separate current account. Spend everything on that (within reason and what you can pay back/afford to pay stupid interest on) on a card with a 0% purchase rate and pay it back using an account you're paid into but is never used for expenses, some credit cards might even reward you for this type of thing but again, credit can be dangerous. A older retired relative of mine has all of his money in one account, refuses a debit card from the bank every time he is offered (he has a card, but it isn't a visa/mastercard, it's purely used for authentication in branch) and keeps that in a safe indoors! Spends everything he needs on his credit card and writes them a sort of cheque (goes into the bank with ID and signs it) for the full balance when his statement arrives. No online banking! No chance of him getting key logged any time soon. tldr; the idea of separating the accounts your money goes in (salary wise) and goes out (spending) isn't a bad idea. that is if wire transfers don't take 3-5 days where you are aha.\"" }, { "docid": "120760", "title": "", "text": "I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties, fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace." }, { "docid": "263174", "title": "", "text": "US banks are often helpless with international checks, so I would recommend to do a wire transfer instead. Otherwise you might end up being in the US with no money and a worthless piece of paper in your hand. First, set up your european account to allow wire transfers to the US, if that needs any action. Speak to someone in the bank in person, to make sure you can later initiate such a transfer remotely/online. After travelling, set up your US account, and then remote trigger a wire transfer. Costs are relatively small, for example with Postbank you pay less than 30 $, and get the bank currency exchange ratio (which is much better than the exchange ratio for paper money). The wire transfer cost is partly proportional to the amount, and partly constant, so don't split it in many pieces - make one larger transfer." }, { "docid": "299963", "title": "", "text": "Just a regular bank transfer. Call your US bank and ask for wire transfer instructions. I've transferred money like that from US to Europe and back a few times. Usually fees were in low two digits ($15-$30), but depending on your bank account a sending and receiving side may charge a fee." }, { "docid": "203889", "title": "", "text": "We have a house here in India worth Rs. 2 Crores. We want to sell it and take money with us. Selling the house in India will attract Capital Gains Tax. Essentially the price at which you sell the property less of the property was purchased [or deemed value when inherited by you]. The difference is Capital Gains. You have to pay tax on this gains. This is currently at 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. Please note if you hold these funds for more than an year, you would additionally be liable for Wealth tax at 1% above Rs 50 lacs. Can I gift this whole amount to my US Citizen Daughter or what is the maximum limit of Gift amount What will be the tax liability on me and on my Daughter in case of Gift Whether I have to show it in my Income Tax Return or in my Daughter's Tax Return. What US Income Tax Laws says. What will be the procedure to send money as Gift to my Daughter. Assuming you are still Indian citizen when to gift the funds; From Indian tax point of you there is no tax to you. As you daughter is US citizen, there is no gift tax to her. There is no limit in India or US. So you can effectively gift the entire amount without any taxes. If you transfer this after you become a US Resident [for tax purposes], then there is a limit of USD 14,000/- per year per recipient. Effective you can gift your daughter and son-in-law 14,000/- ea and your husband can do the same. Net 14,000 * 4 USD per year. Beyond this you either pay tax or declare this and deduct it from life time estate quota. Again there is no tax for your daughter. What are the routes to take money from India to US Will the money will go directly from my Bank Act.to my Daughter's Bank Account. Will there will be wire transfer from bank to bank Can I send money through other money sender Certified Companies also. The best way is via Bank to Bank transfer. A CA Certificate is required to certify that taxes have been paid on this funds being transferred. Under the liberalized remittance scheme in India, there is a limit of USD 1 Million per year for moving funds outside of India. So you can move around Rs 6-7 Crore a year." }, { "docid": "287896", "title": "", "text": "I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter." }, { "docid": "37133", "title": "", "text": "\"withdraw in cash - bank reports it to IRS no matter what. Would this affect my tax filing in the coming year? No, and no. The bank doesn't report to the IRS. In the US - the bank will probably report to FinCEN. It has nothing to do with your tax return. withdraw in check - bank does not seem to report it. Is this correct? Doesn't have to. Still might, if they think it is a suspicious/irregular activity. wire-transfer to another person's account - would this always be slapped with a \"\"gift tax\"\"? If this is a gift it would. Regardless of how you transfer the money. Is it? Answers to your follow up questions: In the US, what documents do we need to prepare in case our large sum withdraw from the bank triggers a flag in relevant government (local and/or federal) divisions and they decide to investigate? Depending on what the investigators request. FinCEN would investigate money laundering, the IRS would investigate tax evasion, the FBI would investigate terrorism sponsorship, etc. Depending on who's investigating and what the suspicions are - different documents may be required. But the bottom line is that you should be able to explain the source of the funds and the destination. For example \"\"I found $1M in cash and sent it to some drug lord because he's such a good friend of mine\"\" will probably not fly. Does the (local/federal) government care if we stash our money (in cash or check) under our mattress, if we purchase foreign properties (taxable? documents needed for proof?), or if we give it away (to individuals or organizations - individual: a gift tax, organization: tax waivable) ? The government cares about taxes, and illegal activities. Stashing money under a mattress is not illegal, but earning cash and not paying income tax on it usually is. In many cases money stashed under the mattress was obtained illegally and/or income taxes were not paid. It seems that no matter what we do (except spreading thin our assets to multiple accounts in multiple banks), the government will always be notified of any large bank transaction and we would be forever flagged since. Is this correct ? Yes, reportable transactions will be reported. Also spreading around in multiple accounts/transactions to avoid reporting is called \"\"structuring\"\" and is on its own a crime. This is for cash/cash equivalent transactions only, of course. Not sure about the \"\"forever flagged since\"\", that part is probably sourced in your imagination.\"" }, { "docid": "194167", "title": "", "text": "\"If wire transfer through your bank does not work then perhaps one of the more popular money transfer services may be what you are looking for such as MoneyGram or Western Union. Now these rely on a trusted \"\"registered\"\" third party to do the money transfer so you need to make sure that you are working with a legitimate broker. Each money transfer service has a site that allows you to perform the search on registered parties around your area. There are certain fees that are sometimes applied due to the amount being transferred. All of these you will want to do some detailed research on before you make the transfer so that you do not get scammed. I would suggest doing a lot of research and asking people that you trust to recommend a trusted broker. I have not personally used the services, but doing a quick search brought many options with different competitive conversion rates as well as fees. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "412084", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"" }, { "docid": "315555", "title": "", "text": "As Nathan has correctly noted, ACH processes transactions in daily batches. The reason for that is accounting - the money doesn't actually change hands for each transaction. All the transactions are aggregated and calculated in the batch process, and the money only changes hands for the difference. Consider this: If each transaction was to be handled separately, each time banks would have to adjust their books to account for the money movement. But if we do it in batch we have this: The resulting inter-bank transfers: Total for the original 30 transactions - 2 transactions between the banks: A->B and C->A. If you need money to be transferred immediately (relatively) - you can use wire transfer. Some banks will still aggregate and batch-process those, but more than once a day. They'll charge you additional fee for their inconvenience." }, { "docid": "196365", "title": "", "text": "There are two (main) ways of transferring large sums of money between banks in such a situation. 1) Have your bank mail a cashier's check. They may or may not charge you for this (some banks charge up to $6, the bank I work at doesn't charge at all). You have to wait for the check to go through the mail, but it usually takes just a few days. 2) Wire the money. This could cost $50 or more in combined fees (usually around $30 to send and $20 to receive), but you get same day credit for the funds. The limits to online transfers are in place to protect you, so that if someone gets into your account the amount of damage they can do is limited. If you need those limits lifted temporarily, check with your bank about doing so - they may be willing to adjust them for you for a brief period (a day or two)." }, { "docid": "310748", "title": "", "text": "Be aware that ATM withdrawals often generate hidden fees, which are not obviously declared. Many banks operate e.g. with a currency exchange fee, giving you an exchange rate some 1-2% lower than actually applicable. If you withdraw larger amounts, such a currency exchange fee easily adds up to what you would have paid for a wire transfer, where you would get a better exchange rate. Although it's probably much hassle for you to change banks, another option may be to find a bank which operates both in France and the US. Banks with different national branches often offer cheap and fast wire transfers between same-bank accounts in different countries. E.g. Citibank used to offer such services, but I am not sure if they still serve private customers in France." }, { "docid": "539734", "title": "", "text": "My experience is from travelling in Central Europe and Germany, so I've dealt with much smaller amounts of money, but the general principles are the same. Many Visa-brand ATM cards allow you to withdraw money from European ATMs for a 1% fee (plus any fees the bank may charge, my bank charged zero fee) in local currency. Even if the bank charges a 2-3% fee, the combined max 4% fee is going to be a lot smaller than most currency exchange places will offer. There are a lot of exchange offices that are built to scam tourists out of their money. We had no choice but to use one that ended up taking around 10% of the exchanged money (luckily we were only exchanging a small amount of currency). Call your bank and ask what their fees are, and if they are large, find a bank with small or zero fees and move your accounts there. Be sure to notify your bank that you are going to be travelling for an extended time in a foreign country. Literally any ATM (Geldautomat) accepted our card (thank you VISA). We literally walked off the plane with some USD and no foreign currency, and were able to stop at an ATM right outside our hotel (the taxi had a card reader, as most in Munich did). If you have a source of income secured within the country (which I am hoping you do if you will be living there) you could live off of your income, and use your USD to pay off things like credit card bills. Get a Travel Rewards Credit Card (or similar card that offers no foreign transaction fees or free currency transfers). Use this card for anything and everything you can, and pay it with a transfer from your US bank account. Under this method you'll probably have to convert some currency, but you can do so from an ATM easily enough." }, { "docid": "204677", "title": "", "text": "Several possibilities come to mind: Several online currency-exchange brokers (such as xe.com and HiFx) offer very good exchange rates and no wire transfer fees (beyond what your own bank might charge you). Get French and American accounts at banks that are part of the Global ATM alliance: BNP Paribas in France and Bank of America in the USA. This will eliminate the ATM fee. Get an account at a bank that has branches in both countries. I've used HSBC for this purpose." }, { "docid": "233001", "title": "", "text": "\"The only way to prevent it is to not use PayPal. The terms of usage are draconian, and by using the service you agree to them. I'm sure that when the case gets to a court of law, they will find where it is authorized. Paypal is not a bank, and the money there is basically \"\"entrusted\"\" with the company and is not insured by anyone. They don't need or have to be subject to the regulations on the banking industry, and they're no different than your neighbour carrying money for you to the grocery store when you're sick. Other options are wire transfer, services like Western Union or Moneygram, checks (better certified/cashier's checks), money orders or even cash. You can also charge via credit card, but you can get similar problems there (although it is still safer than PayPal because with credit card - the card owner must initiate the charge back, it doesn't appear on its own because they feel like it).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "444162", "title": "", "text": "Yes, a business account at Chase bank offers free incoming wire transfer fees when you keep a minimum balance of over 100k. It's the only one I have found." } ]

[ { "docid": "412084", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"" }, { "docid": "219398", "title": "", "text": "Bitcoin can facilitate this, despite the risks associated with using bitcoin exchanges and the price volatility at any given time. The speed of bitcoin can limit your exposure to the bitcoin network to one hour. Cyprus has a more advanced infrastructure than most countries to support bitcoin transactions, with Neo & Bee opening as a regulated bank/financial entity in Cyprus just two months ago, and ATM/Vending Machines existing for that asset. Anyway, you acquire bitcoin from an individual locally (in exchange for cash) or an exchange that does not require the same level of reporting as a bank account in Cyprus or Russia. No matter how you acquire the bitcoin, you transfer it to the exchange, sell bitcoin on the exchange for your desired currency (USD, EURO, etc), you instruct the exchange to wire the EURO to your cyprus bank account using your cyprus account's SWIFT code. The end. Depending on the combination of countries involved, the exchange may still encounter similar withdrawal limitations until certain regulatory requirements are resolved. Also, I'm unsure of the attitude toward bitcoin related answers on this site, so I tried to add a disclaimer about bitcoin's risks at the top, but that doesn't make this answer incorrect." }, { "docid": "514425", "title": "", "text": "As long as your bank does not have any limits on the number of transactions per month you should be fine. The danger would be theft while you had the money before depositing into the new account. I would expect that your new credit union could do a wire transfer for you. It might cost you a few dollars but it would be safer and probably faster." }, { "docid": "263174", "title": "", "text": "US banks are often helpless with international checks, so I would recommend to do a wire transfer instead. Otherwise you might end up being in the US with no money and a worthless piece of paper in your hand. First, set up your european account to allow wire transfers to the US, if that needs any action. Speak to someone in the bank in person, to make sure you can later initiate such a transfer remotely/online. After travelling, set up your US account, and then remote trigger a wire transfer. Costs are relatively small, for example with Postbank you pay less than 30 $, and get the bank currency exchange ratio (which is much better than the exchange ratio for paper money). The wire transfer cost is partly proportional to the amount, and partly constant, so don't split it in many pieces - make one larger transfer." }, { "docid": "199808", "title": "", "text": "If your counterparty sent money to a correspondent account at another bank, then it is completely up to the other bank what to do with the money. If the wire transfer completed, then the account is not closed. If I were your business partner, I would immediately contact the bank to which the transfer was made and explain the situation and hopefully they will transfer the money back. Whenever a wire transfer is made, the recipients name, address, and account number are included. If that name, address and account do not belong to you, then you have a problem because you have no legal right to the money in a court of law. For this reason, you should be avoid any situation where you are wiring money to anyone except the intended recipient." }, { "docid": "354298", "title": "", "text": "As of now you are doing that. When you start earning larger sums of money, you will not withdraw and keep it in your house. You will leave it in the bank and they will earn money on it( By lending it out at a higher interest rate). When you are broke, that same bank will offer you a credit card or some other instrument that will help you survive. They will charge you money on that and make interest of you. When you have too much money and you start wiring money they will charge you a wire transfer fees. There are more than 500 ways in which banks make money off you. If you plan receiving $100 and $250 all your life and withdraw it immediately and don't plan doing anything else all your life, then you will probably not let the bank make any money off you. However, there are a very few people like that and banks barely lose anything accepting those customers." }, { "docid": "118383", "title": "", "text": "It seems that your Organizers are not familiar with dealing transfers outside of Euro Zone. You are right IBAN is not used in India. A Bank in France can initiate an International Wire. There are few Banks that offer this online, for most one has to visit the Branch. See this https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/2862/international-money-transfer-online-from-a-french-bank I am not aware of any other term used in France for International Wire, try explaining; Its also called BIC. It would help if you also provide your Correspondent Bank details [This will be a Bank in Europe]. This should be available on your Indian Bank's website." }, { "docid": "295328", "title": "", "text": "\"To answer your question, specific to ATM usage: It is your money. You can do with it as you wish, as long what you are doing with it is legal. There is nothing illegal about taking money out of an ATM every day of the week. That said, there are some issues. One you already mention being the typical daily limit of $300. Another, is that these days most ATMs charge you for the transaction and many banks will also charge you for the transaction. (That assumes that you are not using an ATM owned by your bank.) These fees add up quite quickly. Using the very typical $1.50/transaction (or $3/transaction total), you could make 8 transactions before the typical $25 wiring fee is more appropriate. You should also not ignore the \"\"cost\"\" of the inconvenience of having to make so many transactions. There is also the potential, however remote, that your bank may see it as suspicious activity and lead to the headaches you are trying to avoid by not wiring the money. If you don't have a checking account with that bank into which you could just transfer the money, online, by phone or whatever, I would simply jump through the required hoops. Keep in mind that these hurdles are intended to protect your money.\"" }, { "docid": "440256", "title": "", "text": "On a summary level, there are three conceptual ways of clearing money electronically. Immediate clearing, where banks (often, but not necessarily) with support of the supervisory entities, send immediate drawing rights against their own cash reserves, and dedicate this right to the account of the receiving customer. This is rather expensive, as it limits the banks ability to use their cash reserves for their own banking operations (crediting etc). This is often the only way to wire significant (in comparison to the bank size) amounts of money. Internal clearing, where the money actually never leaves the bank - it's just moved between accounts of two different customers of the same bank. It's usually free, as the bank is still free to use your money to do it's banking, and it's usually immediate since nothing actually needs to happen besides a change in the banks entries. Batch clearing, where banks submit outstanding requests against each other, and calculate the net settlement. Basically, when you from bank A wire money to me in bank B, there is a high chance that a similar amount of money is wired between two other users it the opposite direction. After a bit of accounting the net imbalance is computed (and often drawn via immediate clearing) but the bulk of the money actually never leaves any of the banks, it just is reassigned between each banks customers as per agreed books. There are also additional ways where companies decide to open accounts in each of the banks and provide some sort of immediate clearing backed by the operators cash reserves rather than the banks.. and so on.. How does it happen in Indonesia? I have no idea, but I think a good overview of how it happens around the world is a publication by a partner entity of ours; http://pymntsreportstore.com/products/global-wire-transfer-choices If you are really curious, I'd research under what legal form does Paypal Indonesia operate (it should be somewhere in the archives) and figure out what other wiring options are available." }, { "docid": "132693", "title": "", "text": "First, you'll need to find a service that can handle transferring that amount of money, whether it's using a bank, or wire transferring service. Any major Wall Street bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) should be able to handle it. You could also use services such as Western Union. As for your legal and tax obligations, according to Western Union: Individuals in Canada and the U.K. don’t have any tax considerations, unless international payments are received as income or in the form of capital gains. Only then must they report it on their income taxes, says Ilyas Patel, director at Ilyas Patel Chartered Certified Accountants based in Preston, U.K., and the director of Tax Expert, a tax advice website. To that end, when considering their tax obligations, individuals should take care to look into the reporting requirements on foreign income or gifts ranging up to a certain amount. For example, in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires individuals who receive more than $100,000 U.S. dollars from a foreign source to report it on a Form 3520. “You may not owe taxes on the money, but it informs the IRS that you received it,” Gragg says, stressing the importance of consulting with a professional. “They’re looking for certain terrorist activities and other illegal activity.” Due to the large sum of money your transferring, it would be in your best interest to speak with a banker (maybe even a lawyer or CPA) about this." }, { "docid": "530175", "title": "", "text": "There are several ways to minimize the international wire transfer fees: Transfer less frequently and larger amounts. The fees are usually flat, so transferring larger amounts lowers the fee percentage. 3% is a lot. In big banks, receiving is usually ~$15. If you transfer $1000 at a time, its 1.5%, if you transfer $10000 - it's much less, accordingly. If you have the time - have them send you checks (in US dollars) instead of wire transferring. It will be on hold for some time (up to a couple of weeks maybe), but will be totally free for you. I know that many banks have either free send and/or receive. I know that ETrade provides this service for free. My credit union provides if for free based on the relationship level, I have a mortgage with them now, so I don't pay any fees at all, including for wire transfer. Consider other options, like Western Union. Those may cost more for the sender (not necessarily though), but will be free for the receiver. You can get the money in cash, or checks, which you can just deposit on your regular bank account. For smaller amounts, it should be much cheaper than wire transfer, for example - sending $500 to India costs $10, while wire transfer is $30." }, { "docid": "443795", "title": "", "text": "Incoming is often free except from overseas... I've never found a bank offering free international wire transfers. Is this coming from a foreign country or another part of the USA? If it is from a foreign country, at some banks (HSBC, perhaps) you can get US$ checks for US payments, at a lower cost than a wire transfer but you have to be careful because the exchange rate might be different. If the transfers occur wholly within the USA there is really no good reason to use wire transfer if you can avoid it. ACH is usually free and is the same way direct deposit works. Use that, or if it is within a family (like for college) you could even use postdated checks." }, { "docid": "299963", "title": "", "text": "Just a regular bank transfer. Call your US bank and ask for wire transfer instructions. I've transferred money like that from US to Europe and back a few times. Usually fees were in low two digits ($15-$30), but depending on your bank account a sending and receiving side may charge a fee." }, { "docid": "183880", "title": "", "text": "The safest, quickest and cheapest option would be to do a wire transfer from your HK account to an account in a US bank. You can contact HSBC and ask them if it would be cheaper if the US bank account is at HSBC as well, but I doubt it would be a significant saving. Check the rates in HK about a wire transfer, in the US, on the receiving side, the fees are not dependent on the amount and are about $10-$15 per occurrence (shop around)." }, { "docid": "377357", "title": "", "text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"" }, { "docid": "132167", "title": "", "text": "\"This is not a problem. SWIFT does not need the Beneficiary Account Currency. The settlement account [or the Instruction amount] is of interest to the Banks. As I understand your agreement with client is they pay you \"\"X\"\" EUR. That is what would be specified on the SWIFT along with your details as beneficiary [Account Number etc]. Once the funds are received by your bank in Turkey, they will get EUR. When they apply these funds to your account in USD, they will convert using the standard rates. Unless you are a large customer and have special instructions [like do not credit if funds are received in NON-USD or give me a special rate or Call me and ask me what I want to do etc]. It typically takes 3-5 days for an international wire depending on the countries and currencies involved. Wait for few more days and then if not received, you have to ask your Client to mention to his Bank that Beneficiary is claiming non-receipt of funds. The Bank that initiated the transfer can track the wire not the your bank which is supposed to receive the funds.\"" }, { "docid": "319265", "title": "", "text": "Other than the options pointed out by MoneyOne, I would like to add one more. If the bank that you want to transfer money from has bill pay facility, then you can send yourself a check for the required amount. Then you could deposit this check in the bank where you want to money transferred. I do agree that this is a long way method of transferring money between banks, but this is the only way to do it if your (From) bank doesn't allow bank to bank transfers for your (To) bank or charges you money for each transfer. Normally, most banks give you access to bill pay facility free of charge if you use online banking. I also believe that you could even use it with a savings account, but don't quote me on that. Also, I do know that Bank Of America has started accepting checks through their ATMs, so if your (To) bank does something similar, you would not even need to go to a physical branch." }, { "docid": "547737", "title": "", "text": "I doubt you're going to find anywhere that will give you free outgoing wires unless you're depositing a huge amount of money like $500K or more. An alternative would be to find a bank that offers everything else you want and use XETrade for very low cost online wires. I've used them in the past and can recommend their services. Most banks won't charge for incoming wires. I have accounts at E*Trade Bank that don't charge any fees and I can do everything online. You might want to check them out. E*Trade also offers global trading accounts which allow you to have accounts denominated in a few foreign currencies (EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD and HKD I think). I don't think there is a fee for moving money between the different currencies. If your goal is simply to diversify your money into different currencies, you could deposit money there instead of wiring it to other banks." }, { "docid": "203889", "title": "", "text": "We have a house here in India worth Rs. 2 Crores. We want to sell it and take money with us. Selling the house in India will attract Capital Gains Tax. Essentially the price at which you sell the property less of the property was purchased [or deemed value when inherited by you]. The difference is Capital Gains. You have to pay tax on this gains. This is currently at 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. Please note if you hold these funds for more than an year, you would additionally be liable for Wealth tax at 1% above Rs 50 lacs. Can I gift this whole amount to my US Citizen Daughter or what is the maximum limit of Gift amount What will be the tax liability on me and on my Daughter in case of Gift Whether I have to show it in my Income Tax Return or in my Daughter's Tax Return. What US Income Tax Laws says. What will be the procedure to send money as Gift to my Daughter. Assuming you are still Indian citizen when to gift the funds; From Indian tax point of you there is no tax to you. As you daughter is US citizen, there is no gift tax to her. There is no limit in India or US. So you can effectively gift the entire amount without any taxes. If you transfer this after you become a US Resident [for tax purposes], then there is a limit of USD 14,000/- per year per recipient. Effective you can gift your daughter and son-in-law 14,000/- ea and your husband can do the same. Net 14,000 * 4 USD per year. Beyond this you either pay tax or declare this and deduct it from life time estate quota. Again there is no tax for your daughter. What are the routes to take money from India to US Will the money will go directly from my Bank Act.to my Daughter's Bank Account. Will there will be wire transfer from bank to bank Can I send money through other money sender Certified Companies also. The best way is via Bank to Bank transfer. A CA Certificate is required to certify that taxes have been paid on this funds being transferred. Under the liberalized remittance scheme in India, there is a limit of USD 1 Million per year for moving funds outside of India. So you can move around Rs 6-7 Crore a year." } ]

[ { "docid": "178697", "title": "", "text": "\"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income. Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income. (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of \"\"Gross Income\"\" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income. Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons. If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s)).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "252843", "title": "", "text": "FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do." }, { "docid": "174025", "title": "", "text": "You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer." }, { "docid": "128107", "title": "", "text": "\"You can (and definitely should) withdraw any part of the contribution that will put you over the contribution limit. You can (and should if you need to) withdraw to repay any medical payments you made from outside the account. You can (but should avoid at all costs) withdraw (distribute) from the HSA for non-medical reasons. Here's the IRS publication which covers this: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p969 Here's the bit about distributions that covers what you're trying to do: You can receive tax-free distributions from your HSA to pay or be reimbursed for qualified medical expenses you incur after you establish the HSA. If you receive distributions for other reasons, the amount you withdraw will be subject to income tax and may be subject to an additional 20% tax. You don’t have to make distributions from your HSA each year. It is better to pay from your checking and reimburse than to over-fund the HSA. Best route forward is to reduce your contributions for the rest of the year, especially if continuing them will cause excess contributions. Another nasty gotcha: Excess contributions. You will have excess contributions if the contributions to your HSA for the year are greater than the limits discussed earlier. Excess contributions aren’t deductible. Excess contributions made by your employer are included in your gross income. If the excess contribution isn’t included in box 1 of Form W-2, you must report the excess as \"\"Other income\"\" on your tax return. Generally, you must pay a 6% excise tax on excess contributions. See Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans (Including IRAs) and Other Tax-Favored Accounts, to figure the excise tax. The excise tax applies to each tax year the excess contribution remains in the account. You may withdraw some or all of the excess contributions and avoid paying the excise tax on the amount withdrawn if you meet the following conditions. •You withdraw the excess contributions by the due date, including extensions, of your tax return for the year the contributions were made. •You withdraw any income earned on the withdrawn contributions and include the earnings in \"\"Other income\"\" on your tax return for the year you withdraw the contributions and earnings. If you will not be over your maximum contribution, let the contribution ride. Make sure your HSA balance is divided between cash, stock fund, bond fund. Much like your 401k. Because the part that you don't spend on medical expenses this year can be spent in future years' medical expenses, and if you have anything left when you retire you can spend it on whatever you want. And the funds, including growth, are not taxed until you distribute them. Bottom line: if the funds will not cause excess contribution, leave them in. Otherwise, take them out as soon as possible.\"" }, { "docid": "221938", "title": "", "text": "Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form." }, { "docid": "559883", "title": "", "text": "You are close to understanding, but it looks like you are slightly off: regular 401K - The amount you contribute is taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal counts as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money later) Roth 401K - The amount you contribute is not taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal will not as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money now.) Additional benefit: You don't pay tax ever on the gains." }, { "docid": "247760", "title": "", "text": "In a simple case as the sole UK resident director/shareholder of a company, with that company as your only income, you are usually best paying yourself a salary of the maximum tax free amount allowed under your tax code (~£11k for most people at present). On this you will have to pay some employer and employee National Insurance (NI) contributions (totalling around £1000). Your salary/employer NI counts as an expense, so that is taken off the company profits. You then pay corporation tax on the remainder (20%). The first £5k you take as dividends is tax free, the remainder at a lower tax rate than the equivalent combined income tax/NI (starting at 7.5% instead of 20% tax plus employee plus employer NI), giving a significant saving compared to salaried income even after corporation tax. To declare and pay the tax, you would need to complete a self-assessment tax return. Your company will also need to file a return. The Contractor UK website, although aimed at IT contractors, has some very useful information on operating Ltd companies. That said, finances are rarely that simple so I would concur with the recommendation you engage an accountant, which is a tax-deductible expense." }, { "docid": "483942", "title": "", "text": "This depends on the state law. In case of the State of New York - these are the criteria for sourcing the NY income: As a sole proprietor or partnership, your New York source income includes: Business activities As a nonresident sole proprietor or partnership, you carry on a business, trade, profession, or occupation within New York State if you (or your business): As you can see, the qualification depends on the way you do business, and the amount of business transactions you have in New York. If it is not clear to you - talk to a CPA/EA licensed to practice in the State of New York to give you an advice." }, { "docid": "45773", "title": "", "text": "Assuming the amount of your car payment and student loan aren't crazy you should be fine. I would suggest starting with a baseline budget listing your monthly income and expenses. Be sure to include miscellaneous expenses like car maintenance, insurance, food, clothes, etc (the common things that sometimes get overlooked in a budget). After all of your necessary expenses (fluff like entertainment doesn't count), if your employer has a 401k with a match I would contribute to that up to the match amount. Next I would save an emergency fund to cover unforseen events such as car repairs, etc. $1000 is not an uncommon amount to see people suggest for this. Next I would knock out your car loan then student loan as fast as possible. This will free up some cash flow which gives you more freedom to do what you want. At this point you save more so you don't have to finance the next car or have a down payment for a home or whatever. Building your savings to be 3-6 months of income is a good idea, this covers things like being laid off or other larger unexpected events. After you get to that point how you handle your budget is pretty open." }, { "docid": "463892", "title": "", "text": "Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount." }, { "docid": "15841", "title": "", "text": "I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K." }, { "docid": "23537", "title": "", "text": "\"Your contributions must come from \"\"compensation\"\". Quoting IRS Publication 590 on IRAs, \"\"Generally, compensation is what you earn from working.\"\" So it is unlikely that your stock sale proceeds, if they're your sole source of income, can be used to fund your IRA. If you do have W-2 income, or self employment income, you can use the proceeds of a stock sale to fund an IRA. The IRS doesn't care where the exact dollars that go into the IRA come from, only that you earned (from working) at least as much as you contributed.\"" }, { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "163865", "title": "", "text": "\"I am not 100% sure, but I think the answer is this: You can't max out both. You could theoretically max out the SIMPLE IRA ($11,500) and then contribute $4,000 to your 401k, but your total can't exceed the 401k limit of $16,500. This also means you could max out your 401k at $16,500, but you couldn't contribute anything to the SIMPLE IRA. Note that no matter what, you can't contribute more than $11,500 to your SIMPLE IRA. (Note that this is all independent from your Traditional or Roth IRA, which are subject to their own limits, and not affected by your participation in employer-sponsored plans.) As I understand it, a 401k and a SIMPLE IRA both fall under the umbrella of \"\"employer-sponsored plans\"\". Just like you can't max out two 401k's at two different employers, you can't do it with the 401k and the SIMPLE IRA. The only weird thing is the contribution limit differences between SIMPLE IRA and 401k, but I don't think the IRS could/would penalize you for working two jobs (enforcing the lower SIMPLE IRA limit for all employer-sponsored retirement accounts). You should probably run the numbers, factoring in the employer match, and figure out which account-contribution scenario makes the most financial sense for you. However, I'm not sure how the employer match helps you when you're talking about a small business that you own/run. You may also want to look at how the employer match of the SIMPLE IRA affects the taxes your business pays. Disclaimer #1: I couldn't find a definitive answer on your specific scenario at irs.gov. I pieced the above info from a few different \"\"SIMPLE IRA info\"\" sites. That's why I'm not 100% sure. It seems intuitively correct to me, though. Does your small business have an accountant? Maybe you should talk to him/her. Disclaimer #2: The $ amounts listed above are based on the IRS 2010 limits.\"" }, { "docid": "448358", "title": "", "text": "Your 401k IRA will now have three different sub-accounts, the one holding your Traditional (pre-tax) 401k contributions, the one holding your Roth 401k contributions, and the one holding the employer match contributions (which, as has been pointed out to you, cannot be considered to be Roth 401k contributions). That is, it is not true that So my next month's check shows $500+$500 going to the regular 401k, and $82+$82 going to the Roth 401k. Your next month's paystub will show $500 going into the regular 401k, $100 going into the Roth 401k, and if employer matching contributions are listed on the paystub, it will still show $600 going into the employer match. If you have chosen to invest your 401k in mutual funds (or stocks), shares are purchased when the 401k administrator receives the money and are also segregated in the three subaccounts. If you are paid monthly, then you will know on a month-by-month basis how many shares you hold in the three separate subaccounts, and there is no end-of-year modification of how many shares were purchased with Roth 401k contributions versus how many were purchased with pretax contributions or with employer matching funds as you seem to think." }, { "docid": "122061", "title": "", "text": "The strength of your plan is that you have considered that if you contribute early the the 401K you might not get the match, so you do stretch it out for the entire year.. One benefit to putting money into the HSA early is that it will be available if you need it early in the year if you have a major medical emergency in the first quarter. If you need to pay a $4,000 deductible in January because of Appendicitis you would hate to have to use post tax money to pay the bill. Of course If you have had the HSA for several years then this might not be a problem. If you haven't maxed the Roth IRA for 2013, you could make contributions to the IRA up until April 15 2014 to count for the previous year. A risk with the HSA is if you leave your employer mid-year. You can keep the money, and use it for medical expenses, but if the new company doesn't have a an HSA/High Deductible plan you might have contributed too much. The 401K, HSA, and IRA are annual limits. So if you will switch companies you are responsible for not going over the limit." }, { "docid": "63532", "title": "", "text": "You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect." }, { "docid": "456636", "title": "", "text": "Current account offers a lot of benefits for sole proprietors. Think of it like bank account for a company. The bank provides a host of facilities for the company. A sole proprietor does not have enough value as that of a company for a bank but needs similar services. Thus Indian banks offer a toned down version of the account offered to a company. Current account offer very good overdraft ( withdrawing money even if balance is zero). This feature is very useful as business cycles and payment schedules can be different for each supplier/customer the sole proprietor does business with. Imagine the sole proprietor account has balance of zero on day 0. customer X made payment by cheque on day 1. Cheques will get credited only on Day 3 (Assume Day 2 is a national holiday or weekend). Sole proprietor gave a cheque to his supplier on day 0. The supplier deposited the cheque on Day 0 and the sole proprietor's bank will debit the the proprietor's account on day 1. As customer's cheque will get credited only day 3, the overdraft facility will let the proprietor borrow from the bank Interestingly, current accounts were offered long before Indian banks started offering customized accounts to corporate customers. The payment schedule mentioned in my example is based on a clearing system > 10 years ago. Systems have become much simpler now but banks have always managed to offer something significantly extra on lines similar to my example above to proprietor over a savings bank account" }, { "docid": "474816", "title": "", "text": "This probably is a question that belongs on History but here's the basic reason: the or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 established that health benefits under approved plans were not taxable to the employee. If the employer were to pay for an employees non ERISA approved individual plan, it would be a taxable benefit. The longer story is that many polticians (esp. President Richard Nixon) were concerned that public pressure was going to lead public sentiment toward nationalized health care. This made health insurance more affordable to employees and effectively made it a cheaper way to compensate employees similar to how 401K contributions are worth more (in nominal terms) to the employee than an equivalent amount of cash. While the law was not signed by Richard Nixon due to some other stuff that was going on, it was something proposed and pushed by his administration." }, { "docid": "490497", "title": "", "text": "Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts." } ]

[ { "docid": "388713", "title": "", "text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part." } ]

[ { "docid": "504989", "title": "", "text": "\"First I would like to say, do not pay credit card companies in an attempt to improve your credit rating. In my opinion it's not worth the cash and not fair for the consumer. There are many great resources online that give advice on how to improve your credit score. You can even simulate what would happen to your score if you did \"\"this\"\". Credit Karma - will give you your TransUnion credit score for free and offers a simulation calculator. If you only have one credit card, I would start off by applying for another simply because $700 is such a small limit and to pay a $30 annual fee seems outrageous. Try applying with the bank where you hold your savings or checking account they are more likely to approve your application since they have a working relationship with you. All in all I would not go out of my way and spend money I would not have spent otherwise just to increase my credit score, to me this practice is counter intuitive. You are allowed a free credit report from each bureau, once annually, you can get this from www.annualcreditreport.com, this won't include your credit score but it will let you see what banks see when they run your credit report. In addition you should check it over for any errors or possible identity theft. If there are errors you need to file a claim with the credit agency IMMEDIATELY. (edit from JoeT - with 3 agencies to choose from, you can alternate during the year to pull a different report every 4 months. A couple, every 2.) Here are some resources you can read up on: Improve your FICO Credit Score Top 5 Credit Misconceptions 9 fast fixes for your credit scores\"" }, { "docid": "125935", "title": "", "text": "Showz Store provides the high-quality toys, in affordable prices and great customer service. We are the fastest growing online toy store, and we’re excited to keep growing. We provide all kinds of toys online. If you are searching Mastermind Creations for your kids, then you can visit our website. Here you can get a lot of toys in best variety. Our online stores are open 24*7 days. We accept all major credit cards." }, { "docid": "100040", "title": "", "text": "Department store cards will appear on your credit report and is often much easier to get approved for. All my friends that have applied for a Macy's card have always been approved. If you are new to the country, department store cards are a great way to build history. Target and Nordstroms are two other department stores to look at. Target is my first suggestion since they carry every day items and will be easy to consistently put charges on the card to build credit history." }, { "docid": "210118", "title": "", "text": "&gt;When a store physically closes, does that effect business in that surrounding area? Absolutely. Many malls are only alive because they have anchor stores that attract customers, which then purchase from less attractive outlets nearby. To compensate, I believe outlets generally subsidize rents of anchors. &gt;This is kind of a branding issue I guess. And/or do online sales noticeably decline in that area? I don't have any data for this, but I believe online sales would increase as brand awareness increases. There are also benefits where you can buy online and have it delivered, but return in person. &gt;I got curious from this because I’ve always noticed that L Brands (operates Victoria’s Secret &amp; Bath and body Works) seems to be in many malls, even failing ones. I’ve since learned that this is actually their business model. But why? Probably low rents. Commercial real estate is a difficult business. Hot locations are always rented. Bad locations will do anything to keep their tenants. &gt;Would they have high rates of return if they were online? Increases in damages? (hard to resell shower gel and undies, even if you don’t know if they were used) I have never seen either of those items be accepted for return... &gt;Or for specialty retailers is it important to the brand that they have a physical location for brand recognition? Yes. Also there are customer acquisition benefits to being physically present such as being able to give out samples, and having a good fragrance such as Subway and that body wash place." }, { "docid": "100533", "title": "", "text": "It is one of the most and largest fresh flower online store such as Wedding Flowers, Event Flowers, Funeral Flowers. There are so many our customers very happy after getting the flowers. Here, you can buy online fresh flower and in new latest style of every flower bouquets. Buy flowers online from largest stores that’s also providing event flowers, and they can also provide same-day delivery services. Personalized gifts like the personal notebooks are also a very great idea that makes your special person feel more special." }, { "docid": "265866", "title": "", "text": "I did the reverse several years ago, moving from NH to MA. You will need to file Form 1-NR/PY for 2017, reporting MA income as a part-year residence. I assume you will need to report the April capital gain on your MA tax return, as you incurred the gain while a MA resident. (I am not a lawyer or tax professional, so I don't want to state anything about this as a fact, but I would be very surprised if moving after you incurred the gain would have any affect on where you report it.)" }, { "docid": "490943", "title": "", "text": "In the world, the huge selection of toys online store, but Showz Store is the best way for you. The best online toy stores are simple to use and have wide search features. A lot of sites allow you to narrow your search results further, making finding that toy still easier. The Shadow Fisher is the best toy for your creative kids. Receiving your toys quickly and economically is essential. You should find no hidden shipping fees when purchasing toys online." }, { "docid": "276333", "title": "", "text": "Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct." }, { "docid": "226997", "title": "", "text": "Buy the latest iPhone in Dubai, UAE, by one the best online store which is shopallitems, we sell all types of iPhone and home appliances through our online store. Now anyone can buy iPhone at affordable prices and make their life very convinient. Shopallitems is online which offers online sale of IPHONE 7 SALE. For further more details about the shopallitems, feel free to get in touch with us, Or visit to our online store." }, { "docid": "529407", "title": "", "text": "Online shopping grows exponentially every year, but Amazon still wanted physical stores, because people want products now, not a week from now. Once the initial loss occured, physical retail levelled out, and now retail has begun to grow again, utilizing new ideas (order online, pick up at the store, get it a little faster. The new scan and go systems that are being used, etc.)" }, { "docid": "298729", "title": "", "text": "\"I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: \"\"disposable\"\", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!\"" }, { "docid": "451737", "title": "", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"" }, { "docid": "420587", "title": "", "text": "Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place." }, { "docid": "45718", "title": "", "text": "\"I use online banking as much as possible and I think it may help you get closer to your goal. I see you want to know where the money goes and save time so it should work for you like it did for me. I used to charge everything or write checks and then pay a big visa bill. My problem was I never knew exactly how much I spent because neither Visa or check writing are record systems. They just generate transactions records. I made it a goal use online banking to match my spending to the available cash and ended up ok usually 9-10 months out of the year. I started with direct deposit of my paycheck. Each Saturday, I sit down and within a half hour, I've paid the bills for the week and know where I stand for the following week. Any new bill that comes in, I add it to online banking even if it's not a recurring expense. I also pull down cash from the ATM but just enough to allow me to do what I have to do. If it's more than $30 or $40 bucks, I use the debit card so that expense goes right to the online bank statement. My monthly bank statement gives me a single report with everything listed. Mortgage, utilities, car payment, cable bill, phone bill, insurance, newspaper, etc... It does not record these transactions in generic categories; they actually say Verizon or Comcast or Shop Rite. I found this serves as the only report I need to see what's happening with my budget. It may take a while to change to a plan like this one. but you'll now have a system that shows you in a single place where the money goes. Move all bills that are \"\"auto-pay\"\" to the online system and watch your Visa bill go down. The invested time is likely what you're doing now writing checks. Hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "51080", "title": "", "text": "Proposed solutions 1 and 3 sound like extra work. Is a dual-file system something that you and your wife will be willing to maintain? Having separate files may better reflect your financial structure, but be sure that the expense of added time and overhead is worth it to you in the long run. You could track your own accounts, your wife's accounts, and your joint accounts in the same Money file (solution 2). Getting married can be a simple matter of adding the wife's accounts and recording transfers as money flows into joint accounts. This would make transfers between accounts easy to record and would afford easy reporting of overall income and spending. To maintain a degree of continuity for your own accounts, customize some reports to exclude your wife's accounts and joint accounts. A note about Microsoft Money I think Microsoft Money is fantastic and I have no plans to stop using it despite the fact that Microsoft killed the product line. All Money users should be made aware of the free Sunset version that requires no online activation. Also check out PocketSense, a collection of free Python scripts that can download transactions from some banks directly into Money. I use and highly recommend both." }, { "docid": "506066", "title": "", "text": "\"There are no \"\"on-line\"\" banks in Israel. There were various attempts to create something that would look like an online bank (HaYashir HaRishon comes to mind, Mizrahi did something similar recently), but that essentially is a branch of a brick and mortar bank (Leumi and Mizrahi, respectively) that allows you online management and phone service instead of walking into a branch, not a replacement for a traditional bank. Thus there are no significant operational savings for the banks through which they could have afforded higher savings rates. I agree with the other responder that the banking system in Israel is very well regulated, but I agree with you also - it is not competitive at all. That said, at the current inflation rate and the current strength of the currency, the 2.02% that you have is actually pretty good. Israel has no interest in paying high rates on incoming money since its currency is too strong and it hurts exports, so don't expect much at home on this issue. Opening an account outside of Israel poses a different problem - tax reporting. You'll have to file an annual tax return and pay your taxes on the interest you earn, something most Israelis never have to do. That will cost you and will probably eat up much, if not all, of the gain. Also, currency fluctuations will hurt you, as no-one will open an account in Shekels outside of Israel and you'll have to convert back and forth. In fact, the first thing to happen when the rates in Israel go up would be for the currency to go down, so whatever you might gain abroad will disappear when you actually decide to move the money back. And you will still be taxed on the interest income (can't deduct capital loss from interest income). Your options, as I see them, are either the stock market or the bonds market (or, more likely, a mix). In Israel, the bonds similar to the US T-Bills (short term bonds) are called \"\"makam\"\" and you can either invest in them directly or through mutual funds. These are traded at TASE and can be held for free (banks are not allowed to charge you for holding them). They're taxed at lower rates than capital gains (15% vs 25%). During the times of low interest these may provide much better alternative than bank savings (pakam).\"" }, { "docid": "287600", "title": "", "text": "\"Market cap doesn't mean that much money went into the system. Money in equals money out over time, and is not directly tied to market cap, which can actually be lower if price drops far enough. These concepts are the same for all traded assets, such as stocks, bonds, and commodities. \"\"Market cap\"\" is simply the current price times the number of shares available in the market. So a $300 billion market cap does not mean $300 billion was paid to somebody to buy it all. Instead, what's happened is that some money went in at first, but much much less, and then price increased. Bitcoin is a little different in that \"\"money in\"\" for many innovators and early adopters was in the form of time spent and contributing to the network (what they call mining). 1 Now, as to the price jump, that's an effect of market forces. For many reasons, the market has clamored to buy bitcoin over the last year 2, but many already holding bitcoin weren't ready to sell. Supply and demand worked in a way that increased price. Supply low, demand high, price increases. This situation could easily reverse. Just as suddenly as the market wanted bitcoin it can decide it doesn't want bitcoin. Supply and demand would work in a way that would decrease price. Supply high, demand low, price decreases. This kind of massive market price movement in this short timeframe is exactly what traders mean by \"\"volatile\"\". It's actually not that unusual, it's just that most stocks and other assets that experience such gains don't get much media attention. Further, gains like this often reflect \"\"inflated\"\" prices, market \"\"euphoria\"\", and trading \"\"bubbles\"\". All of these terms essentially mean \"\"price will correct (go down) eventually, because price is currently much higher than actual value\"\". If the market loses all faith in the asset, price will drop to zero and the \"\"money in equals money out\"\" maxim breaks down. Some traders will be left \"\"holding the bag\"\", meaning they owned the stock at the moment trading permanently ceased. 3 NOTES: Exact reasons cannot be pinpointed with facts. Instead, we enter the realm of opinion on this point. In my opinion, bitcoin has increased massively in value mostly due to the media attention it has received. And this media attention is not new. It received equally pervasive attention in 2013. As an effect, price went from under $100 to over $1000 back to under $200 in about 20 months. It's great news if you're a trader. You could have made tons of money. As for the early bitcoiners, it was actually kind of annoying because it then brought in all the skeptics calling it a \"\"ponzi\"\" scheme or \"\"pyramid\"\" scheme, despite the quite obvious fact that bitcoin cannot be either by definition. Further upward market forces may have come from the fact that bitcoin is built on an innovative technology that may very well change the way we do a lot of things in the future. I'm referring to \"\"blockchain\"\". This effect can be seen in several failing companies rising from the darkness like Valkrie simply by adding the work blockchain to their name. I personally find this exactly analogous to the \"\"dot com bubble\"\", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding \"\".com\"\" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many \"\"penny stocks\"\" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock. Bitcoin is not a company. There's no financials for Bitcoin, no VC investors, board members to report to, no product to produce, etc. Bitcoin is designed to simply be a thing itself. The hope is to disrupt currency and commodity markets and create a new \"\"store of value.\"\" Literally, Bitcoin is designed to have intrinsic value. Whether it's actually working at this point is still unknown.\"" }, { "docid": "299211", "title": "", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"" }, { "docid": "148104", "title": "", "text": "I don't like keeping my tax information online. Personally, I buy TaxCut from Amazon for $25-30. I store my info securely on resources under my control. Call me a luddite or a weirdo, but I also file using paper, because I don't see the advantage of paying for the privilege of saving the government time and money." } ]

[ { "docid": "318266", "title": "", "text": "It looks like businesses selling services (like software downloads) from outside the EU to the UK have to register for VAT if the amount of such sales goes over the UK VAT registration threshold: [If] the value of the taxable supplies you make is over a specified threshold [then] you must register for VAT So it seems plausible that this business does have some requirement to charge VAT on its sales, but clearly it should have done so at the time of sale, not months later. As you say, UK and EU law require that prices are displayed including relevant taxes. Since this business is in the US, they might be able to claim that those rules don't apply to them. But I'm not aware of even US businesses being able to claim sales tax from a US customer months after originally making a sale, and it goes against all reasonable principles of law if they would be able to do it. So the business should really just accept that they screwed up and they'll now have to take the hit and pay the tax themselves. They can work as if the pre-tax price was $12.99/1.2 = $10.825, leaving $2.165 they need to hand over to HMRC. I don't think there's any legal way they can demand money from you now, and certainly for such a low sum of money there's no practical way they could. I can't find anything definitive one way or the other, but I suppose it's possible that HMRC would consider you the importer under these circumstances and so liable for the VAT yourself. But I don't know of any practial way to actually report this to HMRC or pay them the money, and again given the amount there's no realistic chance they'd want to chase you for it. In your shoes I would either ignore the email, or write back and politely tell them that they should have advertised the cost at the time and you're not willing to pay extra now. And you might want to keep an eye on the card you used to pay them to make sure they don't try to just charge it anyway. EDIT: as pointed out in a comment, the company behind this (or at least one with a very similar problem and wording in their emails!) did end up acknowledging that they can't actually do this and that they'll need to pay the tax out of the money they already collected, as I described above. It seems they didn't contact the people they originally emailed to let them know this, though. There's some more discussion here." } ]

[ { "docid": "433801", "title": "", "text": "Note: I am not a lawyer. This is my personal opinion and interpretation. First, your source is European Law, which obviously doesn't apply outside of the EU. The EU cannot make laws that bind entities in other countries; so you cannot claim that the VAT was needed to be mentioned. Second, if you owe something, you owe it; it doesn't matter if it was forgotten to be mentioned. At best, you can say that under those circumstances you don't want the software anymore, and i would assume you can send it back and get your money back (minus a fee for having it used for a while...) - this gets quite difficult to calculate clearly, so it's probably not a good avenue to follow for you. As the company has to send the VAT to your country (they will not be allowed to keep a dime of it, and have to bear the complete cost for the handling), it is a debt you have to your government; they are just the entity responsible for collecting it. Still, if you just ignore them, they will probably suck it up, and your government will also not do a thing to you. If they only have your email address, they have no way of knowing if you even still have/use this address; for all they know, it could be you never got it. They also cannot simply charge your card, as they probably don't have the card data any more (they are not supposed to keep it after the transaction is complete, and they thought it was complete at the time). All in all, you should be safe to ignore it. It's between you and your god/consciousness, if you feel obliged to pay it, as technically you owe it." }, { "docid": "567193", "title": "", "text": "Under US law, a bank is not obligated to honor a check that is more than six months old. § 4-404. BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD. A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith. Note the law says the bank is not OBLIGATED to honor the check, but they are not forbidden from doing so. I don't have a survey on this, but I think most banks won't honor a check after more than 6 months to a year. I've had a few occasions where early in the year someone accidentally wrote the previous year on a check, like on January 10, 2017 they dated the check January 10, 2016, and the bank has given me a hard time about cashing it. The statute of limitations to challenge payment or non-payment of a check is 6 years: § 3-118. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (b) Except as provided in subsection (d) or (e), if demand for payment is made to the maker of a note payable on demand, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the note must be commenced within six years after the demand. I understand your frustration about being denied money that you presumably worked for and earned. But look at it from the other side. Suppose you wrote a check to someone, and years later they still had not cashed it. At some point you'd want to be able to clear this off your bank account. What if you want to close the account? What happens when you die? Would your heirs have to keep this account open for years ... decades ... centuries ... on the possibility that someday someone will cash this check? Realistically, there has to be SOME time limit. 6 months should be plenty of time for someone to make it to the bank with a check. If the company still exists then you could argue they have a MORAL obligation to pay you. If they have records that show that they did indeed give you this check and you never cashed it there'd be no question that you were trying to cheat them. But a moral obligation and a legal obligation are two different things. Legally, they paid you, and it's your problem that you failed to cash the check. You could talk to a lawyer, but if you live in the US, I think you are out of luck. (Of course other countries have different laws.)" }, { "docid": "200946", "title": "", "text": "DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO THAT!!! What could happen if you lie is that they ask for pay stubs before you get an offer letter. If you don't have paystubs to back up what you claim to of made you have likely just lost your job. If they keep you anyway they will be watching you like a hawk because you have proven on the front end that you can't be trusted. I just went through this very same thing a few months ago and here is how I handled it. These numbers are made up so not to reveal my real salary, of course. I was making $2/hr and underpaid at my then company and wanted to make $10 from the new guys. I knew they wouldn't pay me $10 so I was hoping to make $6. They also wouldn't pay me $6 put they offered me $5. $5 was $3 more than I was making before so I gladly took it. I have a salary I can live with for a few years and I'm in a position to grow with the new company. Be honest and negotiate. Be prepared to explain why you think you are worth the money you say you are. Be reasonable about the situation and don't get greedy. You are doing good by them showing interest in retaining you in the first place. Play your cards correctly and professionally and you will do well. Whatever you do don't lie about anything. Good luck!!!" }, { "docid": "27105", "title": "", "text": "\"Using your Uber vs. Medallion taxi driver as an example... The problem in the sharing economy is an individual -- working as an independent contractor -- takes on all the risk and reaps diminishing rewards while the profit of the company to which the individual is contracted increases significantly. Case in point with Uber: Let's say you decide you want to drive for UberX. You lease a Prius, and thus are on the hook financially for $350/month + $100/month insurance + $300/month gas and other car expenses, and you'll have that for three years. That's a $750 nut. Your nut remains the same, but you have very little protection to ensure that your earnings are going to continue to come in, especially if you look at it long term. I am most familiar with the ridesharing market here in Seattle, and just in the last two years the number of ridesharing drivers (Uberx, Lyft, Sidecar) has exceeded an estimated 3,000. Sure, the customer base grows, but there is also a continuing influx of additional drivers competing for those \"\"fares.\"\" With the medallion system, there is some level of protection to ensure that the industry remains viable for those who carry a medallion (I am not advocating completely for this system and realize that the complacency the government protection gave to the taxi industry led to customer service/quality issues.) So back to Uber...As Uber fights for market share, both capturing from the taxi industry but also competing against Lyft and people driving their own cars, they lower prices. In some cases these lower prices have been in the form of discounts, in some cases, lower fares. In Seattle, currently, the minimum fare for an UberX ride is $4. It was $6 a year ago. Uber takes a 20 percent cut from drivers, and also charges drivers $10 a week to use their service. If a driver makes $1000 a week in fares, they pull down $800 of that, after taxes, let's call it $600, so over the course of a month, you're looking at $2400, minus your nut (including phone rental) let's call it $1600 take home pay. These people aren't getting rich to begin with, and are at a huge risk for when Uber or Lyft or Task Rabbit or whoever decides to cut their prices again. These services are beyond great for the consumer, but are a temporary stopgap for anyone relying on them for work. The big problem here is that companies like Uber are advertising HEAVILY that you can make $30/hour on their service, enticing people to make investments in things like cars to drive with them, but at the end of the day, you're an independent contractor and Uber owes you nothing. I believe Uber (I single them out because I think Lyft is a little better at this) preys on the ignorance of potential drivers to lure them into the system.\"" }, { "docid": "20796", "title": "", "text": "\"I've had a mortgage changing hands with mid size companies for many years with no problems. I've handled many complex financial and technical transactions with multiple parties with no problems over the course decades. Then, after my last refinance, my mortgage fell into the hands of JP Morgan Chase. The bank sent one letter to let me know of the transfer, and in the next week they sent my loan to collections for what I later found to be Chase's process error in the transfer. For the next three months, I ended up in customer service hell as one Chase group threatened to foreclose on my house while another group told me to ignore the imminent foreclosure notices. One started to \"\"investigate\"\" the transfer while the collections group tried to make me pay my mortgage payment twice. The mess only ended up being taken care of after I tracked down the old owner of my loan and had them refund the \"\"lost\"\" payment directly to me - normally they would have sent it to the company buying the loan, but could not get Chase to accept the payment. Then I paid Chase that exact same mortgage payment. All the time the Chase internal investigations and collections department were completely incapable of a simple call to previous holder of the loan. A company handling millions of mortgage transactions is somehow incapable of handling a minor glitch in a mortgage transfer? It's either utter incompetence or total malice in picking up extra penalty fees or maybe an occasional forclosure if homeowners didn't say on top of the details. This is what we used our collective tax dollars to bail out.\"" }, { "docid": "322246", "title": "", "text": "\"In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called \"\"Fair Tax\"\". Basically, that's exactly how the \"\"rich folks\"\", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway.\"" }, { "docid": "267068", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically what @littleadv said, but let me amplify what I think is the most important point. As he/she says, one thing you're paying them for is their expertise. If the title on record at the county office had a legal flaw in it, would you recognize it? In a way your question is like asking, Why should I go to a doctor when I could just make my own medicine out of herbs I grow in my garden and treat myself? Maybe you could. But the doctor and the pharmacist have years of training on how to do this right. You probably don't. Is it possible for you to learn everything you need to do it right? Sure. But do you want to spend the time to study all that for something that you will do -- buy a house -- maybe once every ten years? Will you remember it all next time or have to learn it all over? But really most important is, title companies offer insurance in case the title turns out to be flawed. That, to me, is the big reason why I would use a title company even if I was paying cash and there was no bank involved to insist on it. If there's some legal flaw in the title and it turns out that someone else has a claim to my house, and I lose in court, I would be out about $100,000. Your house might be costing you much more. That's a huge risk to take. Paying the couple of hundred dollars for insurance against that risk seems well worth it to me. And by the way, I don't think the \"\"due diligence\"\" is easy. It's NOT just a matter of making sure a title is really on file at the court house and has the proper stamp on it. It's all about, Does someone else have a legal claim to this property? Like, maybe three owners ago someone forged a signature on a deed, so the sale is fraudulent, and now the person who was defrauded or his heirs discover the issue and claim the property. Or maybe the previous owner failed to pay a contractor who did repairs on the house, and now he goes to court and gets a lien on the property. It's unlikely that you have the expertise to recognize a forged document. You almost surely have no way to recognize a forged signature of someone you never met on an otherwise valid-looking document. And you'd have to do a lot of research to find every contractor who ever worked on the house and insure none of them have a claim. Etc.\"" }, { "docid": "233535", "title": "", "text": "\"The first thing you should do is write a letter to the collection company telling them that you dispute all charges and demand, per section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that they immediately validate and confirm any and all debts they allege you owe. You should further request that that they only communicate with you by mail. Section 809 requires them to examine the legal documents showing you allegedly owe a debt and they are required to send this to you. This all creates a useful paper trail. When you send the letter, be sure to send it as certified mail with a return receipt. From your description, it doesn't sound like this will do anything, but it's important you do it within 30 days of them contacting you. This is because the law allows them to assume the debt is valid if you don't do it within 30 days of their initial contact. I recommend you speak with an attorney. Most states have a statute of limitation on debt of about 4 or 5 years. I don't know if that applies to courts though. Whatever you do, be very careful of the language you use when speaking with them. Always refer to it as \"\"the alleged debt,\"\" or \"\"the debt you allege I owe.\"\" You don't want them misconstruing your words later on. As far as proving you paid it, I would look through every scrap of paper I'd ever touched looking for it. If that proves fruitless, try going to the courthouse and looking through their records. If they're saying you didn't pay, that's a long shot, but still worth a try. You could also try bank records from that time, like if you have a Visa statement showing $276.17 paid to the Nevada Court or something like that. If all else fails, the law allows you to send the collector a letter saying that you refuse to pay the debt. The collection company then legally must stop contacting you unless it's to tell you they are suing you or to tell you they won't contact you again. I strongly advise against this though. Your best bet is going to be speaking with a qualified attorney. Edit: You should also pull your credit reports to make sure this isn't being reported there. Federal law gives you the right to have a free copy of each of your credit reports once every year. If it is being reported, send a certified letter with return receipt to each bureau which is reporting it telling them you dispute the information. They then are required to confirm the information. If they can't confirm it, they must remove it. If they do confirm it, you are legally entitled to put a statement disputing the information next to it on your credit report. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advise. You should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.\"" }, { "docid": "30322", "title": "", "text": "\"(Disclosure - PeerStreet was at FinCon, a financial blogger conference I attended last month. I had the chance to briefly meet a couple people from this company. Also, I recognize a number of the names of their financial backers. This doesn't guarantee anything, of course, except the people behind the scenes are no slackers.) The same way Prosper and Lending Club have created a market for personal loans, this is a company that offers real estate loans. The \"\"too good to be true\"\" aspect is what I'll try to address. I've disclosed in other answers that I have my Real Estate license. Earlier this year, I sold a house that was financed with a \"\"Hard Money\"\" loan. Not a bank, but a group of investors. They charged the buyer 10%. Let me state - I represented the seller, and when I found out the terms of the loan, it would have been a breach of my own moral and legal responsibility to her to do anything to kill the deal. I felt sick for days after that sale. There are many people with little credit history who are hard workers and have saved their 20% down. For PeerStreet, 25%. The same way there's a business, local to my area, that offered a 10% loan, PeerStreet is doing something similar but in a 'crowd sourced' way. It seems to me that since they show the duration as only 6-24 months, the buyer typically manages to refinance during that time. I'm guessing that these may be people who are selling their house, but have bad timing, i.e. they need to first close on the sale to qualify to buy the new home. Or simply need the time to get their regular loan approved. (As a final side note - I recalled the 10% story in a social setting, and more than one person responded they'd have been happy to invest their money at 6%. I could have saved the buyer 4% and gotten someone else nearly 6% more than they get on their cash.)\"" }, { "docid": "17731", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not downvoting you because I can relate, in a way, to your post and I think this is a good topic to have on this site. We had a question a couple weeks ago where someone, like you, took some friend's money to trade with but didn't know how to give the money back or calculate the net-return. It is not smart to take and invest other people's money when you have zero industry experience and when you do not understand the legal requirements of handling someone else's money. Within the first 12 months of my brokerage account I had returned something like 150%, I doubled my money plus a bit. The next year was something like -20%; if I remember correctly the next year was worse, then up again for year four. Year 1 I thought I was a genius and had figured this whole thing out, year 2 put me in my place and year 3 kicked me while I was down. You have 6 months of pretty solid returns, good for you. I don't think that means it's time to set up shop. Really, I think you need to sit down and think long and hard about the implications, legal and otherwise, of holding other people's money. Running a fund is significantly different than trading your own money. Retail investors don't, typically, have a good memory. Great, you made me 17% last year, and 25% the year before but right now I'm down 10%, so give me my money back because I would have been better off in an savings account this year. This is why index funds are in vogue right now. Lots of people have had money in active funds that have trailed or matched the \"\"safe and passive\"\" index funds, so they're angry. Retail folks get jittery the instant they lose money, no matter how much. You need to be ready to contend with \"\"What have you done for me lately?\"\" the instant something turns negative, no matter how positive your returns have been. At your stage in the game you should get a job and continue putting your own money in to your own system and be ready to lose some of it. I doubt there is anyone outside your immediate family who will hand a random 18 year-old kid any significant amount of money to trade their system based on 6 months of success; certainly not more than you have in there currently.\"" }, { "docid": "490529", "title": "", "text": "\"To expand on @JoeTaxpayer's answer, the devil is actually in the fine print. All the \"\"credit-card checks\"\" that I have ever received in the mail explicitly says that the checks cannot be used to pay off (or pay down) the balance on any other credit card issued by the same bank, whether the card is branded with the bank logo or is branded with a department-store or airline logo etc. The checks can be used to pay utilities, or even taxes, without paying the \"\"service fee\"\" that is charged for using a credit card for such payments. The payee is paid the face amount of the check, in contrast to charges on a credit card from a merchant who gets to collect only about 95%-98% of the amount on the \"\"charge slip\"\". Generally speaking, balance transfer offers are a bad deal regardless of whether you pay only the minimum amount due each month or whether you pay each month's statement balance in full by the due date or anything in between. The rest of this answer is an explanation in support of the above assertion. Feel free to TL;DR it if you like. If you make only the minimum payment due each month and some parts of the balance that you are carrying has different interest rates applicable than other parts, then your payment can be applied to any part of the balance at the bank's discretion. It need hardly be said that the bank invariably chooses to apply it to pay off the lowest-rate portion. By law (CARD Act of 2009), anything above the minimum payment due must be applied to pay off the highest-rate part (and then the next highest rate part, etc), but minimum payment or less is at the bank's discretion. As an illustration, suppose that you are not using your credit cards any more and are conscientiously paying down the balances due by making the minimum payment due each month. Suppose also that you have a balance of $1000 carrying 12% APR on Card A, and pay off the entire balance of $500 on Card B, transferring the amount at 0% APR to Card A for which you are billed a 2% fee. Your next minimum payment will be likely be $35; computed as $10 (interest on $1000) + $10 transfer fee + $15 (1% of balance of $1500). If you make only the minimum payment due, that payment will go towards paying off the $500, and so for next month, your balance will be $1500 of which $1035 will be charged 1% interest, and $465 will be charged 0% interest. In the months that follow, the balance on which you owe 1% interest per month will grow and the 0% balance will shrink. You have to pay more than the minimum amount due to reduce the amount that you owe. In this example, in the absence of the balance transfer, the minimum payment would have been $20 = $10 (interest on $1000 at 1% per month) + $10 (1% of balance) and would have left you with $990 due for next month. To be at the same point with the balance transfer offer, you would need to pay $30 more than the minimum payment of $35 due. This extra $30 will pay off the interest and transfer fee ($20) and the rest will be applied to the $1000 balance to reduce it to $990. There would be no balance transfer fee in future months and so the extra that you need to pay will be a little bit smaller etc. If you avoid paying interest charges on credit cards by never taking any cash advances and by paying off the monthly balance (consisting only of purchases made within the past month) in full by the due date, then the only way to avoid paying interest on the purchases made during the month of the balance transfer offer is to pay off that month's statement in full (including the balance just transferred over and the balance transfer fee) by the due date. So, depending on when in the billing cycle the transfer occurs, you are getting a loan of the balance transfer amount for 25 to 55 days and being charged 2% or 3% for the privilege. If you are getting offers of 2% balance transfer fees instead of 3%, you are probably among those who pay their balances in full each month, and the bank is trying to tempt you into doing a balance transfer by offering a lower fee. (It is unlikely that they will make a no-transfer-fee offer.) They would prefer laughing all the way to themselves by collecting a 2% transfer fee from you (and possibly interest too if you fail to read the fine print) than having you decline such offers at 3% as being too expensive. Can you make a balance transfer offer work in your favor? Sure. Don't make any purchases on the card in the month of the balance transfer or during the entire time that the 0% APR is being offered. In the month of the transfer, pay the minimum balance due plus the balance transfer fee. In succeeding months, pay the minimum balance due (typically 1% of the balance owed) each month. All of it will go to reducing the 0% APR balance because that is the only amount owing. Just before the 0% APR expires (anywhere from 6 to 24 months), pay off the remaining balance in full. But remember that you are losing the use of this card for this whole period of time. Put it away in a locked trunk in the attic because using the card to make a purchase will mean paying interest on charges from the day they post, something that might be totally alien to you.\"" }, { "docid": "432177", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;It seems that the corporation was ordered to pay, no? The man does not claim he can't pay it, he claims the corporate entity that is supposed to pay it can't pay it. Exactly. Robert K (Rich Dad) established a company called Rich Global LLC. Which was sued by his partners in that company for failure to pay their agreed upon percentage of income. [From this article](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/rich-dad-poor-dad-author-files-bankruptcy/story?id=17463158#.UHhXSG_A_6M): The company had been weighed down by a lawsuit filed by Learning Annex, one of Kiyosaki's earliest backers who had helped arrange his public speaking events earlier on, Forbes reported. Bill Zanker, the founder and president of Learning Annex, sued Kiyosaki after he allegedly failed to pay a percentage of profits from his speaking engagements. A district judge in New York awarded Learning Annex $23.7 million. \"\"I took Kiyosaki's brand and made it bigger,\"\" Zanker told the New York Post. \"\"The deal was I would get a percentage, and he reneged. We had a signed letter of intent. The Learning Annex is his greatest promoter. We put his 'Rich Dad' brand on a stage. We truly prepared him for great fame and riches. But when it was time for him to pay up, he said 'no.' \"\" Robert Kiyosaki, author of the book, \"\"Rich Dad, Poor Dad\"\" filed for corporate bankruptcy through one of his companies, Rich Global LLC. A few years ago Robert K started another company called Rich Dad Co. He shifted all sales from books, seminars videos etc from his first company to the new company. It seems this was a fantastic stroke of lucky timing - or he purposefully did this while talks were souring between him and his former business partners. The former company is a shell with very little assets. That's pretty convenient. &gt;This man probably runs several businesses. Yes he does - I have provided examples of this in my previous posts. &gt;there is a chance some may go under. Go under? His book sales are not diminishing, he still does sell out seminars, he is paid for public speaking. This isn't about a company that failed to become successful. &gt;If you don't want to invest with someone who doesn't have skin in the game, all you have to do is don't invest. Are you even aware of who is partners are / did you even read any of the information I have provided to you? His partners were the people who made him famous. They backed him and propelled him to the level he is currently at. They are asking for their fair share of what they created - and a court of law agrees with them. Robert K screwed them. Example: I am a low level motivational speaker. You are a promoter and believe in my message. You and I go into business. My job is to continue to write books, speak and create videos - you back me financially and create a PR and marketing campaign to propel me to a higher level of public awareness. You do your job and make me famous. When it comes time to pay you - I reorganize the company and screw you. I really can't continue this conversation. I have provided plenty of information, supporting links and examples. It is clear that you are unwilling or just unable to concede (at ANY LEVEL) that it is even possible that someone would/could manipulate BK laws to avoid liability. This discussion is turning into the equivalent of someone trying to describe the color red to a blind person. No matter what I present to you - you just can't see red. You are obviously entitled to your opinion and just for the record I have not downvoted a single one of your posts - however, due to your instance and firmly held belief that this type of business practice is \"\"smart business\"\" I restate that (in my opinion) you are part of the problem. *edit: Yet more fat fingered spelling mistakes... my typing skills need improvement\"" }, { "docid": "586944", "title": "", "text": "(1) Should I register for VAT?  – If it is below the threshold amount it is purely voluntary. If you register for VAT, you would have to charge VAT and then do returns every quarter. If you can take up this bit of hassle, it doesn't make much of a difference. One thing you need to consider: you get 1% discount during your first year of registering for VAT. If you want to save this discount for when you really need to pay VAT, it could be helpful. (2) What benefits would registering for VAT include?  – Except for reclaiming VAT, where you pay VAT for business expenses, not much. (3) Would I not just hold onto the monies for HMRC ?  – You wouldn't hold any money for HMRC. They will send you notifications if you do not file your returns and pay your VAT quarterly. And get everything cleared from your accountant. If your accountant doesn't answer properly, make it clear you need proper answers. Else change your accountant. If you do something wrong and HMRC gets after you, you would be held liable – your accountant can take the slip if you signed on all business documents provided by your accountant." }, { "docid": "166522", "title": "", "text": "\"I had about $16k in student loans. I defaulted on the loans, and they got > passed to a collection type agency (OSCEOLA). These guys are as legitimate as a collection agency can be. One thing that I feel is very sketchy is when they were verifying my identity they said \"\"Does your Social Security Number end in ####. Is your Birthday Month/Day/Year.\"\" That is not sketchy. It would be sketchy for a caller to ask you to give that information; that's a common scheme for identity theft. OSCEOLA are following the rules on this one. My mom suggested I should consider applying for bankruptcy Won't help. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. You have the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act passed during the Bush 43 regime for that. The loan itself is from school. What school? Contact them and ask for help. They may have washed their hands of your case when they turned over your file to OSCEOLA. Then again, they may not. It's worth finding out. Also, name and shame the school. Future applicants should be warned that they will do this. What can I do to aid in my negotiations with this company? Don't negotiate on the phone. You've discovered that they won't honor such negotiations. Ask for written communications sent by postal mail. Keep copies of everything, including both sides of the canceled checks you use to make payments (during the six months and in the future). Keep making the payments you agreed to in the conversation six months ago. Do not, EVER, ignore a letter from them. Do not, EVER, skip going to court if they send you a summons to appear. They count on people doing this. They can get a default judgement if you don't show up. Then you're well and truly screwed. What do you want? You want the $4K fee removed. If you want something else, figure out what it is. Here's what to do: Write them a polite letter explaining what you said here. Recount the conversation you had with their telephone agent where they said they would remove the $4K fee if you made payments. Recount the later conversation. If possible give the dates of both conversations and the names of the both agents. Explain the situation completely. Don't assume the recipient of your letter knows anything about your case. Include evidence that you made payments as agreed during the six months. If you were late or something, don't withhold that. Ask them to remove the extra $4K from your account, and ask for whatever else you want. Send the letter to them with a return receipt requested, or even registered mail. That will prevent them from claiming they didn't get it. And it will show them you're serious. Write a cover letter admitting your default, saying you relied on their negotiation to set things straight, and saying you're dismayed they aren't sticking to their word. The cover letter should ask for help sorting this out. Send copies of the letter with the cover letter to: Be sure to mark your letter to OSCEOLA \"\"cc\"\" all these folks, so they know you are asking for help. It can't hurt to call your congressional representative's office and ask to whom you should send the letter, and then address it by name. This is called Constituent Service, and they take pride in it. If you send this letter with copies you're letting them know you intend to fight. The collection agency may decide it's not worth the fight to get the $4K and decide to let it go. Again, if they call to pressure you, say you'd rather communicate in writing, and that they are not to call you by telephone. Then hang up. Should I hire a lawyer? Yes, but only if you get a court summons or if you don't get anywhere with this. You can give the lawyer all this paperwork I've suggested here, and it will help her come up to speed on your case. This is the kind of stuff the lawyer would do for you at well over $100 per hour. Is bankruptcy really an option Certainly not, unfortunately. Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators. You are their lawful prey. They look at you, lick their chops, and think, \"\"food.\"\" Watch John Oliver's takedown of that industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUAntt1z2c Good luck and stay safe.\"" }, { "docid": "171512", "title": "", "text": "A friend from Shell (Indian by blood/South African by nationality) told me a couple of months ago that China, India, and Russia had a long term plan cooking to run crude through to China from Russia; thence to India via pipeline. This is a real showstopper deal. When I looked it up online, there is evidence it is coming. Who knew about the big gas deal with China? Who knew about this one with Iran? Carnegie.ru (Dmitri Simes) says this whole thing is about control of and regime change of Russia by the US through State Department policy. Notsomuch Ukraine as Russia! Given the US' record with regime changes, if Carnegie is right, this is a huge FAIL. DOOMED!!" }, { "docid": "432393", "title": "", "text": "You should start by calling the clinic and asking them to tell you how the visit was coded. Some clinics have different billing codes based on the complexity of the visit. If you have one thing you are seeing the doctor about, that could be coded differently than if you have 4 things you are seeing the doctor about. In fact, even if you are there just for one ailment, but while you are there you happen to ask a few quick questions about other possible ailments, the doctor could decide to use the billing code for the higher complexity. If when speaking to the billing department it is determined that the visit is using a higher complexity billing code (and a higher charge as a result), you could then request that it be re-coded with the lower complexity visit. Realize if you request that they will probably have to first get approval from the doctor that saw you. Note: I am basing this answer on first hand experience about 6 months ago in Illinois, where the situation I described happened to me because I asked some unrelated questions about other possible ailments at the end of a visit to an after hours clinic. The billing department explained that my visit was coded for 4 issues. (3 of them were quick questions I asked about at the end of the visit, one of which she referred me to another doctor. My additional questions probably extended the visit by 3-4 minutes.) In my case I never got the bill reduced, mainly due to my own laziness and my knowing that I would hit my deductible anyway this year. Of course I can't say for sure if this is what happened in your case, or even if this practice is widespread. This was the first and only time in my life that I encountered it. As a side note, your primary doctor would likely rarely ever bill you for a more complex visit, as it likely wouldn't lead to much repeat business. As for your last question regarding your credit: if the provider decides to lower the price, and you pay the lower price, this in no way can affect your credit. Surprising Update: When I called the billing office months ago, I had asked if they could confirm the code with the doctor, and I was told they would look into it. I never heard back, never followed up, and assumed that was the end of it. Well, today I got a call back (months later) and was informed that they had re-coded the visit which will result in a lower charge! It's still pending the insurance adjustment but at some point in the future I expect to receive either a credit on my next statement or a check in the mail. (The price difference pre-insurance in my case has gone from $359 to $235.) Update: I did receive a check for the difference. The check was dated July 20, 2016, which is just over 2 months after the phone call informing me I would receive it." }, { "docid": "450887", "title": "", "text": "\"I agree 100%. I am a search engine marketer with a large focus on adwords. I built my company which has $7mil of revenue a year in a little under 5 years using adwords as the backbone of my marketing. I have helped out lots of friends with small adwords campaigns. Here are a couple examples. My dad is a high end furniture maker. He sold to galleries for decades. They would mark his stuff up 100%. So a table that he sold to them for $2000 they would sell for $4000. I got him a basic website done and started an adwords campaign which costed me about $100 a month. After a year he was no longer selling to galleries. He was charging full retail for his work. That started 5 years ago. He was able to weather this financial crisis when other artists were closing up shop, all because of adwords. I have a friend who is a fisherman. He would sell most of his fish to a wholesale buyer for a low price then take what he thought he could sell retail down to the pier to sell to locals. I got him a website with a call to action which said \"\"sign up to receive alerts when the fresh fish is coming in\"\". I started an adwords campaign and ran it to only show ads to people near the pier. I spent about $10 a month. Over the course of two years he built a customer list of over 200 people who get an email every time he is coming in and they call and place orders. Now he knows how much he can sell retail (and that's a whole lot more than he did before). Both of these examples were game changers for these people and all done with minimal adwords expense. One thing you should do is do a google search from your house (should be in the area your dad wants to service) and search for \"\"plumber in [your location]\"\". Take a look at ads on the search engine results page. If you see lots of them for plumbers in your area then there will be competition and its a bit of a tougher road (but totally doable). If you don't see many ads then you are in luck and you will own it. I started with this book: http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Guide-Google-AdWords-Million/dp/1599180308 It changed my life. Once I because an adwords expert I felt I could do anything and I haven't been proven wrong. Good luck. If you need any help let me know.\"" }, { "docid": "241585", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Uber wasn't trying to track everybody post ride for fun, they were trying to model future demand for cars before somebody punched in they needed a ride. Well, I'm sure that was *one* of the reasons - even the primary reason, perhaps. But it's a bad idea to assume that companies are only using certain data in the ways you think they are. Like, when you pay with your credit card at a restaurant... You may expect them to keep a file linked to the card number so that they can track what people order over time. You *probably* don't expect them to explicitly match your credit card to your FB/LI/etc, create a file of information about you with pictures, and then use that info to instruct your server next time to talk about travel because you have a trip coming up. You *probably* don't expect them to share your file with other restaurants, so when you go to a different restaurant next week, the server there knows to upsell you on the wine. You *probably* don't expect them to sell that profile to data brokers who match all that to public record data (like mortgages and car registrations) in order to sell to yet other companies. But they do those things. Same deal with literally every company who obtains data. The correct calculation when deciding to give data to a company isn't \"\"what is the data and what do I think the company will do with it.\"\" **The correct calculation is:** - what is the data - how can that data be combined with data about me from *everywhere* else: social networks, public records, credit card transactions, location data, etc - who could potentially get their hands on it (generally the company's tech/marketing partners and vendors + data brokers -- assume everyone) - what's the worst possible way that I imagine this could be used (e.g., to show me ads for italian restaurants, to show me higher prices because it looks like I'm a big spender, to prove that I'm cheating on my wife, etc) Then if you're still cool with giving them the data, awesome! Just remember that we have crappy memories, but computers don't. You might not recall that night in a hotel a few years ago, but computers do. You may not pick up on the subtle long term patterns in your own behavior (like the fact that your \"\"totally random cravings\"\" for a Big Mac occur predictably every 12-14 months), but computers will.\"" }, { "docid": "381830", "title": "", "text": "The VAT number should be equivalent from the point of view of your client. The fact that you are a sole trader and not a limited liability doesn't matter when it comes down to pay VAT. They should pay the VAT to you and you will pay it to the government. I'll guess that their issue is with tax breaks, it is a bit more tricky to receive a tax break on paid taxes if you buy something abroad (at least it is here in Finland). If they won't pay you because of that, you could open a LTD or contract the services of a 'management company' which will do the job of invoicing, receiving the money and passing it back to you, for a fee." } ]

[ { "docid": "433801", "title": "", "text": "Note: I am not a lawyer. This is my personal opinion and interpretation. First, your source is European Law, which obviously doesn't apply outside of the EU. The EU cannot make laws that bind entities in other countries; so you cannot claim that the VAT was needed to be mentioned. Second, if you owe something, you owe it; it doesn't matter if it was forgotten to be mentioned. At best, you can say that under those circumstances you don't want the software anymore, and i would assume you can send it back and get your money back (minus a fee for having it used for a while...) - this gets quite difficult to calculate clearly, so it's probably not a good avenue to follow for you. As the company has to send the VAT to your country (they will not be allowed to keep a dime of it, and have to bear the complete cost for the handling), it is a debt you have to your government; they are just the entity responsible for collecting it. Still, if you just ignore them, they will probably suck it up, and your government will also not do a thing to you. If they only have your email address, they have no way of knowing if you even still have/use this address; for all they know, it could be you never got it. They also cannot simply charge your card, as they probably don't have the card data any more (they are not supposed to keep it after the transaction is complete, and they thought it was complete at the time). All in all, you should be safe to ignore it. It's between you and your god/consciousness, if you feel obliged to pay it, as technically you owe it." } ]

[ { "docid": "235855", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not so much a matter of your age as it is a matter of what your current tax rate is vs. what your tax rate will be when you take out the money. As long as your current tax rate is lower than what you anticipate it will be when you withdraw the money, it makes sense to pay the tax now. Of course you can't know for certain what your tax rate will be when you take out your money, but the answer for most people is going to be \"\"higher than it is now\"\". Some reasons why: As you age you start to lose deductions (home mortgage gets paid off, kids grow up and move out). You likely won't gain any new deductions that would lower your tax rate as you age, you'll only lose them. Tax rates now are historically low, and budget deficits are high. That means that higher tax rates are almost certainly coming. So unless your circumstances are very unusual, I would pretty much always recommend saving after-tax dollars. Now that I've said that, I'll throw a small wrench into that plan - when you save with a Roth IRA, you are paying taxes today with the anticipation that you won't have to pay taxes later. But this may not necessarily be the case: The government could decide to tax Roth IRA gains in the future (would be a very unpopular move, but if they decided to do it, who's to stop them?) The government could change the tax system by lowering income tax rates and creating a VAT, or instituting something like the \"\"Flat Tax\"\". Your Roth money is exempt from income tax, but not from a VAT or national sales tax. So, you also need to consider the possibility of those things happening and how that would affect you. Ten years ago nobody would have dreamed of the US having a VAT, but now it looks more and more possible.\"" }, { "docid": "20796", "title": "", "text": "\"I've had a mortgage changing hands with mid size companies for many years with no problems. I've handled many complex financial and technical transactions with multiple parties with no problems over the course decades. Then, after my last refinance, my mortgage fell into the hands of JP Morgan Chase. The bank sent one letter to let me know of the transfer, and in the next week they sent my loan to collections for what I later found to be Chase's process error in the transfer. For the next three months, I ended up in customer service hell as one Chase group threatened to foreclose on my house while another group told me to ignore the imminent foreclosure notices. One started to \"\"investigate\"\" the transfer while the collections group tried to make me pay my mortgage payment twice. The mess only ended up being taken care of after I tracked down the old owner of my loan and had them refund the \"\"lost\"\" payment directly to me - normally they would have sent it to the company buying the loan, but could not get Chase to accept the payment. Then I paid Chase that exact same mortgage payment. All the time the Chase internal investigations and collections department were completely incapable of a simple call to previous holder of the loan. A company handling millions of mortgage transactions is somehow incapable of handling a minor glitch in a mortgage transfer? It's either utter incompetence or total malice in picking up extra penalty fees or maybe an occasional forclosure if homeowners didn't say on top of the details. This is what we used our collective tax dollars to bail out.\"" }, { "docid": "416317", "title": "", "text": "\"That's not the case where I'm located. Techs are hired \"\"temp to hire\"\" on contract. They are paid less than permanent employees. They aren't given any of the benefits of permanent employees. They are, just as the article says, treated like second class employees. Even third class at one company I worked for. And they are strung along with \"\"we just aren't hiring right now\"\" lines and told \"\"we'll extend your contract again and see if we are hiring at the end next time\"\". I was laid off from a full time position because we were bought out by another company. I spent 7 months unemployed. I got a call for contract work and it only lasted two weeks. I was paid significantly less than my previous full time job and was not offered any kind of benefits at all. When that contract was up I was offered a contract at another company. Again, I was paid significantly less than I was making before and I was strung along by that company for two years before another contract offered me more money. With that contract I was finally getting paid what I was getting paid at my last permanent position, but again I did not receive the same benefits as a full time employee. That contract let me go after 18 months due to policy that they couldn't string contractors along. I was told that I could wait 6 months and be hired again, though! I then spent four months unemployed until I found my next contract which then hired me full time after 6 months. I've been full time for 2 years here now, but who knows how long that'll last. I've seen companies suddenly \"\"restructure\"\", which means they bring in H1Bs. And I can't even blame this on me being a low level tech with no marketable skills. I've been in IT professionally for just a few months shy of 20 years. I've done everything from technical support, to security, to software QA, to system administration. I'm now in a job specializing in hardware. I have a resume that could be pages long with many different skill sets and roles. This is typical for nearly all of the contractors I know in this area. I run into people I know all the time floating from company to company around here. We're passed around like disposable commodities. But mention the word \"\"union\"\" and you'll get replaced with H1Bs. The tech industry is shitty that way.\"" }, { "docid": "506149", "title": "", "text": "I'm a successful day trader. I turned $300,000 into over $10 million over the course of a few years. I went into trading after I sold my failing company for around $1 million just to bring me out of debt and give me some cash. To give you an idea of how I did it, I just studied everything possible for a few months before I even made my first trade. Instead of having a 9-5 job, I was studying the market from 9-5. I looked at graphs, patterns, everything. I subscribed to multiple real time news feeds and have around 6 college students currently working under me just sifting through patterns and watching real time news feed. I only plan on doing this for 5 or 10 more years before I go into long term investing as it is incredibly stressful, but the returns are very good. Feel free to ask me any questions or to send me a PM if you want any specifics." }, { "docid": "220853", "title": "", "text": "Reading stuff like this makes me want to go into the debt collection business. Just send letters to random people demanding money. Sounds like an easy way to make a living. What's your name and address? Just kidding. If they are sending stuff to a Virginia PO Box, close the box with no forwarding address and consider it case closed. If they are targetting you personally in New Hampshire, the best thing to do is to sue proactively before it goes to collection. New Hampshire has strict anti-debt-collection laws. Basically, what you do is go to small claims court and fill out a one-page form. Sue them for $2000, $3000 or whatever is convenient. Do not hire a lawyer. You can do this in 2 hours of your own time. Your grounds are: (1) Violation of the creditor of NH FDCA laws. According to the laws the creditor has to put all kinds of specific stuff in their threat letters. Since they are not doing this, they have violated NH FDCA. Read the FDCA so you know which specific items they are violating. (2) Extortion. Since you do not owe them any money, demanding money from you is extortion which is both criminally and civilly actionable. You sue them for mental anguish due to extortion. The validity of your claims is irrelevant. You just need to get them in court. There are two possibilities: (A) They fail to show up. In this case you win and they owe you $3000 or whatever. Not only that if they later try to collect from you send a copy of the judgement to the credit bureau or collector or whatever and that is proof you owe them no money. (B) They hire some stooge local lawyer who appears. Accept the court's offer for arbitration. When you go into arbitration with the lawyer tell him you will drop the lawsuit if they send you a check for $500 and a hand-written guarantee from him that you will never hear from his client again. Either way, you come out ahead. By the way, it is absolutely guaranteed that the enemy lawyer will accept your offer in (B) above because the SEO company is already paying him $5000 to show up to answer your lawsuit, and the lawyer does not want to hang around all morning in court waiting for the case to be heard. If he can get out of there in half an hour for only $500 he will do it. -------------------------------UPDATE If all you are getting is calls and the caller refuses to identify themself, then it is definitely an illegal scam. It is illegal in New Hampshire to make collection calls and refuse to full identify who is calling. The phone company has methods for dealing with illegal calls. First you have to file a police report. Then you call Verizon Security at 1-800-518-5507 (or whatever your phone company is). They will trace the call and identify the caller. They you can make a criminal complaint in their jurisdiction unless the call is from Pakistan or something." }, { "docid": "505474", "title": "", "text": "\"A bank may not like loaning money to you for this. That is one snag. You listed 500,000-600,000$ for a monster of a house (3000 sqft is over three times the average size of homes a hundred years ago). Add in the price of the land at 60K (600K divided ten ways). Where I live, there is a 15% VAT tax on new homes. I can't find out if California imposes a VAT tax on new homes. Anyway, returning back to the topic, because of the risk of loaning you 660K for a piece of land and construction, the bank may only let you borrow half or less of the final expected cost (not value). Another huge snag is that you say in a comment to quid \"\"I came up with this conclusion after talking to someone who had his property built in early 2000s in bay area for that average price\"\". Let's apply 3% inflation over 15 years to that number of 200$/sqft. That brings the range for construction costs to 780K-930K. Even at 2% inflation 670K-810K. Edit: OP later expanded the question making it an inquiry on why people don't collaborate to buy a plot of land and build their homes. \"\"Back in the day\"\" this wasn't all that atypical! For example, my pastor's parents did just this when he was a young lad. Apart from the individual issues mentioned above, there are sociological challenges that arrive. Examples: These are the easy questions.\"" }, { "docid": "182168", "title": "", "text": "It's not quite clear what you are asking, so I'll answer a few possible interpretations. Businesses pay taxes on their profits. So if your business took a million pounds in revenue (e.g. sold a million pounds worth of stuff) then you would subtract (roughly speaking) everything the business spent on making and selling that stuff, and pay taxes only on the profit. VAT however is a different matter, and you would have to pay VAT on all of that income (technically the VAT portion isn't even income - it's tax you are forced to collect on behalf of the government). If your business made a million pounds pounds profit, it would pay tax on all of that million (subject to what a tax accountant can do to reduce that, which ought to be considerable). You can't subtract your personal living expenses like that. However the company can pay you a salary, which counts as an expense and the company doesn't pay tax on that. You might also take some money from the company as dividends. Both salary and dividends count as personal income to yourself, and you will need to pay personal income tax on them. As for the Ferrari, it depends on whether you can justify it as a business expense. A lot of companies provide cars for their employees so that they can use them for business - however you have to be able to show that IS for business, otherwise they are taxed like salary. The rules for company cars are quite complicated, and you would need an accountant. If this is a real rather than hypothetical situation, definitely get a tax accountant involved." }, { "docid": "306144", "title": "", "text": "If an item costs £10 excluding VAT, and you buy it from a VAT registered company, you will have to pay £12. You sell it for any price you like, and you don't add VAT. Let's say you set the price at £15 and sell 1000 items for £15. You take £15,000, you spent £12,000, you make £3,000 profit in your pocket and you'll pay taxes according to your profits (£3,000). It doesn't really matter that VAT was involved, it just affects the price that you pay. If you mostly trade with private customers and not with companies, being not VAT registered is a good idea, since by not having to add VAT you can keep your prices lower. It's different if you trade mostly with VAT-registered companies. In that example, if private customers are willing to pay £15 but not more, if you were VAT registered, you couldn't just charge £15 + VAT = £18, because your customers would stop buying. So you'd have to charge £12.50 + VAT = £15 and make less money. But if you sell to a company, it doesn't make a difference to them if they pay £15 without VAT or £15 + VAT = £18. You have to send the VAT to HMRC, but you can subtract the £2,000 that you paid yourself, so you make £2,000 more profit." }, { "docid": "515440", "title": "", "text": "\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \"\"bill\"\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\"" }, { "docid": "339570", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Dollars to donuts... I'd be willing to bet you have a pretty good boss there. ...and she (my boss) left 6 months later for a better job. Now I report to a clueless idiot. He has no experience in our industry but was hired because he was part of the good old boys referral network the CEO has going on. He spent his time flipping companies for living prior to that. Now the veneer is starting to come crashing down, despite me trying to make my boss look good for these past ~2 years. He's desperately trying to find a corporate controller (interviewing) to dump his mess onto as I type this. People external to the department are starting to gather he's all buzz words and power points and no substance. We were bought out by a bigger company recently and he can't hide behind his usual bullshit. My new boss dropped the bombshell today that the girl who was in my position 3 years ago (but quit and took a managers job at a rival company through connections) in now a candidate for the corporate controller position. His reasoning hinged almost completely on the justification that she is already well like here and is familiar with the company. The girl doesn't even have a college degree. Let alone a masters. She left a tax mess on her way out that I've spent the last 3 years trying to fix from an administrative standpoint. Apparently the guy who kept my boss from looking like a total idiot (me) isn't worth mentoring up to the next level. But some random person with no college degree (but connections), and holes in her understanding of our line of work is a serious candidate for a promotion. It's amazing to watch the bad decisions compound themselves into bigger and bigger problems. My boss inherited a relatively well oiled accounting department and turned it into an audit nightmare. He doesn't know half of what goes on, on a daily basis but feels the need to change processes arbitrarily without understanding WHY we do what we do and how it relates to our industry and external compliance, let alone GAAP. It's quite apparent this ship is sinking. I'm trying my best to get off it now as of today. Trying to promote someone with less work experience and education over me was the last straw. The only good decision he made was realizing this girl's resume is a bunch of titles with no substance and realizing she wasn't a serious candidate, an hour after pissing me off calling me into a meeting to announce the joyous news." }, { "docid": "565450", "title": "", "text": "First off, you should contact your health plan administrator as soon as possible. Different plans may interact differently with Medicare; any advice we could provide here would be tentative at best. Some of the issues you may face: A person with both Medicare and a QHP would potentially have primary coverage from 2 sources: Medicare and the QHP. No federal law addresses this situation. Under state insurance law an individual generally cannot collect full benefits from each of 2 policies that together pay more than an insured event costs. State law usually specifies how insurance companies will coordinate health benefits when a person has primary coverage from more than one source. In that situation, insurance companies determine which coverage is primary and which is secondary. It’s important to understand that a QHP is not structured to pay secondary benefits, nor are the premiums calculated or adjusted for secondary payment. In addition, a person with Medicare would no longer receive any premium assistance or subsidies under the federal law. While previous federal law makes it illegal for insurance companies to knowingly sell coverage that duplicates Medicare’s coverage when someone is entitled to or enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B, there has been no guidance on the issue of someone who already has individual health insurance and then also enrolls in Medicare. We and other consumer organizations have asked state and federal officials for clarification on this complicated situation. As such, it likely is up to the plan how they choose to pay - and I wouldn't expect them to pay much if they think they can avoid it. You may also want to talk to someone at your local Medicare branch office - they may know more about your state specifically; or someone in your state's department of health/human services, or whomever administers the Exchanges (if it's not federal) in your state. Secondly, as far as enrolling for Part B, you should be aware that if she opts not to enroll in Part B at this time, if your wife later chooses to enroll before she turns 65 she will be required to pay a penalty of 10% per 12 month period she was not enrolled. This will revert to 0 when she turns 65 and is then eligible under normal rules, but it will apply every year until then. If she's enrolling during the normal General Enrollment period (Jan-March) then if she fails to enroll then she'll be required to pay that penalty if she later enrolls; if this is a Special Enrollment Period and extends beyond March, she may have the choice of enrolling next year without penalty." }, { "docid": "233702", "title": "", "text": "Can I apply for limited company now, while fully time employed, and not take any business until I get a contract? Some employment contracts may include non-compete clauses or similar which expressly forbid you engaging in other employment or becoming self-employed while simultaneously working for your current employer. You may want to check this out before making any moves to register as a limited company. You may forfeit long-term benefits (such as a pension) you have built up at your present employer if they catch wind of a conflict of interest. As noted in an earlier answer, the setup process for a limited company is extremely simple in the UK, so there is no reason you need to take these steps in advance of leaving your current employment. During my resignation period scout for contracts... Should I wait weeks before actually deciding to search for contracts? Depending on the type of IT work you intend to be contracting for, you may find yourself shut out from major work if you are not VAT registered. It is a requirement to register for VAT when you breach certain earnings limits (see HMRC's website) but you can voluntarily register with HMRC before these limits if you wish. Being VAT registered increases your bookkeeping and oversight requirements, which makes you appear more attractive to larger enterprises / corporations than a non-VAT registered firm. It also suggests some degree of stability and a plan to stick around for the long haul. This might be a catch-22 situation - if you want to get noticed and land the sizable contracts, you will almost certainly require a VAT registration regardless of your overall yearly earnings. It would be advisable to engage the services of a professional advisor before becoming VAT registered, but this and the subsequent professional advice you may require for putting in VAT claims may not be a fee you wish to pay upfront if you are only attracting a small volume of work." }, { "docid": "171512", "title": "", "text": "A friend from Shell (Indian by blood/South African by nationality) told me a couple of months ago that China, India, and Russia had a long term plan cooking to run crude through to China from Russia; thence to India via pipeline. This is a real showstopper deal. When I looked it up online, there is evidence it is coming. Who knew about the big gas deal with China? Who knew about this one with Iran? Carnegie.ru (Dmitri Simes) says this whole thing is about control of and regime change of Russia by the US through State Department policy. Notsomuch Ukraine as Russia! Given the US' record with regime changes, if Carnegie is right, this is a huge FAIL. DOOMED!!" }, { "docid": "121551", "title": "", "text": "\"You owe taxes to the state where you earned the income, and also to the state where you physically live. Most, maybe all, states have laws that let you claim credits for taxes paid to other states so that you're not paying double taxes by living in one state while working in another. Most states have deals with all their neighboring states so that you only have to file taxes in one. For example, I live in Michigan, and Michigan borders Ohio. Lots of people who live near the border live in one state but work in the other. So the two have a deal that anyone who lives in Michigan but works in Ohio just has to file a Michigan tax return and pay Michigan taxes, and anyone who lives in Ohio and works in Michigan just has to pay Ohio taxes. Oh, I should note that these adjacent state deals apply only to employment income, not business income. If you own a business in another state, you'll still have to file taxes in that state. You still should get tax credits in your residence state. In general the fact that you use a server in another state doesn't make you liable for taxes in that state. I understand that New York says that if you work from home and the company headquarters is in New York, you have to pay New York taxes. Maybe there are a few other states who do this. But just because a server is in their state? I've never heard of this. If I order business supplies that are shipped from a warehouse in Arizona, that doesn't make me liable for Arizona income taxes, etc. You are legally a \"\"resident\"\" of the state where you actually live. If you have a home and live in it most of the time, then you are a resident of the state where that home is. A \"\"home\"\" doesn't have to be a house. It could be an apartment, an RV that you live in in a trailer park, a tent, etc. If you don't own any sort of fixed home and you travel around a lot, this could be tricky. You mentioned Oklahoma. Oklahoma defines \"\"resident\"\" as follows: An Oklahoma resident is a person domiciled in this state for the entire tax year. “Domicile” is the place established as a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home. It is the place you intend to return whenever you are away (as on vacation abroad, business assignment, educational leave or military assignment). A domicile, once established, remains until a new one is adopted. (https://www.ok.gov/tax/documents/511NRPkt-14.pdf) I'm not sure that that clears things up for you. You can't just pick a state with low taxes and claim that as your residence. No way is the state where you actually live going to accept that. If you are in an ambiguous situation, like you spend 6 months per year in state A and 6 months in state B and you have no fixed home in either -- maybe you stay at motels or live in your minivan -- you might get away with picking the state with the most favorable tax laws as your residence. But if you spend 7 months in state A and 5 months in state B, state A will almost surely claim you are a resident and owe them taxes. If you regularly wander the country, never spend more than a few days in any one place, and rarely come back to the same place twice, then you have a complicated situation and you probably need to talk to a tax lawyer.\"" }, { "docid": "432177", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;It seems that the corporation was ordered to pay, no? The man does not claim he can't pay it, he claims the corporate entity that is supposed to pay it can't pay it. Exactly. Robert K (Rich Dad) established a company called Rich Global LLC. Which was sued by his partners in that company for failure to pay their agreed upon percentage of income. [From this article](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/rich-dad-poor-dad-author-files-bankruptcy/story?id=17463158#.UHhXSG_A_6M): The company had been weighed down by a lawsuit filed by Learning Annex, one of Kiyosaki's earliest backers who had helped arrange his public speaking events earlier on, Forbes reported. Bill Zanker, the founder and president of Learning Annex, sued Kiyosaki after he allegedly failed to pay a percentage of profits from his speaking engagements. A district judge in New York awarded Learning Annex $23.7 million. \"\"I took Kiyosaki's brand and made it bigger,\"\" Zanker told the New York Post. \"\"The deal was I would get a percentage, and he reneged. We had a signed letter of intent. The Learning Annex is his greatest promoter. We put his 'Rich Dad' brand on a stage. We truly prepared him for great fame and riches. But when it was time for him to pay up, he said 'no.' \"\" Robert Kiyosaki, author of the book, \"\"Rich Dad, Poor Dad\"\" filed for corporate bankruptcy through one of his companies, Rich Global LLC. A few years ago Robert K started another company called Rich Dad Co. He shifted all sales from books, seminars videos etc from his first company to the new company. It seems this was a fantastic stroke of lucky timing - or he purposefully did this while talks were souring between him and his former business partners. The former company is a shell with very little assets. That's pretty convenient. &gt;This man probably runs several businesses. Yes he does - I have provided examples of this in my previous posts. &gt;there is a chance some may go under. Go under? His book sales are not diminishing, he still does sell out seminars, he is paid for public speaking. This isn't about a company that failed to become successful. &gt;If you don't want to invest with someone who doesn't have skin in the game, all you have to do is don't invest. Are you even aware of who is partners are / did you even read any of the information I have provided to you? His partners were the people who made him famous. They backed him and propelled him to the level he is currently at. They are asking for their fair share of what they created - and a court of law agrees with them. Robert K screwed them. Example: I am a low level motivational speaker. You are a promoter and believe in my message. You and I go into business. My job is to continue to write books, speak and create videos - you back me financially and create a PR and marketing campaign to propel me to a higher level of public awareness. You do your job and make me famous. When it comes time to pay you - I reorganize the company and screw you. I really can't continue this conversation. I have provided plenty of information, supporting links and examples. It is clear that you are unwilling or just unable to concede (at ANY LEVEL) that it is even possible that someone would/could manipulate BK laws to avoid liability. This discussion is turning into the equivalent of someone trying to describe the color red to a blind person. No matter what I present to you - you just can't see red. You are obviously entitled to your opinion and just for the record I have not downvoted a single one of your posts - however, due to your instance and firmly held belief that this type of business practice is \"\"smart business\"\" I restate that (in my opinion) you are part of the problem. *edit: Yet more fat fingered spelling mistakes... my typing skills need improvement\"" }, { "docid": "381830", "title": "", "text": "The VAT number should be equivalent from the point of view of your client. The fact that you are a sole trader and not a limited liability doesn't matter when it comes down to pay VAT. They should pay the VAT to you and you will pay it to the government. I'll guess that their issue is with tax breaks, it is a bit more tricky to receive a tax break on paid taxes if you buy something abroad (at least it is here in Finland). If they won't pay you because of that, you could open a LTD or contract the services of a 'management company' which will do the job of invoicing, receiving the money and passing it back to you, for a fee." }, { "docid": "485119", "title": "", "text": "If you think you can manage the risk and the spread is ultimately worth it to you, there's nothing stopping you. I know in the U.S., in CA specifically, you need to have $85,000 annual income or net worth over some threshold to be able to loan more than $2,500 via peer-to-peer loan investing. I've had an account at prosper since around 2010, it does pretty well. It's made my taxes a bit more complicated each year, but it's been profitable for me. I wouldn't lever up on it though. My Prosper Experience My experience with Prosper has generally been positive. My real motivation for starting the account was generating a dataset that I could analyze, here's some of that analysis. I started the account by trickling $100 /month in to buy four $25 loans. Any payments received from these loans were used to buy more $25 loans. I've kept my risk to an average of about A- (AA, A, B, C, D, E, HR are the grades); though the interest rates have reduced over time. At this point, I have a few hundred loans outstanding in various stages of completion. In calendar 2015 I had a monthly average of 0.75% of my loans charged-off and about 3% of loans at some stage of delinquency. I receive about 5.5% of my principle value in receipts on average each month, including loan pay-offs and charge-offs. Interest and other non-principle payments comprise just shy of 20% of my monthly receipts. Prosper's 1% maintenance fee translates to about 8% of my monthly non-principle receipts. It's all a pretty fine line, it wouldn't take many defaults to turn my annual return negative; though in 5 years it hasn't happened yet. Considering only monthly charge-offs against monthly non-principle receipts I had two net negative months in 2015. I made about a net 4.5% annual return on my average monthly outstanding principle for calendar 2015. When I log in to my Prosper account it claims my return is closer to 7.5% (I'm not sure how that number is calculated). The key is diversifying your risk just like a bank would. I don't know how the other services function at a nuts and bolts level. With prosper I choose which loans to fund which means I determine my risk level. I assume the other services function similarly. Regarding collection of charged-off loans. I don't know how much real effort is expended by Prosper. I've had a few notes sold for about 10% of the outstanding balance; and I don't know who they were sold to. Comically, I have loan that's made more payments in collections than when it was in good standing. There is definitely more to this than handing over $15,000 and receiving 6% on it." }, { "docid": "209635", "title": "", "text": "\"If you were asking if you should buy silver for an emergency fund, I'd say no. But, you already have it... Note: I wrote most of the below under the assumption that this is silver bullion coins/bars; it didn't occur to me till the end that it could be jewelry. Both of you have good arguments for your points of view. Breaking it down: Her points 1. A very good point. And while she may not be irresponsible, maybe the invisibility of it is good for her psychology? It's her's, so her comfort is important here. 2. Good. Make sure it's explicitly listed on the policy. 3. Bad. I think it will as well, at least the long run. But, this is not a good reason for an emergency fund -- the whole point of which is to be stable in case of emergencies. 4. Good. Identity theft is a concern, though unless her info is already \"\"out there\"\", it's insufficient for the emergency fund. And besides, she could keep cash. Your points 1. Iffy. On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, Cyprus. It is good to remember that money in accounts is in someone else's control, not yours, as the Cypriots found out to their chagrin. And of course, it can't happen here, but that's what they thought too. There is value in having some hard assets physically in your control. Think of it as an EMERGENCY emergency fund. Cash works too, but precious metals are better for these mega-upheaval scenarios. Again, find out how having such an EMERGENCY fund would make her feel. Does having that give her some comfort? A gift from a family member of this much silver leads me to assume that her family might have a little bit of a prepper culture. If so, then even if she is not a prepper herself, she may derive some comfort from having it, just in case -- it'll be baked into her background. Definitely a topic to discuss with her. 2. Excellent point. This is precisely why you want your emergency fund in some form of cash. 3. Bad. You can walk into any pawn shop and sell it in a heartbeat. Or you can send it in to a company and have cash in days. 4. Bad. If you know a savings account that pays 3%-4%, please, please, please tell me where it is so I can get one. Fact is, all cash instruments pay negligible interest now, and all such savings are being eroded by inflation. 5. Maybe. There is value to looking at your net worth this way, but my experience has been that those that do take it way too far. I think there's more value at looking at allocation within a few broad \"\"buckets\"\" -- emergency fund, savings (car, house, college, etc), and retirement fund. If this is to be an EMERGENCY fund, as per point #1, then you should look at it as its own bucket (and maybe add a little cash too). Another thought to add: This is a gift from a family member -- they gave her a lot of silver. Of course it's your SO's now, and she can do whatever she wants with it, but how would the family member react if she did liquidate it? If that family member is a prepper, and gave her this with the emotional desire to see her prepped, they may be upset if she sold it. It just occurred to me this may be jewelry. Your SO may not have sentimental attachment to it, but what about the family member's sentiments? They may not like to see family silver they loving maintained and passed on casually discarded for mere cash by your SO. Another thing to discuss with her. Wrap up Generally, you are right about not keeping a 6 month emergency fund in silver. But there are other factors to consider here. There's also the fact that it's already bought -- the cost of buying (paying over market) has already been taken. Edit -- so it's silverware Ah, so it's silverware. Well, scratch everything, except how the family member feels about, which now looms large. This doesn't have much value as an emergency fund. Nor really as an investment. If you did keep it as an investment, think of it as an investment in collectibles/art, less so in precious metals. If no one will get upset, I'd say pick out the nicest set to keep for special occasions, and sell the rest. Find out first if it has collectible or historical value. It may be worth far more than the pure weight in silver. Ebay might be the way to go to sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "357481", "title": "", "text": "\"Sue the debt collectors in small claims court. There are several example stories around the internet, but this is a well written one from the consumerist. If your phone is a cell phone: \"\"it is against the law for a company to leave a pre-recorded message on your cell phone.\"\" In fact, the call frequency increased once they realized they had reached a live person. I called each of these companies multiple times, and though I was given assurances each time that my number would be taken off of their lists, the calls continued, morning, noon and night. At my wits end, I decided the only way to have the harassing calls stop was to file suits against the collection companies. It's very important to understand that it is against the law for a company to leave a pre-recorded message on your cell phone. Armed with this knowledge, I filed suit against several of the collection companies. I filed in small claims court so I did not need to hire an attorney, and the process was as simple as completing a paragraph on a complaint form. For evidence, I had over a hundred Google Voicemail transcripts showing the times the companies called and the text of the pre-recorded messages. Mysteriously, the calls all stopped immediately on the same date the collection companies received the certified letters stating they were being sued. Then a new flurry of calls began pouring in. This time it was their attorneys. The attorneys representing these out of state collection companies were all desperate to settle out of court. hey did not want to incur the expense of traveling for court or hiring a local law firm who wasn't on retainer. They also understood they had no justifiable defense for the calls. To make a long story short, so far I have successfully sued 3 of these collection companies and settled for more than $5,000 out of court. All it cost me was $35 and 20 minutes per suit. Making these companies pay is the only incentive for them to stop their illegal and harassing practices. If more consumers knew their rights and actually took a few minutes to stand up for them, it would become less profitable for these companies to conduct business the way they do now. -Source And whether you have a cell phone or land line, It is illegal for the debt collectors to tell you they are calling to collect a debt for someone else under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (wikipedia, ftc docs). What Remedies Are Available If The Debt Collector Violates The Law Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you have the right to sue a debt collector in state or federal court within one year from the date of the violation. If you win, you may recover damages in the amount of any losses you suffered as a result of the violation, plus an additional amount of up to $1,000.00. You may also be able to recover court costs and attorney fees. If the same debt collector has engaged in unlawful conduct with a number of consumers, it may be possible to find a lawyer who will file a class action lawsuit. -Source With regard to whether you can sue under FDCPA if you are not the debtor, one FDCPA lawyer (take with grain of salt) says yes: Did you know that it doesn't matter if you owe the account the debt collector is calling you about or not? If a debt collector violates the FDCPA (the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692 et. seq.) that debt collector could be liable to pay you statutory damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. -Source\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "269943", "title": "", "text": "Assuming here that you're talking about deducting your tuition as a below the line deduction as a business expense or similar, then it depends. Per 1.162-5, if the education: Then it qualifies as a legitimate business expense and is deductible. If not - if you're going to school for a different career, such as someone employed as a waiter but going to school to get a degree in nursing, or someone employed as a teacher getting a law degree - then it's not; you'd have to qualify under one of the other (simpler, but lesser) credits. Read more on this topic at Tax topic 513. Note that the other most commonly applicable deduction - the above the line Tuition and Fees deduction - expired in 2016 and is not applicable (yet?) in 2017, and further would not require most of what you describe as it only counts tuition and fees paid directly to the institution and required as a condition of attendance, so books, parking, etc. don't count." } ]

[ { "docid": "250500", "title": "", "text": "I can make that election to pay taxes now (even though they aren't vested) based on the dollar value at the time they are granted? That is correct. You must file the election with the IRS within 30 days after the grant (and then attach a copy to that year's tax return). would I not pay any taxes on the gains because I already claimed them as income? No, you claim income based on the grant value, the gains after that are your taxable capital gains. The difference is that if you don't use 83(b) election - that would not be capital gains, but rather ordinary salary income. what happens if I quit / get terminated after paying taxes on un-vested shares? Do I lose those taxes, or do I get it back in a refund next year? Or would it be a deduction next year? You lose these taxes. That's the risk you're taking. Generally 83(b) election is not very useful for RSUs of established public companies. You take a large risk of forfeited taxes to save the difference between capital gains and ordinary gains, which is not all that much. It is very useful when you're in a startup with valuations growing rapidly but stocks not yet publicly trading, which means that if you pay tax on vest you'll pay much more and won't have stocks to sell to cover for that, while the amounts you put at risk are relatively small." }, { "docid": "153377", "title": "", "text": "\"Hobby expenses are not tax deductible. Business expenses are, but only if it's a bona fide business. First they look at profitability: if you reported a net profit (i.e. paid taxes) in your first 3 years, they will believe you rant on Youtube for a living. Remember, by the time they get around to auditing you, you'll likely be well into, or through, your third year. There is an exception for farms. Other than that, if you lose money year after year, you better be able to show that you look, walk and quack like a business; and one with a reasonable business reason for delayed profitability. For instance Netflix's old business model of mailing DVDs had very high fixed infrastructure expense that took years to turn profitable, but was a very sensible model. They're fine with that. Pets.com swandived into oblivion but they earnestly tried. They're fine with that too. You can't mix all your activities. If you're an electrician specializing in IoT and smart homes, can you deduct a trip to the CES trade show, you bet. Blackhat conference, arguable. SES? No way. Now if you had a second business of a product-reco site which profited by ads and affiliate links, then SES would be fine to deduct from that business. But if this second business loses money every year, it's a hobby and not deductible at all. That person would want separate accounting books for the electrician and webmaster businesses. That's a basic \"\"duck test\"\" of a business vs. a hobby. You need to be able to show how each business gets income and pays expense separate from every other business and your personal life. It's a best-practice to give each business a separate checking account and checkbook. You don't need to risk tax penalties on a business-larva that may never pupate. You can amend your taxes up to 3 years after the proper filing date. I save my expense reciepts for each tax year, and if a business becomes justifiable, I go back and amend past years' tax forms, taking those deductions. IRS gives me a refund check, with interest!\"" }, { "docid": "449116", "title": "", "text": "\"You would put your earnings (and expenses, don't forget) on Schedule C, and then do a Schedule SE for self-employment tax. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html 1040ES isn't used to compute taxes, it's used to pay taxes. Generally you are supposed to pay taxes as you go, rather than when you file. There are exceptions where you won't be penalized for paying when you file, \"\"most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller\"\" from http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html i.e. there's a safe harbor as long as you pay as much as you owed the year before. If you owe a lot at the end of the year a second time in a row, then you get penalized.\"" }, { "docid": "263485", "title": "", "text": "IRS pub 521 has all the information you need. Expenses reimbursed. If you are reimbursed for your expenses and you use the cash method of accounting, you can deduct your expenses either in the year you paid them or in the year you received the reimbursement. If you use the cash method of accounting, you can choose to deduct the expenses in the year you are reimbursed even though you paid the expenses in a different year. See Choosing when to deduct, next. If you deduct your expenses and you receive the reimbursement in a later year, you must include the reimbursement in your income on Form 1040, line 21 This is not unusual. Anybody who moves near the end of the year can have this problem. The 39 week time test also can be an issue that span over 2 tax years. I would take the deduction for the expenses as soon a I could, and then count the income in the later year if they pay me back. IF they do so before April 15th, then I would put them on the same tax form to make things easier." }, { "docid": "527776", "title": "", "text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy." }, { "docid": "257168", "title": "", "text": "\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"" }, { "docid": "260959", "title": "", "text": "\"Money is a token that you can trade to other people for favors. Debt is a tool that allows you to ask for favors earlier than you might otherwise. What you have currently is: If the very worst were to happen, such as: You would owe $23,000 favors, and your \"\"salary\"\" wouldn't make a difference. What is a responsible amount to put toward a car? This is a tricky question to answer. Statistically speaking the very worst isn't worth your consideration. Only the \"\"very bad\"\", or \"\"kinda annoying\"\" circumstances are worth worrying about. The things that have a >5% chance of actually happening to you. Some of the \"\"very bad\"\" things that could happen (10k+ favors): Some of the \"\"kinda annoying\"\" things that could happen (~5k favors): So now that these issues are identified, we can settle on a time frame. This is very important. Your $30,000 in favors owed are not due in the next year. If your student loans have a typical 10-year payoff, then your risk management strategy only requires that you keep $3,000 in favors (approx) because that's how many are due in the next year. Except you have more than student loans for favors owed to others. You have rent. You eat food. You need to socialize. You need to meet your various needs. Each of these things will cost a certain number of favors in the next year. Add all of them up. Pretending that this data was correct (it obviously isn't) you'd owe $27,500 in favors if you made no money. Up until this point, I've been treating the data as though there's no income. So how does your income work with all of this? Simple, until you've saved 6-12 months of your expenses (not salary) in an FDIC or NCUSIF insured savings account, you have no free income. If you don't have savings to save yourself when bad things happen, you will start having more stress (what if something breaks? how will I survive till my next paycheck? etc.). Stress reduces your life expectancy. If you have no free income, and you need to buy a car, you need to buy the cheapest car that will meet your most basic needs. Consider carpooling. Consider walking or biking or public transit. You listed your salary at \"\"$95k\"\", but that isn't really $95k. It's more like $63k after taxes have been taken out. If you only needed to save ~$35k in favors, and the previous data was accurate (it isn't, do your own math): Per month you owe $2,875 in favors (34,500 / 12) Per month you gain $5,250 in favors (63,000 / 12) You have $7,000 in initial capital--I mean--favors You net $2,375 each month (5,250 - 2,875) To get $34,500 in favors will take you 12 months ( ⌈(34,500 - 7,000) / 2,375⌉ ) After 12 months you will have $2,375 in free income each month. You no longer need to save all of it (Although you may still need to save some of it. Be sure recalculate your expenses regularly to reevaluate if you need additional savings). What you do with your free income is up to you. You've got a safety net in saved earnings to get you through rough times, so if you want to buy a $100,000 sports car, all you have to do is account for it in your savings and expenses in all further calculations as you pay it off. To come up with a reasonable number, decide on how much you want to spend per month on a car. $500 is a nice round number that's less than $2,375. How many years do you want to save for the car? OR How many years do you want to pay off a car loan? 4 is a nice even number. $500 * 12 * 4 = $24,000 Now reduce that number 10% for taxes and fees $24,000 * 0.9 = $21,600 If you're getting a loan, deduct the cost of interest (using 5% as a ballpark here) $21,600 * 0.95 = $20,520 So according to my napkin math you can afford a car that costs ~$20k if you're willing to save/owe $500/month, but only after you've saved enough to be financially secure.\"" }, { "docid": "462956", "title": "", "text": "\"Publication 590a covers this in a fairly specific manner. Page 11, section \"\"Are You Covered by an Employer Plan?\"\", specifies: The Form W-2 you receive from your employer has a box used to indicate whether you were covered for the year. The “Retirement Plan” box should be checked if you were covered. So, by default, if that's checked, you're covered. 590 does go into more detail, though. Assuming you're covered under a Defined Contribution plan (a 401k for example): Defined contribution plan. Generally, you are covered by a defined contribution plan for a tax year if amounts are contributed or allocated to your account for the plan year that ends with or within that tax year. Tax Year: Tax year. Your tax year is the annual accounting period you use to keep records and report income and expenses on your income tax return. For almost all people, the tax year is the calendar year. Further, they cover issues related to an employee leaving Dec. 31 very specifically: A special rule applies to certain plans in which it is not possible to determine if an amount will be contributed to your account for a given plan year. If, for a plan year, no amounts have been allocated to your account that are attributable to employer contributions, employee contributions, or forfeitures, by the last day of the plan year, and contributions are discretionary for the plan year, you are not covered for the tax year in which the plan year ends. If, after the plan year ends, the employer makes a contribution for that plan year, you are covered for the tax year in which the contribution is made. Example: Example. Mickey was covered by a profit-sharing plan and left the company on December 31, 2014. The plan year runs from July 1 to June 30. Under the terms of the plan, employer contributions do not have to be made, but if they are made, they are contributed to the plan before the due date for filing the company's tax return. Such contributions are allocated as of the last day of the plan year, and allocations are made to the accounts of individuals who have any service during the plan year. As of June 30, 2015, no contributions were made that were allocated to the June 30, 2015, plan year, and no forfeitures had been allocated within the plan year. In addition, as of that date, the company was not obligated to make a contribution for such plan year and it was impossible to determine whether or not a contribution would be made for the plan year. On December 31, 2015, the company decided to contribute to the plan for the plan year ending June 30, 2015. That contribution was made on February 15, 2016. Mickey is an active participant in the plan for his 2016 tax year but not for his 2015 tax year. Mickey is in a similar (but different) circumstance, and it's clear from the IRS's treatment of his circumstance that you would be in the same boat (just a year less off) - but be aware given Mickey's situation that it's theoretically possible for them to make another contribution next year, as Mickey had, depending on when their plan year/etc. ends. So - from the IRS's point of view, everything you said the company did is correct. They paid you in January, contributed to your 401k as a result of that paycheck, and thus you were officially considered covered for 2015.\"" }, { "docid": "488574", "title": "", "text": "Good professional tax advice is expensive. If your situation is simple, then paying someone doesn't give you more than you could get from a simple software package. In this case, doing your own taxes will save you money this year, and also help you next year, as your situation grows steadily more complex. If you don't do your own taxes when you're single with a part time job, you'll never do it when you have a family, a full time job, a side business, and many deductions. Learning how to do your taxes over time, as your 'tax life' becomes complex, is a valuable skill. If your situation is complex, you will need pay a lot to get it done correctly. Sometimes, that cost is worthwhile. At bare minimum, I would say 'attempt to do your taxes yourself, first'. This will force you to organize your files, making the administrative cost of doing your return lower (ie: you aren't paying your tax firm to sort your receipts, because you've already ordered them nicely with your own subtotals, everything perfectly stapled together). If your situation is complex, and you find a place to get it done cheaply (think H&R Block), you will not be getting value for service. I am not saying a low-end tax firm will necessarily get things wrong, but if you don't have a qualified professional (read: university educated and designated) doing your return, the complexities can be ignored. Low-end tax firms typically hire seasonal staff, train them for 1-2 weeks, and mostly just show them how to enter tax slips into the same software you could buy yourself. If you underpay for professional services, you will pay the price, metaphorically speaking. For your specific situation, I strongly recommend you have a professional service look at your returns, because you are a non-resident, meaning you likely need to file in your home country as well. Follow what they do with your return, and next year, see how much of it you can do yourself. Before you hire someone, get a fee quote, and shop around until you find someone you are comfortable with. $1k spent now could save you many headaches in the future." }, { "docid": "217365", "title": "", "text": "You don't state your age, debt amount, loan rate, and amount of retirement savings. These facts impact the strategy you pursue: If your student loan interest is at low rate, it is more effective in the long run for you to prioritize 401k match contributions or Roth IRA contributions. Your student loan interest will be tax deductible. You may be able to file taxes separately as a married couple. This will keep your monthly loan payments lower than if you file jointly, allowing you to do tax-deferred savings (401k/Roth). I share the concerns about commingling your finances before marriage. You'll be married soon enough, and after that the $14k/yr gift tax concern won't even be an issue." }, { "docid": "591529", "title": "", "text": "\"From your description, the taxes may have been withheld incorrectly. You were most likely a nonresident alien during your entire stay. \"\"Teachers and trainees\"\", which include anyone on J status who is not a student, are \"\"exempt individuals\"\" (exempt from the Substantial Presence Test) unless they have already been an exempt individual during any part of 2 of the prior 6 calendar years. So if you haven't been in the U.S. as an F-1, J-1, etc. for at least 6-7 years before you came on J-1 this time, the first two calendar years of your time on J-1 this time does not count towards the Substantial Presence Test. You said you were there for 18 months. That stretches over either 2 or 3 calendar years. The first two calendar years of it would be exempt from the SPT; even if it stretched into a third calendar year, an 18-month period could not stretch for more than 6 months into a 3rd calendar year; so even in that case you would still not meet the Substantial Presence Test for the 3rd year. Since you do not meet the Subtantial Presence Test during any of those years, you were a nonresident alien for all of those years (unless you decided to file jointly with a resident spouse or something). Nonresident aliens on J-1 are exempt from FICA taxes (Social Security tax and Medicare tax) for employment as a researcher that you were authorized to do on your J-1. They should not have withheld FICA taxes from you. You should have informed them at the beginning when you initially noticed that they did, because it is a huge pain to get it back afterwards. For FICA taxes withheld in error, you can first ask the employer to refund them; and, if that fails, get a written statement of their refusal and then file Form 843 and Form 8316 with the IRS. However, given that IRS is very underfunded these days, expect it to take a long time to hear back if you ever hear back.\"" }, { "docid": "134063", "title": "", "text": "Plus you already have money in a 529 plan that is meant for college expenses (and cannot be used to pay student loans) - use that money for what it's for. I disagree with @DStanley, as a current college student I would say to take out loans. Most of the time I am against loans though. So WHY? There are very few times you will receive loans at 0% interest (for 4+ years). You have money saved currently, but you do not know what the future entails. If you expend all of your money on tuition and your car breaks down, what do you do? You can not used student loans to pay for your broken car.Student loans, as long as they are subsidized, serve as a wonderful risk buffer. You can pay off your loans with summer internships and retain the initial cash you had for additional activities that make college enjoyable, i.e - Fraternity/ Sorority, clubs, dinners, and social nights. Another benefit to taking these loans would assist in building credit, with an additional caveat being to get a credit card. In general, debt/loans/credit cards are non-beneficial. But, you have to establish debt to allow others to know that you can repay. Establishing this credit rating earlier than later is critical to cheaper interest rates on (say) a mortgage. You have made it through, you have watched your expenses, and you can pay your debt. Finish It. If you do it right, you will not have loans when you graduate, you will have a stunning credit rating, and you will have enjoyed college to its fullest potential (remember, you only really go through it once.) But this is contingent on: Good luck, EDIT: I did not realize the implication of this penalty which made me edit the line above to include: (to the extent you can per year) For now, student loan repayment isn't considered a qualified educational expense. This means that if you withdraw from a 529 to pay your debts, you may be subject to income taxes and penalties.Source Furthermore, Currently, taxpayers who use 529 plan money for anything other than qualified education expenses are subject to a 10% federal tax penalty. Source My advice with this new knowledge, save your 529 if you plan on continuing higher education at a more prestigious school. If you do not, use it later in your undergraduate years." }, { "docid": "97852", "title": "", "text": "Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons" }, { "docid": "15553", "title": "", "text": "A student on F1 working under the conditions of the OPT program is exempt from FICA taxes. Once you switch to H1b - you no longer have the exemption. You can use form 8316 and form 843 to request the refund, if the employer cannot or will not refund the withholding. Employer is the first stop, but keep in mind that you have 3 years at most to request the refund after filing the tax returns for the year in question (or when they should have been filed, if you didn't). Detailed instructions here." }, { "docid": "360925", "title": "", "text": "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." }, { "docid": "240931", "title": "", "text": "Students at college employed by the college are exempt from the FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare). You are not exempt from federal and state income taxes, but if you are a part time employee making a small amount of money, you probably aren't projected to be paid enough between now and the end of the year to trigger the withholding. If you are concerned that your tax burden for the year will require you to send in money at tax time next year, you can estimate what your taxes will be, and if you determine that you will owe too much, you can fill out a new W-4 form with your HR department and request that additional tax be withheld." }, { "docid": "190844", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately you can't use your HSA to pay for expenses in year A. Qualified medical expenses for an HSA must occur after the date the HSA account was established. (Established typically means the date the account was opened in your name.) The other answers already mostly answered your other questions, but I want to really hit home some particular points that many people may not realize: The most important thing to do when you are eligible to have an HSA account, is to open an HSA account ASAP. This is true even if you don't put any money in it and you leave it empty for years. The reason is that once the account is established, all qualified medical expenses that occur after that date are eligible for distributions, even if you wait years before you fund your HSA account. The second most important thing to do is to keep track of all out of pocket medical expenses you incur after you open the HSA account. All you need is a simple spreadsheet and a place to store your receipts. Once you have the account and are tracking expenses, now you can put money into your HSA and take it out whenever you'd like. (With limits- you can't put in more than the contribution limit for a single tax year, and you can't take out more than your eligible expenses to date.) Helpful Tip: Many people don't fund their HSA because they can't afford to set aside extra money to do so. Fortunately, you don't have to. For example, suppose you have some dental work and it costs you $500. Once you get the bill, before you pay it, put the $500 into your HSA account. The next day, take the $500 back out and pay your dental bill with it. Most HSA accounts will give you a debit card to make this even easier to pay the bill. By putting the money into your HSA for 1 day you just received a $500 tax deduction. Alternatively you can always pay out of pocket like you normally would, track your receipts, and wait until the end of the year (or up until April 15 of the next year). I like this option because I can pay all of my medical bills with a credit card and get cash back. Then at the end of the year, I add up the expenses, deposit that much into my HSA, and if I'd rather put that money somewhere else I just pull it out the next day. If you decide you don't need the money right away that's even better since you can leave it in the HSA account and invest it. Like a Roth account, you don't pay tax on the growth you achieve inside of an HSA. Another Tip: if your employer offers the service of automatically making deposits into your HSA by reducing your paycheck, you should definitely try to do that if you can afford it, rather than manually making contributions as I described in the previous tip. When your employer makes the contributions for you, your wages are reduced by that amount on your W2, so you end up saving an additional 7% in FICA taxes." }, { "docid": "462481", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll add 2 observations regarding current answers. Jack nailed it - a 401(k) match beats all. But choose the right flavor account. You are currently in the 15% bracket (i.e. your marginal tax rate, the rate paid on the last taxed $100, and next taxed $100.) You should focus on Roth. Roth 401(k) (and if any company match, that goes into a traditional pretax 401(k). But if they permit conversions to the Roth side, do it) You have a long time before retirement to earn your way into the next tax bracket, 25%. As your income rises, use the deductible IRA/ 401(k) to take out money pretax that would otherwise be taxed at 25%. One day, you'll be so far into the 25% bracket, you'll benefit by 100% traditional. But why waste the opportunity to deposit to Roth money that's taxed at just 15%? To clarify the above, this is the single rate table for 2015: For this discussion, I am talking taxable income, the line on the tax return designating this number. If that line is $37,450 or less, you are in the 15% bracket and I recommend Roth. Say it's $40,000. In hindsight on should put $2,550 in a pretax account (Traditional 401(k) or IRA) to bring it down to the $37,450. In other words, try to keep the 15% bracket full, but not push into 25%. Last, after enough raises, say you at $60,000 taxable. That, to me is \"\"far into the 25% bracket.\"\" $20,000 or 1/3 of income into the 401(k) and IRA and you're still in the 25% bracket. One can plan to a point, and then use the IRA flavors to get it dead on in April of the following year. To Ben's point regarding paying off the Student Loan faster - A $33K income for a single person, about to have the new expense of rent, is not a huge income. I'll concede that there's a sleep factor, the long tern benefit of being debt free, and won't argue the long term market return vs the rate on the loan. But here we have the probability that OP is not investing at all. It may take $2000/yr to his 401(k) capture the match (my 401 had a dollar for dollar match up to first 6% of income). This $45K, after killing the card, may be his only source for the extra money to replace what he deposits to his 401(k). And also serve as his emergency fund along the way.\"" }, { "docid": "466678", "title": "", "text": "The I-9 form is required because you are working. It is kept by the employer as proof that you have the proper documents to work. If the government was to inspect their records they can be fined if they don't have those document, in fact they have to keep them for several years after your employment is done. A w-4 form is a federal tax form. There also was probably a state version of the form. When you completed the w-4 it is used by your employer to determine how much in taxes need to be withheld. Employers don't know your tax situation. Even though you are on work study, you still could have made enough money over the summer to pay taxes. But if this is your only job, and you will not make enough money to have to pay taxes, you can fill out the form as exempt. That means that last year you didn't make enough money to have to pay taxes, and you don't expect to make enough to have to pay taxes this year. If you are exempt, no federal income tax will be withheld. They might still withhold for social security and medicare. The state w-4 can also be used to be exempt from state taxes. If they withhold any income taxes you have to file one of the 1040 tax forms to get that income tax money back. You will have to do so for the state income tax withholding. A note about social security and medicare. If you have an on campus job, at the campus you attend, during the school year; they don't withhold money for social security and medicare. That law applies to students on work study jobs, and on non-work-study jobs. for single dependents the federal threshold where you must file is: > You must file a return if any of the following apply. Your gross income was more than the larger of— a. $1,000, or b. Your earned income (up to $5,850) plus $350." } ]

[ { "docid": "183612", "title": "", "text": "Assuming you buy the services and products beforehand and then provide them to your clients. Should the cost of these products and services be deducted from my declared income or do I include them and then claim them as allowable expenses? You arrive at your final income after accounting for your incomings and outgoings ? regularly buys products and services on behalf of clients These are your expenses. invoice them for these costs after These are your earnings. These are not exactly allowable expenses, but more as the cost of doing your business, so it will be deducted from your earnings. There will be other business expenses which you need to deduct from your earnings and then you arrive at your income/profit. So before you arrive at your income all allowable expenses have been deducted. include on my invoices to clients VAT if you charge VAT. Any charges you require them to pay i.e. credit card charges etc. You don't need to inform clients about any costs you incur for doing your business unless required by law. If you are unsure about something browse the gov.uk website or obtain the services of an accountant. Accounting issues might be costly on your pocket if mistakes are committed." } ]

[ { "docid": "103405", "title": "", "text": "Only if your work on the side is making you at least £60,000 profit a year. The overheads are just not worth it if you make less. Working as a sole trader, you can still claim for expenses incurred in the course of your business. You can also claim a percentage of your computer costs, even though you may use the computer for gaming. This is not unreasonable as the computer is necessary for your work. The Inland Revenue accept the fact that some assets are part work-related. In your case, as a web and mobile phone developer, I expect the percentage to be at least half, if not a lot more. If you need to travel in the course of your work you can claim a percentage for your car. You can include other small expenses such as telephone, stationery, electricity etc but don't go overboard. The important point to remember is that you must be able to defend the expenses claimed as work-related, so long as you can do this there is no problem. Remember to keep good records of all your expenses. This is on-going throughout the year and is much more work than filling out your tax return. The software on the IR self-assessment site is excellent, so it's conceivable that you may not need an accountant if you are prepared to do your own tax return. However, if you feel unsure employ an accountant initially and take it from there." }, { "docid": "597865", "title": "", "text": "By earning money, I assume you are being paid a salary [and not allowance] in UK. For the Financial Year 2013-2014: You are still a tax resident in India. India taxes Global income. Hence your salary from 4th Feb to 31st March, needs to be declared as Income. The tax will be at your total tax brackets. India does have a Double Tax Avoidance Treaty [DTAA] with UK, so you can deduct any taxes you paid on this income and pay balance in India. Please note that it is not relevant whether you transfer money to India or keep in UK, it does not change the taxability. For the financial Year 2014-2015: Depending on the exact date, you may or may not be a NRI [away for more than 182 days] for tax purposes. If you are an NRI there no tax, else as above para." }, { "docid": "484375", "title": "", "text": "\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \"\"allowable expense\"\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\"" }, { "docid": "390368", "title": "", "text": "As a sole proprietor, the tax liability of your business is calculated based on combining your business income with your personal income together. It is good advice to keep all personal and business financial matters separate. This makes it easier to prove to the IRS that all your business expenses are actually business related. In this case however, the two items [tax payment for personal income vs tax payment for business income] are inseparable. What you can do, however, for your own personal records, is calculate how much of your tax payment relates to your business. I wouldn't get complicated about this; I would simply take the net income of your business as a % of your taxable income, and multiply that against your tax payment. ie: if your business net income is $10,000, and your total taxable income is $50,000, and you paid $6,000 in taxes, I would record that 20% of the $6k was related to business income. If you have a separate bank account for your sole proprietorship, you could make a transfer to your personal account of $1,200, and then make the $6k payment from your personal account. Remember that tax payments for either your sole proprietorship and your personal income will be treated the same: federal tax payments are not tax deductible, and state tax payments are tax deductible, whether they were paid for your sole proprietorship or the rest of your personal income. So even though this method is simplistic [for example, it doesn't factor in that different investment income types earned personally will have a lower rate than your sole proprietorship income], any difference wouldn't have an impact on any future tax liability. This would only be for your own personal record keeping." }, { "docid": "278168", "title": "", "text": "\"Several, actually: Maintenance costs. As landlord, you are liable for maintaining the basic systems of the dwelling - structure, electrical, plumbing, HVAC. On top of that, you typically also have to maintain anything that comes with the space, so if you're including appliances like a W/D or fridge, if they crap out you could spend a months' rent or more replacing them. You are also required to keep the property up to city codes as far as groundskeeping unless you specifically assign those responsibilities to your tenant (and in some states you are not allowed to do so, and in many cases renters expect groundskeeping to come out of their rent one way or the other). Failure to do these things can put you in danger of giving your tenant a free out on the lease contract, and even expose you to civil and criminal penalties if you're running a real slum. Escrow payments. The combination of property tax and homeowner's insurance usually doubles the monthly housing payment over principal and interest, and that's if you got a mortgage for 20% down. Also, because this is not your primary residence, it's ineligible for Homestead Act exemptions (where available; states like Texas are considering extending Homestead exemptions to landlords, with the expectation it will trickle down to renters), however mortgage interest and state taxes do count as \"\"rental expenses\"\" and can be deducted on Schedule C as ordinary business expenses offsetting revenues. Income tax. The money you make in rent on this property is taxable as self-employment income tax; you're effectively running a sole proprietorship real-estate management company, so not only does any profit (you are allowed to deduct maintenance and administrative costs from the rent revenues) get added to whatever you make in salary at your day job, you're also liable for the full employee and employer portions of Medicare/Medicaid/SS taxes. You are, however, also allowed to depreciate the property over its expected life and deduct depreciation; the life of a house is pretty long, and if you depreciate more than the house's actual loss of value, you take a huge hit if/when you sell because any amount of the sale price above the depreciated price of the house is a capital gain (though, it can work to your advantage by depreciating the maximum allowable to reduce ordinary income, then paying lower capital gains rates on the sale). Legal costs. The rental agreement typically has to be drafted by a lawyer in order to avoid things that can cause the entire contract to be thrown out (though there are boilerplate contracts available from state landlords' associations). This will cost you a few hundred dollars up front and to update it every few years. It is deductible as an ordinary expense. Advertising. Putting up a \"\"For Rent\"\" sign out front is typically just the tip of the iceberg. Online and print ads, an ad agency, these things cost money. It's deductible as an ordinary expense. Add this all up and you may end up losing money in the first year you rent the property, when legal, advertising, initial maintenance/purchases to get the place tenant-ready, etc are first spent; deduct it properly and it'll save you some taxes, but you better have the nest egg to cover these things on top of everything your lender will expect you to bring to closing (assuming you don't have $100k+ lying around to buy the house in cash).\"" }, { "docid": "30343", "title": "", "text": "\"You've asked a number of questions. I can answer a few. I've quoted your question before each answer. What are the ins and outs of a foreigner like myself buying rental property in Canada? This is a pretty broad question which can address location, finances, basic suggestions etc. Here's some things to consider: Provincial considerations: Some ins and outs will depend on what province you are considering and what area in that Province. If you plan on owning in Montreal, for example, that's in the province of Quebec and that means you (or someone) will need to be able to operate in the French language. There are other things that might be different from province to province. See stat info below. Canadian vs. US Dollar: Now might be a great time to buy property in Canada since the Canada dollar is weak right now. To give you an idea, at a non-cash rate of 1.2846, a little over $76,000 US will get you over $100k Canadian. That's using the currency converter at rbcroyalbank.com. Taxes for non-resident rental property owners: According to the T4144 Income Tax Guide for Electing Under Section 216 – 2015: \"\"When you receive rental income from real or immovable property in Canada, the payer, such as the tenant or a property manager, has to withhold non-resident tax at the rate of 25% on the gross rental income paid or credited to you. The payer has to pay us the tax on or before the 15th day of the month following the month the rental income is paid or credited to you.\"\" If you prefer to send a separate Canadian tax return, you can choose to elect under section 216 of the Income Tax Act. A benefit of this way is that \"\"electing under section 216 allows you to pay tax on your net Canadian-source rental income instead of on the gross amount. If the non-resident tax withheld by the payer is more than the amount of tax payable calculated on your section 216 return, [they] will refund the excess to you.\"\" You can find this guide at Canada Revenue's site: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4144/README.html Stats: A good place for stats is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). So, if you are interesting in vacancy rates for example, you can see a table that will show you that the vacancy rate in Ontario is 2.3% and in British Columbia it's 1.5%. However, in New Brunswick it's 8%. The rate for metropolitan areas across Canada is 2.8%. If you want to see or download this table showing the vacancy rates by province and also by metropolitan areas, go to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation site http://www.cmhc.ca/housingmarketinformation/. You can get all sorts of housing information, reports and market information there. I've done well with Condos/Town-homes and would be interested in the same thing over there. Is it pretty much all the same? See the stat site mentioned above to get market info about condos, etc. What are the down payment requirements? For non-owner occupied properties, the down payment is at least 20%. Update in response to comments about being double taxed: Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these would not be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals. Here's an excerpt: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of in­come. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business ex­penses as an itemized deduction on Sched­ule A (Form 1040).\"\" Disclaimers: Sources: IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\"" }, { "docid": "315552", "title": "", "text": "Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out." }, { "docid": "299211", "title": "", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"" }, { "docid": "62869", "title": "", "text": "This very topic was the subject of a question on workplace SE https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/8996/what-can-relocation-assistance-entail TL/DR; From tax publication 521 - Moving expenses table regarding how to report IF your Form W-2 shows... your entire reimbursement reported as wages in box 1 AND you have... moving expenses THEN... file Form 3903 showing all allowable expenses,* but do not show any reimbursements. There are tax implications Covered in tax publication 521 - Moving expenses and Employers tax guide to Fringe Benefits related to moving expenses. From the Employers View: Moving Expense Reimbursements This exclusion applies to any amount you directly or indirectly give to an employee, (including services furnished in kind) as payment for, or reimbursement of, moving expenses. You must make the reimbursement under rules similar to those described in chapter 11 of Publication 535 for reimbursement of expenses for travel, meals, and entertainment under accountable plans. The exclusion applies only to reimbursement of moving expenses that the employee could deduct if he or she had paid or incurred them without reimbursement. However, it does not apply if the employee actually deducted the expenses in a previous year. Deductible moving expenses. Deductible moving expenses include only the reasonable expenses of: Moving household goods and personal effects from the former home to the new home, and Traveling (including lodging) from the former home to the new home. Deductible moving expenses do not include any expenses for meals and must meet both the distance test and the time test. The distance test is met if the new job location is at least 50 miles farther from the employee's old home than the old job location was. The time test is met if the employee works at least 39 weeks during the first 12 months after arriving in the general area of the new job location. For more information on deductible moving expenses, see Publication 521, Moving Expenses. Employee. For this exclusion, treat the following individuals as employees. A current employee. A leased employee who has provided services to you on a substantially full-time basis for at least a year if the services are performed under your primary direction or control. Exception for S corporation shareholders. Do not treat a 2% shareholder of an S corporation as an employee of the corporation for this purpose. A 2% shareholder is someone who directly or indirectly owns (at any time during the year) more than 2% of the corporation's stock or stock with more than 2% of the voting power. Treat a 2% shareholder as you would a partner in a partnership for fringe benefit purposes, but do not treat the benefit as a reduction in distributions to the 2% shareholder. Exclusion from wages. Generally, you can exclude qualifying moving expense reimbursement you provide to an employee from the employee's wages. If you paid the reimbursement directly to the employee, report the amount in box 12 of Form W-2 with the code “P.” Do not report payments to a third party for the employee's moving expenses or the value of moving services you provided in kind. From the employees view: The not be included as income the expenses must be from an accountable plan: Accountable Plans To be an accountable plan, your employer's reimbursement arrangement must require you to meet all three of the following rules. Your expenses must have a business connection – that is, you must have paid or incurred deductible expenses while performing services as an employee of your employer. Two examples of this are the reasonable expenses of moving your possessions from your former home to your new home, and traveling from your former home to your new home. You must adequately account to your employer for these expenses within a reasonable period of time. You must return any excess reimbursement or allowance within a reasonable period of time. Also what is interesting is the table regarding how to report IF your Form W-2 shows... your entire reimbursement reported as wages in box 1 AND you have... moving expenses THEN... file Form 3903 showing all allowable expenses,* but do not show any reimbursements." }, { "docid": "483489", "title": "", "text": "I think you're a little confused about taxes. First, I'm guessing that you feel your lack of home ownership makes your taxes higher. That might be true, or it might not. The main tax break you would get from home ownership is the mortgage interest deduction, and that is a fraction of what you're paying in interest. So, yeah, your tax bill is lower, but 3-4 times that amount is going out the door in interest. Plus, when you buy a property, you may have substantial taxes on that property that your landlord is paying now. Secondly, yes, you can deduct expenses on a business, but that only can be done without income for so long before the IRS begins disallowing your deductions. But if you're making money, the expenses come right off of your income. Third, owning a business means that you get the privilege of paying a self-employment tax, which is the same thing that your employer now pays into Social Security on your behalf. More taxes! So in short, owning and operating a business has the potential to be more rewarding than holding down a job -- and I recommend starting up a side business just to get another income stream going -- but the tax savings really aren't that appealing to do it just for those." }, { "docid": "15270", "title": "", "text": "Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time." }, { "docid": "40257", "title": "", "text": "\"The government thought of that a long time ago, and has any loophole there plugged. Like if you set up a company to buy a car and then allow you to use it ... You can use the car for company business, like driving to a customer's office to make a sales call or delivery, and the cost of the car is then tax deductible. But the company must either prohibit personal use of the car, or keep a log of personal versus business use and the personal use becomes taxable income to you. So at best you'd get to deduct an expense here and then you'd have to add it back there for a net change in taxable income of zero. In general the IRS is very careful about personal use of business property and makes it tough to get away with a free ride. I'm sure there are people who lie about it and get away with it because they're never audited, but even if that causes you no ethical qualms, it's very risky. I don't doubt that there are people with very smart lawyers who have found loopholes in the rules. But it's not as simple as, \"\"I call myself a business and now all my personal expenses become tax deductible business expenses.\"\" If you could do that, everybody would do it and no one would pay taxes. Which might be a good thing, but the IRS doesn't see it that way.\"" }, { "docid": "79592", "title": "", "text": "There's nothing illegal in hiring your friends to manage your property or provide you services, and it is definitely deductible. There's nothing specific to reference here, this is a standard deduction for a landlord just as any. I mentioned 1099 in the comments - if the total is over $600 and your friend is not a corporation, then you should issue 1099. That would provide you the necessary substantiation of the deduction (of course you need to keep some documentation that shows the relation between the money paid and the services provided, like a contract, or invoice or receipt). You can (but don't have to) issue 1099 for lower amounts as well. If you don't - you'll need to keep more documents as substantiation - cached checks, documents about the agreement and the amounts, etc. In addition, your deduction may be disallowed if your friend doesn't declare this as taxable income (issuing 1099 helps here since your friend will be forced to declare it, otherwise it will be recorded as a mismatch by the IRS and trigger an audit). As to reimbursements - that would go into the same bucket. They'll have to deduct their expenses from that income on their own taxes. So if you give them $300 for the work, $300 for the miles, and $300 for the materials they bought - you issue the 1099 for $900, and let them deduct the $600 on their own Schedule C." }, { "docid": "50310", "title": "", "text": "Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person." }, { "docid": "100280", "title": "", "text": "The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Most business expenses are used to derive profits and income, most individual expenses are not. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Regarding the interest on a mortgage being deductible whilst the principal isn't, that is because it is the interest which is the annual expense. By the way deductions for mortgage interest in the USA for a house you live in is only allowed due to social policy, as there is no income (rent) being produced here, unlike with an investment property." }, { "docid": "290782", "title": "", "text": "\"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 \"\"business casual\"\" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get \"\"extra\"\" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a \"\"free\"\" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy \"\"organic\"\" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of \"\"Innocent\"\" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand \"\"Simply Orange\"\", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand \"\"fizzy drinks\"\" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it \"\"minced\"\") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food.\"" }, { "docid": "156554", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a great question! I've been an entrepreneur and small business owner for 20+ years and have started small businesses in 3 states that grew into nice income streams for me. I've lived off these businesses for 20+ years, so I know it can be done! First let me start by saying that the rules, regulations, requirements and laws for operating a business (small or large) legally, for the most part, are local laws and regulations. Depending on what your business does, you may have some federal rules to follow, but for the most part, it will be your locality (state, county, city) that determines what you'll have to do to comply and be \"\"legal\"\". Also, though it might be better in some cases to incorporate (and even required in some circumstances), you don't always have to. There are many small businesses (think landscapers, housekeepers, babysitters, etc.) that get income from their \"\"business operations\"\" and do so as \"\"individuals\"\". Of course, everyone has to pay taxes - so as long as you property record your income (and expenses) and properly file your tax returns every year, you are \"\"income tax legal\"\". I won't try to answer the income tax question here, though, as that can be a big question. Also, though you certainly can start a business on your own without hiring lawyers or other professionals (more on that below), when it comes to taxes, I definitely recommend you indeed plan to hire a tax professional (even if it's something like H&R Block or Jackson Hewitt, etc). In some cities, there might even be \"\"free\"\" tax preparation services by certain organizations that want to help the community and these are often available even to small businesses. In general, income taxes can be complicated and the rules are always changing. I've found that most small business owners that try to file their own taxes generally end up paying a lot more taxes than they're required to, in essence, they are overpaying! Running a business (and making a profit) can be hard enough, so on to of that, you don't need to be paying more than you are required to! Also, I am going to assume that since it sounds like it would be a business of one (you), that you won't have a Payroll. That is another area that can be complicated for sure. Ok, with those generics out of the way, let me tackle your questions related to starting and operating a business, since you have the \"\"idea for your business\"\" pretty figured out. Will you have to pay any substantial amount of money to attorneys or advisors or accountants or to register with the government? Not necessarily. Since the rules for operating a business legally vary by your operating location (where you will be providing the service or performing your work), you can certainly research this on your own. It might take a little time, but it's doable if you stick with it. Some resources: The state of Florida (where I live) has an excellent page at: http://www.myflorida.com/taxonomy/business/starting%20a%20business%20in%20florida/ You might not be in Florida, but almost every state will have something similar. What all do I need to do to remain on the right side of the law and the smart side of business? All of the answers above still apply to this question, but here are a few more items to consider: You will want to keep good records of all expenses directly related to the business. If you license some content (stock images) for example, you'll want to document receipts. These are easy usually as you know \"\"directly\"\". If you subscribe to the Apple Developer program (which you'll need to if you intend to sell Apps in the Apple App Stores), the subscription is an expense against your business income, etc. You will want to keep good records of indirect costs. These are not so easy to \"\"figure out\"\" (and where a good accountant will help you when this becomes significant) but these are important and a lot of business owners hurt themselves by not considering these. What do I mean? Well, you need an \"\"office\"\" in order to produce your work, right? You might need a computer, a phone, internet, electricity, heat, etc. all of which allow you to create a \"\"working environment\"\" that allows you to \"\"produce your product\"\". The IRS (and state tax authorities) all provide ways for you to quantify these and \"\"count them\"\" as legitimate business expenses. No, you can't use 100% of your electric bill (since your office might be inside your home, and the entire bill is not \"\"just\"\" for your business) but you are certainly entitled to some part of that bill to count as a business expense. Again, I don't want to get too far down the INCOME TAX rabbit hole, but you still need to keep track of what you spend! You must keep good record of ALL your income. This is especially important when you have money coming in from various sources (a payroll, gifts from friends, business income from clients and/or the App Stores, etc.) Do not just assume that copies of your bank deposits tell the whole story. Bank statements might tell you the amount and date of a deposit, but you don't really know \"\"where\"\" that money came from unless you are tracking it! The good news is that the above record keeping can be quite easy with something like Quicken or QuickBooks (or many many other such popular programs.) You will want to ensure you have the needed licenses (not necessarily required at all for a lot of small businesses, especially home based businesses.) Depending on your business activity, you might want to consider business liability insurance. Again, this will depend on your clients and/or other business entities you'll be dealing with. Some might require you to have some insurance. Will be efforts even be considered a business initially until some amount of money actually starts coming in? This might be a legal / accountant question as to the very specific answer from the POV of the law and taxing authorities. However, consider that not all businesses make any money at all, for a long time, and they definitely \"\"are a business\"\". For instance, Twitter was losing money for a long time (years) and no one would argue they were not a business. Again, deferring to the attorneys/cpas here for the legal answer, the practical answer is that you're performing \"\"some\"\" business activity when you start creating a product and working hard to make it happen! I would consider \"\"acting as\"\" a business regardless! What things do I need to do up-front and what things can I defer to later, especially in light of the fact that it might be several months to a couple years before any substantial income starts coming in? This question's answer could be quite long. There are potentially many items you can defer. However, one I can say is that you might consider deferring incorporation. An individual can perform a business activity and draw income from it legally in a lot of situations. (For tax purposes, this is sometimes referred to as \"\"Schedule-C\"\" income.) I'm not saying incorporation is a bad thing (it can shield you from a lot of issues), but I am saying that it's not necessary on day 1 for a lot of small businesses. Having said that, this too can be easy to do on your own. Many companies offer services so you can incorporate for a few hundred dollars. If you do incorporate, as a small business of one person, I would definitely consider a tax concept called an \"\"S-Corp\"\" to avoid paying double taxes.) But here too, we've gone down the tax rabbit hole again. :-)\"" }, { "docid": "560776", "title": "", "text": "\"Earned income is what your software is doing, so it is taxable. So you can't really make it tax exempt. You can form a business and claim the revenues from that business as income and deduct expenses it costs you to earn that revenue. If you buy a server to run your software, then that is an acceptable expense to deduct from your revenues. Others can be more questionable and the best thing to do is to consult a CPA. If you are still in the testing stage and the revenues will be small then it should not matter. Worry about the important things, not if you paid the IRS a few hundred to much. Are you in a state/country that allows online gambling? In most states here in the US you are operating on shaky legal ground. Before \"\"Black Friday\"\" I used to earn a nice part-time income playing online poker.\"" }, { "docid": "392484", "title": "", "text": "You would report the overall income on your T1 general income tax return, and use form T2125 to report income and expenses for your business. Form T2125 is like a mini income-statement where you report your gross revenue and subtract off expenses. Being able to claim legitimate expenses as a deduction is an important tax benefit for businesses big and small. In terms of your second question, you generally need to register for a business number at least once you cross the threshold for GST / HST. If you earn $30,000/year (or spread over four consecutive quarters) then charging GST / HST is mandatory; see GST/HST Mandatory registration. There are other conditions as well, but the threshold is the principal one. You can also register voluntarily for GST / HST even if you're below that threshold; see GST/HST Voluntary registration. The advantage of registering voluntarily is that you can claim input tax credits (ITC) on any GST that your business pays, and remit only the difference. That saves your business money, especially if you have a lot of expenses early on. Finally, in terms of Ontario specifically (saw that on your profile), you might want to check out Ontario Sole Proprietorship. There are specific cases in which you need to register a business: e.g. specific types of businesses, or if you plan on doing business under a name other than your own. Finally, you may want to consider whether incorporating might be better for you. Here's an interesting article that compares Sole Proprietorship Versus Incorporation. Here's another article, Choosing a business structure, from the feds." } ]

[ { "docid": "467509", "title": "", "text": "\"Keep in mind that many checks are being cashed via scanner or photo. These can be home based, business based or ATM based systems. The key requirement is that the software has to be able to distinguish the \"\"written\"\" parts from the background parts. If the image doesn't have enough contrast for the edge detection to work, the check can't be easily processed. In that case a human looks at the image and decodes the image and processes the transaction. The image is not in color. Many businesses scan the check and hand the original back to you after having the Point of Sale system process the image. Post 2001 the checks in the united states are no longer moved through the banking system, only their images. With the roll out of these image based systems, in the future almost no physical checks will be seen by banks. Therefore the actual ink color is not important, only the result.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "599842", "title": "", "text": "Fill out the form manually, using last year's return as an example of how to report these gains. Or experiment with one of the low-priced tax programs; I've been told that they are available for as little as $17, and if your alternative is doing it manually, spending a bit of time checking their results isn't a huge problem. Or run the basic TTax, and tell it to add the appropriate forms manually. It supports them, it just doesn't have the interview sections to handle them. (@DanielCarson's answer has more details about that.) Or..." }, { "docid": "397510", "title": "", "text": "You should not form a company in the U.S. simply to get the identification number required for a W-8BEN form. By establishing a U.S.-based company, you'd be signing yourself up for a lot of additional hassle! You don't need that. You're a European business, not a U.S. business. Selling into the U.S. does not require you to have a U.S. company. (You may want to consider what form of business you ought to have in your home country, however.) Anyway, to address your immediate concern, you should just get an EIN only. See businessready.ca - what is a W8-BEN?. Quote: [...] There are other reasons to fill out the W8-BEN but for most of you it is to make sure they don’t hold back 30% of your payment which, for a small company, is a big deal. [...] How do I get one of these EIN US taxpayer identification numbers? EIN stands for Employer Identification Number and is your permanent number and can be used for most of your business needs (e.g. applying for business licenses, filing taxes when applicable, etc). You can apply by filling out the Form SS-4 but the easier, preferred way is online. However, I also found at IRS.gov - Online EIN: Frequently Asked Questions the following relevant tidbit: Q. Are any entity types excluded from applying for an EIN over the Internet? A. [...] If you were incorporated outside of the United States or the U.S. territories, you cannot apply for an EIN online. Please call us at (267) 941-1099 (this is not a toll free number) between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time. So, I suggest you call the IRS and describe your situation: You are a European-based business (sole proprietor?) selling products to a U.S.-based client and would like to request an EIN so you can supply your client with a W-8BEN. The IRS should be able to advise you of the correct course of action. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Consider seeking professional advice." }, { "docid": "65698", "title": "", "text": "The purpose of the W-4 form is to allow you to adjust the withholding to meet your tax obligations. If you have outside non-wage income (money from tutoring) you will have to fill out the W-4 to have extra taxes withheld. If you have deductions (kids, mortgages, student loan interest) then you need to adjust the form to have less tax taken out. Now if yo go so far that you owe too much in April, then you can get hit with penalties and a requirement to file your taxes quarterly the next year. Most years I adjust my W-4 to reflect changes to my situation. The idea is to use it to manage your withholding so that you minimize your refund without triggering the penalties. The HR department has advised you well. How to adjust: If you want to decrease withholding (making the refund smaller) add one to the number on the worksheet. In 2014 a change by 1 exemption is equal to a salary adjustment of $3,950. If this was spread over 26 paychecks that would be the same as lowering your salary by ~$152. If you are in the 15% tax bracket that increases your take home pay by ~10 a check." }, { "docid": "356928", "title": "", "text": "A checking account is one that permits the account holder to write demand drafts (checks), which can be given to other people as payment and processed by the banks to transfer those funds. (Think of a check as a non-electronic equivalent of a debit card transaction, if that makes more sense to you.) Outside of the ability to write checks, and the slightly lower interest rate usually offered to trade off against that convenience, there really is no significant difference between savings and checking accounts. The software needs to be designed to handle checking accounts if it's to be sold in the US, since many of us do still use checks for some transactions. Adding support for other currencies doesn't change that. If you don't need the ability to track which checks have or haven't been fully processed, I'd suggest that you either simply ignore the checking account feature, or use this category separation in whatever manner makes sense for the way you want to manage your money." }, { "docid": "456773", "title": "", "text": "Give a cheque. You can. Your friend would have to deposit this in a Bank that does this service. Not all Banks offer this service in US. It generally would take 1-3 months for the funds to reach. Give a dollar-denominated cheque You can NOT write check on a Rupee account and put USD. You can definitely buy a USD Draft generally payable in the US. There would be some charge for you here and send it by courier, post. It would get paid into your friends account in about a week. Do a SWIFT transfer Yes you can. You may need to walk into a Branch and fill up forms. If the amount is more than specified limit a CA certificate is required. Am I correct in understanding Yes Use my ATM card in the US Yes you can. Specialised money transfer services like Western Union Transfer money out of India is not allowed by Money Transfer services" }, { "docid": "406109", "title": "", "text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"" }, { "docid": "229041", "title": "", "text": "Color Doppler is an ultra sound scanner device used to estimate blood flow. EASTMED brand offers Color Doppler with stable image performance and diverse applications. The device is equipped with superior image quality, comprehensive functions, high cost effectiveness and mobility, which make it applicable to different body scans and clinic departments. It has made the diagnosis and treatment of blood related diseases much easy." }, { "docid": "301634", "title": "", "text": "Depending on your location, you might have a lot of options to choose from to mitigate your tax burden. There might even be a possibility of combining a few options to make a buck or two off of it. As someone already mentioned, check out conservation easements and REITs, they can be great ways of relieving your burden. Another option that I know is available in a number of states is land-use tax qualifications that allow for significantly reduced tax rates based on the current zoning/use of the land as a timber area(You may not plan on harvesting the timber but you can potentially still qualify for the reduction). Is the land appropriately assessed/appraised? Make sure you're not getting ripped off. What are your neighboring landholders paying for taxes? I would imagine most locales in and around New England would at least have GIS parcel maps in place, talk to your neighbors and find out what they do to minimize their costs. If all else fails, check out ParcelQuest or Google Earth Pro and find out the digs on others with similar land holdings. Make some cold calls, be polite, and ask. Many people, especially in the country are happy to oblige a friendly neighbor. What would the definition of 'pristine' be? What is the age of the trees, furthermore, what type of trees comprise the woodland? Are you open to selective harvesting(which if done properly can actually improve the health of your property)?Check out what you can do with it(is your woodland comprised of sugar maple or some other resource that might be of persistent value?). Do you want to have the land for the sake of having it or do you want to do anything with it? If you're in a semi-urban environment you could converse with local hunting, disc-golf, or other groups that might be interested in utilizing the land. These uses could potentially be combined with a conservation easement to improve your outcome in more ways than one. Keep in mind, often times with conservation easements, know everything you want out of the land in the long term. Once the ink is dry, the deal is done. Take your time, think about it. Do what feels right." }, { "docid": "478168", "title": "", "text": "One snag in your plan is that you alone can't undo your HSA contributions because you would also owe FICA taxes on that amount, and those need to be paid by both you and your employer. The only way for that to happen is for your employer to undo your HSA contributions from their point of view so those wages can be entirely taxed with both FICA and regular withholding. How that is accomplished will probably be up to them. It could mean you pulling the money out of the HSA account, and then either giving it back to your employer so they can re-allocate it with a new check, or, if you have enough pay due between now and the end of the year you could keep the money and they can reduce your next paycheck(s) by the total additional taxes due. Note that you should prefer the latter if possible, since this way you would get to keep the $1000 you shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Also, note that when you withdraw the money from your HSA account you need to inform your bank that you are undoing the contributions rather than taking distributions (and likely fill out a form). If you don't inform them they will improperly report to the IRS that you had contributions and an equal amount of distributions, which could muddy the waters with also having an FSA." }, { "docid": "239061", "title": "", "text": "\"At one point in my life I sold cars and from what I saw, three things stick out. Unless the other dealership was in the same network, eg ABC Ford of City A, and ABC Ford of City B, they never had possession of that truck. So, no REAL application for a loan could be sent in to a bank, just a letter of intent, if one was sent at all. With a letter of intent, a soft pull is done, most likely by the dealership, where they then attached that score to the LOI that the bank has an automated program send back an automatic decline, an officer review reply, or a tentative approval (eg tier 0,1,2...8). The tentative approval is just that, Tentative. Sometime after a lender has a loan officer look at the full application, something prompts them to change their offer. They have internal guidelines, but lets say an app is right at the line for 2-3 of the things they look at, they chose to lower the credit tier or decline the app. The dealership then goes back and looks at what other offers they had. Let's say they had a Chase offer at 3.25% and a CapOne for 5.25% they would say you're approved at 3.5%, they make their money on the .25%. But after Chase looks into the app and sees that, let's say you have been on the job for actually 11 months and not 1 year, and you said you made $50,000, but your 1040 shows $48,200, and you have moved 6 times in the last 5 years. They comeback and say no he is not a tier 2 but a tier 3 @ 5.5%. They switch to CapOne and say your rate has in fact gone up to 5.5%. Ultimately you never had a loan to start with - only a letter of intent. The other thing could be that the dealership finance manager looked at your credit score and guessed they would offer 3.5%, when they sent in the LOI it came back higher than he thought. Or he was BSing you, so if you price shopped while they looked for a truck you wouldn't get far. They didn't find that Truck, or it was not what they thought it would be. If a dealership sees a truck in inventory at another dealer they call and ask if it's available, if they have it, and it's not being used as a demo for a sales manager, they agree to send them something else for the trade, a car, or truck or whatever. A transfer driver of some sort hops in that trade, drives the 30 minutes - 6 hours away and comes back so you can sign the Real Application, TODAY! while you're excited about your new truck and willing to do whatever you need to do to get it. Because they said it would take 2-5 days to \"\"Ship\"\" it tells me it wasn't available. Time Kills Deals, and dealerships know this: they want to sign you TODAY! Some dealerships want \"\"honest\"\" money or a deposit to go get the truck, but reality is that that is a trick to test you to make sure you are going to follow through after they spend the gas and add mileage to a car. But if it takes 2 days+, The truck isn't out there, or the dealer doesn't have a vehicle the other dealership wants back, or no other dealership likes dealing with them. The only way it would take that long is if you were looking for something very rare, an odd color in an unusual configuration. Like a top end model in a low selling color, or configuration you had to have that wouldn't sell well - like you wanted all the options on a car except a cigarette lighter, you get the idea. 99.99% of the time a good enough truck is available. Deposits are BS. They don't setup any kind of real contract, notice most of the time they want a check. Because holding on to a check is about as binding as making you wear a chicken suit to get a rebate. All it is, is a test to see if you will go through with signing the deal. As an example of why you don't let time pass on a car deal is shown in this. One time we had a couple want us to find a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid in red with every available option. Total cost was about $85-90k. Only two new Red Escalade hybrids were for sale in the country at the time, one was in New York, and the other was in San Fransisco, and our dealership is in Texas, and neither was wanting to trade with us, so we ended up having to buy the SUV from one of the other dealerships inventory. That is a very rare thing to do by the way. We took a 25% down payment, around $20,000, in a check. We flew a driver to wherever the SUV was and then drove it back to Texas about 4 days later. The couple came back and hated the color, they would not take the SUV. The General Manager was pissed, he spent around $1000 just to bring the thing to Texas, not to mention he had to buy the thing. The couple walked and there was nothing the sales manager, GM, or salesman could do. We had not been able to deliver the car, and ultimately the dealership ate the loss, but it shows that deposits are useless. You can't sell something you don't own, and dealerships know it. Long story short, you can't claim a damage you never experienced. Not having something happen that you wanted to have happen is not a damage because you can't show a real economic loss. One other thing, When you sign the paperwork that you thought was an application, it was an authorization for them to pull your credit and the fine print at the bottom is boiler plate defense against getting sued for everything imaginable. Ours took up about half of one page and all of the back of the second page. I know dealing with car dealerships is hard, working at them is just as hard, and I'm sorry that you had to deal with it, however the simplest and smoothest car deals are the ones where you pay full price.\"" }, { "docid": "214685", "title": "", "text": "\"From the IRS' website: How many annual exclusions are available? The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000. What if my spouse and I want to give away property that we own together? You are each entitled to the annual exclusion amount on the gift. Together, you can give $22,000 to each donee (2002-2005) or $24,000 (2006-2008), $26,000 (2009-2012) and $28,000 on or after January 1, 2013 (including 2014, 2015, and 2016). https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes Basically, this means that it doesn't matter which person it specifically comes from as it's a \"\"joint\"\" gift. There is more complicated paperwork to fill out if the gift comes from a single check and needs to be \"\"split\"\" for taxes. Each parent would need to fill out a separate gift tax return form, essentially proving that both parents approve of the gift. It seems like it's easier if each parent writes a separate check, however it's not a requirement.\"" }, { "docid": "2413", "title": "", "text": "As I understand it, US federal gift tax doesn't kick in at all until one person gives more than about $14,000 in a single year. (So a couple can give someone $28,000.) If you want to give more than that in a lump sum while avoiding gift tax, one workaround is to structure it as an intra-family loan. Basically, you write (and formally register) a loan for the amount, then gift them with up to the limit for them to pay off that loan. The IRS requires that you charge interest on this loan, but the rates are pretty minimal and of course you can incorporate that in the gift. The downside is that the interest income you're required to take is taxable, but that's a comparitively small sum. (On the other hand, if the loan is a mortgage against real property, and properly filed as such, the interest paid may be deductable for the person you're giving the money to.) Doing this properly requires a tax accountant or lawyer who has a clue about the right legalese to make it work. However, there are starting to be some services which specialize in this, doing it for a fixed fee. I used one of those recently, which is why I'm somewhat familiar with this process; they made it about as much of a fill-out-the-forms process as they could, but it still took a few weeks for me to figure out which options were best for my needs." }, { "docid": "472109", "title": "", "text": "\"SAR filers can check a box to indicate that SSN is \"\"Unknown\"\". It's unlikely that you could get over $10K in chips without first disclosing your SSN, as casinos track your cash out totals based on physical description (hair color, clothing, etc). As you approach $10K they will require ID and SSN, which they verify for accuracy against a federal database via name and DOB matching. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer\"" }, { "docid": "283657", "title": "", "text": "\"I have the same problem. The people above are right to an extent. You have to be more disciplined. But there is no reason why you can't get there in stages. If you try to do too much too fast you'll just give up. You need to find a system that removes some of the passive barriers affecting you. You need to think what in particular is overwhelming you. For me it was sitting down at the end of the month to write it all down. Writing it all down at the end of the week or even each day didn't work either because it was too much and I had forgotten what stuff was. I'm like you. The bank account is a record so why do I have to retype it or worse, hand write it out? Bleh. What I ended up doing was divide my expenses into four categories: food (to include all medical) shelter, transportation, spending -- with the first three being needs and the last being wants. Eating out is spending. I have four checking accounts with four debit cards. I saved up some money. I put a paycheck's worth of money in each because I didn't know how much I spent each month in each category, but knew I didn't spend an entire paycheck in any one category per month. Voila. No more work. At the store you just put things in the basket by category. At Target you pay for the food and toothpaste with the medical card and the DVD with the spending card. The cashiers don't care that you pay separately. And if you are buying so much crap that separating items by category is a problem, why the heck are you buying so much crap? At the end of the month you will now have a record of how much you spend on transportation, housing (electricity would be paid online from this account for example), medical and fun. That's all anyone needs to help you get started. You can then see if your housing is 35% or less (or whatever percentage you feel is right). The person trying to help the author above is right. A Target charge doesn't indicate whether you bought some oil for the car or cold medicine or a lock for the cabinet door that broke. But when you pay for each of these things under the right account, you do know how the money is allocated. Doing it this way requires little discipline. Before you put the item in the basket, you just ask yourself, is this a want or a need (which is something you should be doing anyway). If it's a need, is it for my car, house, or body. The house is what I use if i can't figure it out (like paying for the renewal of my professional license). that's it! You have to stand at the register for longer but so what. If you are spending all your salary and you stop when you have no more money (assuming you've run through all of your savings, which you will soon if you don't change), then you have no more money to spend. So if you are honest when you put things in the basket(need vs want), you are going to run out of spending money real quick. Your spending money account will be empty but you will still have food money. Set your debit card up so that it denies your charge if you dont have enough money. Once you realize how much you truly spend for needs in each category, yoy will only put that much in each account. Therefore, You can't use the house card to just \"\"borrow\"\" from it till next month. If you do, you won't be able to pay your bills. If you have so little discipline that you knowingly spend your bill money, then there is a deeper issue going on than just finding the right budgeting/cash flow system for you. Something is seriously wrong and you need to seek professional help. When someone is trying to help you, the first step is to determine what category you are spending too much in. Then when you realize it's the house category, for example, you will need to figure out why you are spending so much in that category. A bank statement wont tell you that. So you can do what we did. On every receipt --before you walk out of the store-- write down what each purchase is on the receipt. Then you can hand over the receipts to whoever is helping you. Most items are easily recognizable on the receipt so you wont have to write everything down. you should be doing this for insurance purposes anyway. Again, if your receipt is so blooming long that this is onerous, probably everything you just spent is not a need and maybe you need to turn right around and return stuff. Maybe you need to go to the store more often so there are only a few purchases on each receipt. Groceries are groceries. You don't need to detail that out. For Ikea when you have to purchase pieces to a set, we get a separate receipts for each. So the brackets and shelving for the bedroom will be on one receipt and the brackets and shelving for the other room will be on another receipt. Even at the store I cant figure out what all the little pieces are! But really, if you are making a decent enough salary, then you are probably spending too much on wants and are calling the items needs. So really your problem is correctly identifying needs from wants. Define a NEED. YOU. Make up your own definition of need Dwell on it. Let it become meaningful for you. Oranges are a need. Chocolate is not (no, really it's not! Lol!). So when you are putting the stuff in the basket, you dont even have to think about whether it's a need or not after a while. Wants go in the child seat if at all possible (to keep the number of items smaller). When you are ready to check out, add up the items roughly in the want pile. Ask yourself if you really want all that stuff. Then put some stuff back! At this point ask yourself is the 8 hours I will have to work to pay for this worth it? Am I really going to use it? Will using the item make me happy? Or is it the actual buying of the item that makes me feel powerful? Where will I put it? How much time will I need to maintain it? Then put some stuff back! Get some good goals, a kayaking trip or whatever. Ask yourself if the item is worth delaying the trip. How will I feel later? Will I have buyers remorse? If so, put it back! These are controls you can put into place that don't take a lot of discipline. Writing the items down on the receipt is a more advanced step you can take later. If you are with friends, go first so that you can write down the items while they are checking out. If you are private and don't want to share your method with your friends, go to the bathroom and in the stall write it down while they wait. Writing the items on the receipt while in the store is sort of a trigger mechanism for remembering to do so. That pulling out of the card triggers your memory to get out your pen or ask the cashier for one. The side benefit is catching someone using a cloned copy of your card. In the medical account if you see an Exxon charge, you know it's not yours. Also, while that one account is shut down, you have three others to rely on in the meantime. My spouse hated fumbling for the right card. They all look the same. Color code your cards. We have blue cross blue shield so it feels natural to have the food/medical account with a blue sticker (just buy a little circle sticker and place it on the edge so half is on the front and half is on the back -- nowhere near the strip). I've never been given a hard time about it. Our car is red so the car card is red, etc. If you think four cards is a lot to carry, ask yourself if you would rather carry four cards or keep track of every little thing? Good luck. I know you will find a system that works for you if you keep trying.\"" }, { "docid": "279480", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer is based on my understanding of the US banking system. We have check cashing businesses here too, which are just like what you describe, except for the spelling :-) Let's consider what \"\"cash it for free at the bank\"\" really means, and why it might not be an option for everyone. One key issue is \"\"which bank?\"\" As an example, suppose that I have an account at ABC Bank. I take out my checkbook for that account and write you a check for $500. (Terminology: In this case, I am the drawer or maker of the check, ABC Bank is the drawee bank, and you, user54609, are the payee. Disclaimer: \"\"You\"\" here is meant as a generic pronoun and I do not mean to insinuate that anything here actually applies to you personally.) There are two common things you might do with the check: If you have an account at some bank, say XYZ Bank, you might take the check to XYZ Bank and deposit it in your account. (You might be able to do this through an ATM, mobile app, or by mail, instead of in person.) XYZ Bank does not have a way to verify with certainty that the check is valid (e.g. they don't know what my signature looks like, nor whether I actually have $500 in my account at ABC), so they send it to ABC Bank, which verifies the check and transfers $500 to XYZ. (This is usually done through a central clearinghouse, such as the Federal Reserve in the US, and in some cases an image of the check may be sent electronically, instead of the physical check.) This process takes some time, so XYZ may not make the $500 available to you right away - there may be a hold period before you can withdraw that $500 from your account. You could take the check to ABC Bank, in person. They will verify on the spot that the check is valid and that you are in fact user54609. If everything looks good, they will hand you $500 in cash (perhaps subtracting a fee of a few dollars). Now we can see some possible problems with each of these approaches. For 1: Maybe you don't have a bank account at all. There are many possible reasons: You don't have enough money to meet the minimum balance that a bank account would require. You used to have an account, but you overdrew or otherwise misused an account, so the bank closed it. They then entered you in a registry such as ChexSystems which ensures that other banks know about this, and so no other bank will open a new account for you. You immigrated to the country illegally and cannot get the documents (driver's license, social security number, etc) that a bank normally requires to open an account. You simply don't like the idea of keeping your money in a bank. Maybe you do have an account at XYZ Bank, but it's in another town. You need the cash today, so you can't use mail or a mobile app, and third-party ATMs usually don't accept deposits. Maybe you need to spend the money today, and XYZ Bank would place a hold. For 2: ABC Bank may not have a branch you can conveniently visit. Maybe the nearest one is a long way away, in another city or across the country. Or maybe ABC is an online bank with no physical branches at all. Maybe it's in the same city, but you don't have transportation to get you there. Or maybe it's simply less convenient than the check-cashing business on the corner. Maybe it is after usual banking hours, or a weekend, and ABC Bank is closed, but you need cash now. In any of these situations, \"\"cash it at the bank\"\" might not be a viable option, and so you might reasonably turn to a check cashing business instead. As you say, you will pay a much higher fee there, but maybe it is worth it to you, or you just don't have any choice. Another possibility, of course, is that you are poorly educated about the banking system, and you don't really understand that 1 and 2 are options, or how to go about them. But there's this storefront on the corner that says \"\"Check Cashing\"\", so this seems like a low-stress, uncomplicated way to exchange this piece of paper for money. As such, there certainly are people who legitimately might want to cash a valid check at a check-cashing business. Check cashing business do of course take some risk of fraud, since they can't necessarily verify the check. There are sometimes steps they can take to minimize this risk. Sometimes they can call ABC Bank and check that I have sufficient money in my account. Maybe they'll only accept certain kinds of checks, such as payroll checks from well-known companies for which you can produce a matching pay stub. And they can demand identification from you (perhaps allowing more flexible options than a bank), which helps ensure that you are the payee, and would make you easier to track down if you did commit fraud. But they will probably lose some money this way, so they will have to make their fees high enough to cover those losses.\"" }, { "docid": "279870", "title": "", "text": "I believe that the form you will need to fill out for the company is the IRS' W-8ECI form. My US-based Fortune 50 company pays my rent in Germany, and had my landlord fill one out so that they would not need to do any withholding for the payments. From this IRS site on withholding income for payments to Foreign Individuals: Withholding exemption. In most cases, you do not need to withhold tax on income if you receive a Form W-8ECI on which a foreign payee represents that: The foreign payee is the beneficial owner of the income, The income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, and The income is includible in the payee's gross income. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "16895", "title": "", "text": "\"The translation scheme is detailed in IRS Publication 15, \"\"Employer's Tax Guide\"\". For the 2010 version, the information is in Section 16 on Page 37. There are two ways that employers can calculate the withheld tax amount: wage bracket and percentage. Alternatively, they can also use one of the methods defined in IRS Publication 15-A. I'll assume the person making $60k/yr with 10 allowances is paid monthly ($5000/period) and married. Using the wage bracket method, the amount withheld for federal taxes would be $83 per pay period. Using the percentage method, it would be $81.23 per pay period. I don't recommend that you use this information to determine how to fill out your W-4. The IRS provides a special online calculator for that purpose, which I have always found quite accurate. Note: \"\"allowances\"\" are not the same as \"\"dependents\"\"; \"\"allowances\"\" are a more realistic estimation of your tax deductions, taking into consideration much more than just your dependents.\"" }, { "docid": "515207", "title": "", "text": "\"In \"\"steady state\"\", the refrigerator only has to pump out the heat that has leaked in from outside. The amount of heat leaked is related to the difference between interior and exterior temperatures, and the overall insulation quality. Thus, a refrigerator full of cold food uses the same amount of energy as a refrigerator full of cold air. In practice, people open the door, take cold food out, put \"\"warm\"\" food in, and the unit may also make ice, dispense cold water, and defrost itself. Aside from tweaking those uses, (e.g. minimizing time with the door open), a useful trick is to use empty milk cartons or similar containers to fill up unused space. This helps by reducing the amount of cold air that escapes when the door is opened, and the air in the cartons has low thermal mass, so it cools down rapidly. When you need the space, you can remove the cartons and set them aside. Similarly, water-filled cartons may be used as a sort of thermal ballast--leveling out the temperature fluctuations within the refrigerator, particularly if the electric utilities are erratic. However, they increase the cost of refrigeration when cooling the water in the first place, and when you eventually dump out the water, the expense of cooling it goes down the drain.\"" }, { "docid": "16806", "title": "", "text": "I would never trade after hours and I have 30 years of trading experience. It is a very volatile emotion driven market without a lot of the big players that arbitrage wrong pricing. If I were you I would simply use limit orders you input while the market is closed. If you want to get kute you can put in low-ball offers (and vice versa) to see if they get filled in the volatility at market open. Then check in (when?) when you wake up (or before you go to bed, etc) and revise the limit if not filled. In other words don't 'trade'. Know what your company is worth and put in orders that reflect that." } ]

[ { "docid": "434846", "title": "", "text": "\"When I have a question about my income taxes, the first place I look is generally the Giant Book of Income Tax Information, Publication 17 (officially called \"\"Your Federal Income Tax\"\"). This looks to be covered in Chapter 26 on \"\"Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses\"\". It's possible that there's something in there that applies to you if you need to temporarily commute to a place that isn't your normal workplace for a legitimate business reason or other business-related travel. But for your normal commute from your home to your normal workplace it has this to say: Commuting expenses. You cannot deduct the costs of taking a bus, trolley, subway, or taxi, or of driving a car between your home and your main or regular place of work. These costs are personal commuting expenses. You cannot deduct commuting expenses no matter how far your home is from your regular place of work. You cannot deduct commuting expenses even if you work during the commuting trip.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "257443", "title": "", "text": "I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future." }, { "docid": "37725", "title": "", "text": "\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\"    [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"" }, { "docid": "473883", "title": "", "text": "NB - I live in Surrey and bought my house in January 2014. If you don't have a very social life, it does pay to stay outside London. Places outside London are cheap and you will get a better deal in relation to houses or flats as compared to London. I feel very priced out of the market regarding London mortgages I will strongly question you logic behind this ? Why only London ? Why not live in the commuter belt outside London. Good places to reside, good schools, nice neighbourhood and away from the hustle and bustle of London. Many of my colleagues commute from Cambridge and Oxford daily into Central London and they laugh at people who want to buy a house in London, just for the sake of buying a house. It seems that the housing market is generally in a bubble due to being distorted by the finance market London house market is different from the rest of UK. People from overseas tend to invest in London property market, so it is always inflated. Even the property tax hasn't deterred many. I could look into buying somewhere and renting it out You are trying to join the same people, because of whom you have been put out of the housing market. I strictly question this logic unless your mortgage is less than the rent you pay and what rent you get. Buy a roof over your head first, then think of profiting from property." }, { "docid": "67767", "title": "", "text": "Err, isn't this article simply stating the obvious? I've been working for the last 18 years and I know those signs by heart, seen them on others, and on me even... The manager who can not spot those signs deserves to be deserted, the problem is with the manager who spots those signs and does nothing!" }, { "docid": "469601", "title": "", "text": "Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230." }, { "docid": "20193", "title": "", "text": "As somebody who has worked remotely for the last 5 years, first at 50%, then at 100%, I find this shift to be far superior to office work. My productivity is up, my focus is good, and the work/life balance is far better than if I was working in an office. I can put in a longer day than my colleagues, yet still be free to pursue outside goals sooner than they are by eliminating my commute. Instead of spending money on greasy rushed lunches near the office, I eat healthy and cheaply at home. My energy, focus, and balance are all better." }, { "docid": "178386", "title": "", "text": "\"No, it doesn't look like you can use the employee benefit to pay for parking near your home. The definition for \"\"qualified parking\"\" is in the Internal Revenue Code Section 132 (\"\"Certain Fringe Benefits\"\") (f) (5) (c): (C) Qualified parking The term “qualified parking” means parking provided to an employee on or near the business premises of the employer or on or near a location from which the employee commutes to work by transportation described in subparagraph (A), in a commuter highway vehicle, or by carpool. Such term shall not include any parking on or near property used by the employee for residential purposes. Parking near your home is explicitly excluded. Your employer's human resources department can probably provide information on the details of where you can park and get reimbursement.\"" }, { "docid": "263259", "title": "", "text": "I looked at Publication 463 (2014), Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses for examples. I thought this was the mot relevant. No regular place of work. If you have no regular place of work but ordinarily work in the metropolitan area where you live, you can deduct daily transportation costs between home and a temporary work site outside that metropolitan area. Generally, a metropolitan area includes the area within the city limits and the suburbs that are considered part of that metropolitan area. You cannot deduct daily transportation costs between your home and temporary work sites within your metropolitan area. These are nondeductible commuting expenses. This only deals with transportation to and from the temporary work site. Transportation expenses do not include expenses you have while traveling away from home overnight. Those expenses are travel expenses discussed in chapter 1 . However, if you use your car while traveling away from home overnight, use the rules in this chapter to figure your car expense deduction. See Car Expenses , later. You will also have to consider the cost of tolls of the use of a trailer if those apply." }, { "docid": "256261", "title": "", "text": "And directly from IRS notice 2014-21 FAQ: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property? A-6: Yes. If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer’s adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency.… Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income." }, { "docid": "205772", "title": "", "text": "The main problem is that everyone graduates from high-school, almost everyone gets accepted to college and almost nobody who put minimum efforts fails college classes. I know that! I was an adjunct professor and was told I can't fail my students except in extreme cases. In the past, to graduate from high school was a hard accomplishment. Getting accepted to college was a hard accomplishment. Surviving the first year in college was an accomplishment and getting a degree was an accomplishment. Those accomplishments in the past gave you excellent benefits! Benefits of assured respected jobs, income, security, and being the exception. An example: in the past, to be a teller in the bank, you did not have to finish high-school, just be good in basic math. Today: a teller in the bank, one of the lowest paying jobs you can find, requires a Bachelor degree. Does the bachelor degree worth it? **Basically, higher education became an industry, that accept as many people as possible, charge them as much as it can, give degrees to undeserving people, and those degrees are almost worthless. You can't do much with a Bachelor degree!** The solution is to make the standards for high school and college much higher. Everything will fall into place then. Fewer students who are actually interested in studies and are qualified for their studies will mean better teaching, lower costs, and much better benefits for those deserve those benefits. Chances of this happening? Big big zero. Actually, the chances of even lower standards for colleges and schools are 100%. So, for my son, I explained to him to not invest much in an excellent and expensive college for [worthless] degrees. Instead, while he studies, work in the area he is interested in and learn from the masters he works with. My son is 13, but since being 11, he works (yes, he makes money) with some computer system he's interested in. Personally, I worked since I was 13, study and worked all the time, got my Bachelor and Masters, and I am doing extremely well. I get paid for what I know, which Zero of it came from my studies and money I spent in those studies." }, { "docid": "17107", "title": "", "text": "\"Monkey, Big four accounting firms have FRM departments. Maybe you could apply to one of those. FRM is mostly about Credit Risk (Loans, advances, receivables) and Market Risk (IR, FX). I'm trying to \"\"break into\"\" credit risk myself, but materials are difficult to find. It's about modeling portfolio default probabilities and losses given default. You'll impress with basic programming and advanced prob&amp;stats. Can you ask your professor to recommend a book on Credit Risk? For Market Risk, I know that a lot of the work guys do is pricing IR and FX swaps in Bloomberg. Take a class in derivatives, if you can.\"" }, { "docid": "484596", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming USA: It is possible to make the interest deductible if you go to the trouble of structuring, and filing, the loan as an actual mortgage on a primary residence. Websearching \"\"intra-family loan\"\" will find several firms which specialize in this. It costs about $700 for all the paperwork and filing fees as of last time I checked, so unless you're going to pay at least three times that in interest over the life of the loan it probably isn't worth considering. (For an additional fee they'll take care of the payment processing, if you'd really rather be hands-off about it.) I have no idea whether the paperwork fees and processing fees can be deducted from the interest as a cost of producing that income. In theory that ought to be true, but I Am Not A Lawyer. Or accountant. Note: one of the interesting factors here is that the IRS sets a minimum interest rate on intra-family loans. It's pretty low (around 0.3%), so in most cases you can say you gifted the difference if you'd prefer to charge less... but that does set a floor on what the IRS will expect the lender to declare, and pay taxes on. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but since I am NOT an expert I'll refer you to those who are. I have no affiliation with any of this except as a customer, once; it seemed pretty painless but I can't claim to know whether they were really handling everything exactly correctly. The website seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining what choices had to be made and their effects, as well as discussing how these can be used to avoid excess gift taxes by spreading the gift over a number of years.\"" }, { "docid": "129350", "title": "", "text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals." }, { "docid": "4247", "title": "", "text": "This is the exact reason why I think we will have self driving cars really soon. I would love to just surf the internet on my way to work and not have to drive. Of course I only work 6 blocks away, but I know many people have a 30+ minute commute." }, { "docid": "87688", "title": "", "text": "\"It seems like the argument is based in the idea that if you are going to be working 1 or even 2 minimum wage jobs while having trouble feeding/clothing/housing yourself, and ultimately have to leave the city because of that, how is that functionally different than not working? I live in San Francisco and there is a massive problem here with staffing in the service industry because restaurant employees can't afford to live within commuting distance of work. I do think that the \"\"something's gotta break\"\" line of logic is tough because we're talking about people's lives, but I understand the futility of working more than full time to not be able to afford a livelihood as well.\"" }, { "docid": "592582", "title": "", "text": "Having been in the situation of commuting and working long hours at a low wage to just scrape by, I faced the following dilemma: I used all my income to pay bills and taxes and could not afford to go back to college to get another degree (or pay for distance learning). Even if I could afford to pay for classes, I couldn't figure out when I'd have the time to study because I was often only home 9 hours a day and needed to eat and sleep, shower and get ready for work. A wealthy friend of mine liked to read books about people who overcame great obstacles and she was sure I could figure out lot a way to improve my situation if I'd just try harder. One day I handed her a piece of paper showing my income after taxes and monthly bills and asked her to get back to me with a plan that would allow me to afford classes and give me say, an average of 6 hours of study time per week. She was happy to do it. Here was her longed for opportunity to show me it was possible to pull myself up by my bootstraps. After she studied my income, expenses and schedule, she decided she couldn't devise a plan that would work and she never again told me I wasn't trying hard enough." }, { "docid": "555851", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;I fucking hate it when I see another rich kid acting like they came from slums Where did David Knopf claim he was from the slums? You got a source for that? &gt;and worked their way up the ladder How do you know he didn't? Life is a bell curve. Some people climb the ladder much faster than others. Some people may climb because of nepotism. Some people genuinely are better than most other people. You think everyone should rise up at the same pace? Move to Japan. &gt;delusional twats much like yourself believe that you can earn anything with just some \"\"hard work bruh.\"\" Not just hard work, but also talent. If everyone works the same amount, those who are more talented will *generally* have more success. Of course, some is subject to chance, some people have a head start, etc., but in general, that's the way that the world has proven to work. &gt;About every successful silicon valley startup such as Microsoft, Facebook, and Snapchat were founded by kids with very prominent parents. Yeah, Microsoft. K. So Bill Gates grew up with upper middle class parents. Know what? So did a fucking *huge* amount of people. Know how many are as rich as Bill Gates? Fucking none of them. He had a head start, absolutely, but that doesn't take away his success. He's done more with what he was given than any of his peers, and likely more than anyone regardless of beginning income level could do. Zuckerberg's dad was a dentist. Upper middle class, but if you're *really* being honest with yourself, you'd realize that there are almost 200k dentists in the US alone, and yet there aren't 200k multi billionaires. Hm. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was the son of a professor who immigrated from Russia. Steve Jobs was the adopted child of two blue collar workers. Of course, if we move out of just Silicon Valley, your narrative really, *really* falls apart, since Silicon Valley of course has a little bit of a lean towards the wealthy, as computers aren't cheap and getting started in that arena requires the use of a computer. [Take a look at billionaires in general](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2010-12-06/twenty-billionaires-who-started-with-nothing). Most billionaires [did not inherit their wealth](https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/self-made/#7d08bb1941cb). And, something like a [third](https://blog.adioma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/from-poor-to-rich-billionare-infographic.jpg) of the richest billionaires came from 'poor' parents, in addition to simply not inheriting their wealth. &gt;whats the fucking difference between someone who inherits their money and someone who practically has a trust fund? A trust fund is a sort of an inheritance. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up? &gt;Again he is not self made. He's just an extension of his parents achievements... Source? I saw that someone who shares the name Knopf is wealthy (posted in this thread), but are those actually his parents? Do you have proof of that? Or are you just guessing that since he's made it to an executive position and shares the name of someone wealthy, that those are his parents? Further, *if* those are his parents, how does wealth from publishing transferring into a job at a consumer staples company work? Why is your first assumption when you see someone successful that they had it handed to them? Why do you need to selectively choose a small subset of people (Silicon Valley startups) out of an already limited group (billionaires) to be able to even attempt to make your point?\"" }, { "docid": "484819", "title": "", "text": "Similarly, too much long term investment seems unproductive, but what would be too much? In 1900, the life expectancy of someone in the United States was less than 50. It is now in the 70s. My grandparents were born around that time and all lived into their 80s and 90s. Life expectancy in India is currently about 66. You should expect that to increase into the 70s if not the 80s in the next fifty years. You should plan on living until 120. Why? If you die earlier than that, you may have wasted some money that you could have used for a better living standard. However, if you do live that long and you spent all your savings by the time that you were 66, you'll have a hard retirement. You've already said that you won't have descendants to take care of you. You'll need your investments to do so. You need long term investments more than someone with a family, not less. You need to able to afford a house for retirement. You need to be able to maintain it, buy food, etc. on your savings. In order to be sure it lasts, you need to build your long term investments until they produce a steady income that comes close to matching your preretirement income. There are some costs that you won't have in retirement. You won't need to save for retirement. You won't need to commute to work. So your retirement income doesn't need to support that. If I were you, I'd save like everyone else until income from investments matched my current expenses minus commuting. At that time, you can readjust. Overall, you are far more likely not to save enough than too much. I wouldn't worry about oversaving in your twenties. No one actually does so." }, { "docid": "53496", "title": "", "text": "First, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service's I Don't Have My Refund page. It discusses different things that can go wrong with receiving your refund and what to do about it. From your post, it sounds like you've tried all of the normal things to do, and you've tried calling in to the IRS. What you might not know is that there are local IRS offices that you can visit and talk to a real person face-to-face. Hopefully, you'll find someone helpful there who can either explain to you what is going on or put you in touch with someone who can help. To find your local IRS office, go to the Contact Your Local IRS Office page and click on the Office Locator button. Office visits are generally by appointment only, so you'll need to call the number for the office you want to visit and make an appointment. Alternatively, if you can't get anywhere with the IRS, you could contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS that exists to help people with disputes with the IRS, and they have an office in every state. You could try contacting them and seeing if they can help you with your issue. To answer your question about this year's tax return: At least for the federal return, your refund from last year does not really affect this year's tax return. You should be able to file this year's return no matter what happens with last year's refund. That having been said, you should get the refund matter straightened out as soon as you can. Good luck." } ]

[ { "docid": "565157", "title": "", "text": "No. Regular W2 employees cannot deduct housing or transportation costs related to their employment. However, in the US, many employers offer Parking and/or Transit FSA programs which are usually collectively referred to a Commuter Benefits FSA programs, this is particularly common among larger employers with locations in major metropolitan cities. Under Commuter benefits FSAs employees can defer up to $255 per month from their gross pay, tax-free, for parking and/or transit expenses. Eligible expenses include things like bus and train passes or parking at a train or bus station. These are money-in/money-out arrangements so expenses can only be claimed against contributions that have been made, unlike a Health FSA. Though, like a health FSA, contributions are subject to use-it or lose-it provisions. These programs must be sponsored by the employer for an employee to take advantage of them though. Some jurisdictions mandate that employers above a certain threshold must offer commuter benefits." } ]

[ { "docid": "82024", "title": "", "text": "\"My wife and I have been car-free since 2011. We spent about $3500 on car shares and rentals last year (I went through it recently to flag trips that were medical transportation and unreimbursed work related for taxes). This compares favorably with the last year of car ownership. I had reached a point I started needing $200+ repairs every couple of months and the straw that broke the camels back was a (dealer mechanic estimate but still) $3000 estimate to pass emissions inspection. Over 11 years the value went from $24000 to $3600, so it depreciated about 2k per year. I was easily spending $40 per week on gasoline on my last commute. I now use transit with the IRS commuter benefit so I do have a base after tax transportation expense of 1200 per year. We use weekend rentals about 2x per month (and do use a warehouse club) She uses rentals for her job about 12 times per year, and the medical transportation came in an intense burst. Access: Our nearest carshare pod is 0.22 miles (3 blocks); there are two hotels with full service rental car desks about half a mile from our house and every brand at the Amtrak station a mile away. There are concrete benefits to density, take every advantage. Insurance: I always take the rental company SLI daily insurance for $15 per day. Certain no annual fee credit cards automatically include CDW. Every time an insurance agent cold calls me, I ask for a quote for a \"\"named non owner\"\" policy, I'd probably take it if the premium was $300 or less per 6 months. Tips and tricks: a carshare minivan or truck rate is probably higher than a carshare car, but compared to a full service rental, may be much lower . The best value I spend no time in my life looking for a parking spot, and spend \"\"this hour\"\" tapping away on SE on a train instead of driving.\"" }, { "docid": "296750", "title": "", "text": "\"Buried on the IRS web site is the \"\"Fillable Forms Error Search Tool\"\". Rather than including an explanation of errors in the rejection email itself, you're expected to copy and paste the error email into this form, which gives more details about what's wrong. (Don't blame me; I didn't design it.) If I copy your error message in, here's the response I get: There is an error with the “primary taxpayer’s Date of Birth” in Step 2 Section 4. The date of birth that was entered does not match IRS records. Make sure you enter the correct birth date, in the correct format, in the correct space. Scroll down, and enter the current date (“Today’s date”). Today’s date is the day you intend to e-file the return again. Also, if you are making an electronic payment you must re-date that section. E-File your return. You say that you've already checked your birthday, so I don't know as this is particularly helpful. If you're confident that it's correct and in the right place, I think your next step needs to be contacting the IRS directly. They have a link at the bottom of the error lookup response on how to contact them specifically about their solution not working, or you could try contacting your local IRS office or giving them a call.\"" }, { "docid": "115884", "title": "", "text": "For a 401(k), only contributions that you make for the current tax year through payroll deduction are tax-deductible. Those contributions are subtracted off of your income for your W-2 Box 1 income amount. If you make a manual contribution to your 401(k) outside of that, it is not tax deductible, and there is nowhere on your Form 1040 to deduct it. Your commuter benefits are also paid for out of payroll deduction and deducted on your W-2, so this is not an option, either. You could contribute to a traditional IRA for last year up to your tax return deadline, and deduct the amount on Form 1040 Line 32. However, because you have access to a retirement plan at work, your IRA contribution is only tax deductible if your income is below certain limits." }, { "docid": "34789", "title": "", "text": "\"New Deal type solutions, living wages, and other things with a socialism streak. It's unattractive for people who have been used to the American way, but the alternative is an ever expanding non-working/low-wage class. Many people do not cut it for service and post-college, or college level jobs, many people are best suited for trade work. As more jobs become automated, and more blue collar work gets pushed overseas, and as our economy turns to service/high education work, more and more people will be left behind. Either these people are put to work by corporations by lowering their ridiculous standards for once, or the government steps in and does it for them by putting them to work in pubic projects or service, and for those that can't be placed, a living wage, otherwise they will be poor and desperate, having those people around isn't pretty for a society. I'm not just making this up, people have been predicting this situation for a better part of a century, even the [Wall Street Journal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577164710231081398.html) is seeing it. The rise of Consumerism pushed it off a bit, but Globalization and increasing technology has taken the edge off of it. People need to realize that this is a problem, and they need to stop being so arrogant and ignorant about the reality of socioeconomics, otherwise it will bite them in the ass. Is the solution perfect? Nope, but I haven't heard a better one that doesn't have \"\"Maybes\"\" attached to it, or assume people will just do things out of their good nature.\"" }, { "docid": "90153", "title": "", "text": "\"You want a fee-only advisor. He charges like an architect or plumber: by the hour or some other \"\"flat fee\"\". That is his only compensation. He is not paid on commission at all. He is not affiliated with any financial services company of any kind. His office is Starbucks. He does not have a well lit office like the commission broker down the street. He does not want you to hand him your money - it stays in the brokerage account of your choice (within reason - some brokerage accounts are terrible and he'll tell you to get out of those). He never asks for the password to your brokerage account. Edit: The UK recently outlawed commission brokers. These guys were competitive \"\"sales types\"\" who thrive on commissions, and probably went into other sales jobs. So right now, everyone is clamoring for the few proper financial advisors available. High demand is making them expensive. It may not be cost-effective to hire an advisor; you may need to learn it yourself. It's not that hard. Ever hear of a plumber who works totally for free, and makes his money selling you wildly overpriced pipe? That's what regular \"\"financial advisors\"\" are. They sell products that are deliberately made unnecessarily complex. The purpose is first, to conceal sales commissions and high internal fees; and second to confuse you, so the financial world feels so daunting that you feel like you need their help just to navigate it. They're trying to fry your brain so you'l just give up and trust them. Products like whole life and variable annuities are only the poster children for how awful all of their financial products are. These products exist to fleece the consumer without quite breaking the law. Of course, everyone goes to see them because they have well lit offices in every town, and they're free and easy to deal with. Don't feel like you need to know everything about finance to invest. You don't need to understand every complex financial product that the brokerage houses bave dreamed up: they are designed to conceal and confuse, as I discuss above, and you don't want them. The core of it is fairly simple, and that's all you really need to know. Look at any smaller university and how they manage their endowments. If whole life, annuities and those complex financial \"\"products\"\" actually worked, university endowments would be full of them. But they're not! Endowments are generally made of investments you can understand. Partly because university boards are made of investment bankers who invented those products, and know what a ripoff they are. Some people refuse to learn anything. They are done with college and refuse to learn anything more. I hope that's not you. Because you should learn the workings of everything you're investing in. If you don't understand it, don't buy itl And a fee-only financial advisor won't ask you to. 1000 well-heeled, well-advised university endowments seek the most successful products on the market... And end up choosing products you can understand. That's good news for you.\"" }, { "docid": "479649", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;So you're telling me you can't commute upwards of one hour away from your work to find affordable housing? That is what Californians do. Because everyone can and should spend 2 hours commuting every day. Or three or four, \"\"if that's what it takes.\"\" Hell, why don't we just cancel nights and work through until it's time for sleep; that will save on commuting while allowing the same (near-zero) amount of seeing friends and family. Fallacy of the Argument to Sufficient Extremes: \"\"You can fly unaided if you're determined enough. You just have to put up with hitting the ground from a great height shortly after beginning your flight.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "524788", "title": "", "text": "\"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you. Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If you classify an employee as an independent contractor and you have no reasonable basis for doing so, you may be held liable for employment taxes for that worker (the relief provisions, discussed below, will not apply). See Internal Revenue Code section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter. They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors. The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, \"\"Nooooooooo... those are employees.\"\" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes. I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to. Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other). The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com\"" }, { "docid": "72094", "title": "", "text": "People know there are lots of good colleges where you can get a 4 year degree for under $45-50K in tuition, right? It is a choice to go to a school where you will be $120K in debt. The gap between what people make who graduate college with a degree, and those who only have a HS degree continues to widen, does it not? Since graduating 4 years ago, I've never worked at a company who will hire a person without a degree." }, { "docid": "105158", "title": "", "text": "\"Does location of EA or CPA matter? Not in particular. The FTB has field offices all over the State, so if a meeting needs to be arranged - it will be in the nearest office. When you interview the potential candidates, you can ask them how they would deal the case if there's a need of an in-person visit to the FTB, and if it is even an option you should be worrying about. Likely not, since as you mentioned before you're in a mail audit process. Are there websites that rate EAs or CPAs, for example, on how many audits they have won? Or should I simply rely on yelp.com ratings. There's no \"\"winning\"\" in audits. Ideally, given the same data, any EA or CPA would reach the same result in the discussion re audits with the FTB. Obviously, some are more experienced and some are less, and some are specializing on specific types of audits/entities, etc. Yelp is a place to start, but take the reviews there with a grain of salt since most reviewers are probably there to rant. If you see a repetitive pattern in the reviews - take that into consideration. For example, you probably don't want to hire someone who's been repeatedly unresponsive to their clients, not returning calls, not answering questions, being late, etc. Are all EAs and CPAs equal No. Some are generalists, some specialize in a specific area. Some build practice elusively on representation (IRS or FTB, or both), some provide a wide range of services from bookkeeping to Tax Court representation. I suggest looking for those who prominently advertise themselves as specializing in your area (whatever your type of business is), and representation in front of the FTB. Specialists, especially experienced, cost much more. Keep in mind - you'll be getting what you paid for. Also, when you hire a \"\"big shot\"\" EA/CPA - check who's actually going to do the work, and how much oversight the \"\"big shot\"\" is going to provide. Anything else that I potentially missed? Any specific questions that I should ask EA or CPA on initial interview? For example, if my EA/CPA could also talk with auditor in case FTB would want to talk directly with taxpayer, if possible? Well, that's the point of representation - to represent. They should be talking to the FTB in your name. You should verify credentials (IRS for EAs, CA CBA for CPAs), make sure their license is current. You can ask them about their continued education and how much of it is dedicated to the CA State law and FTB regulations. Ask them about their experience with similar cases. Overall, a decently qualified tax professional should be able to handle a mail audit without an issue, in-person representation may be harder since it does not only require being competent in the tax law, but also have some people skills.\"" }, { "docid": "17107", "title": "", "text": "\"Monkey, Big four accounting firms have FRM departments. Maybe you could apply to one of those. FRM is mostly about Credit Risk (Loans, advances, receivables) and Market Risk (IR, FX). I'm trying to \"\"break into\"\" credit risk myself, but materials are difficult to find. It's about modeling portfolio default probabilities and losses given default. You'll impress with basic programming and advanced prob&amp;stats. Can you ask your professor to recommend a book on Credit Risk? For Market Risk, I know that a lot of the work guys do is pricing IR and FX swaps in Bloomberg. Take a class in derivatives, if you can.\"" }, { "docid": "197782", "title": "", "text": "\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\"\"job shops\"\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \"\"employer\"\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \"\"employer\"\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \"\"employer\"\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \"\"No\"\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\"" }, { "docid": "53496", "title": "", "text": "First, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service's I Don't Have My Refund page. It discusses different things that can go wrong with receiving your refund and what to do about it. From your post, it sounds like you've tried all of the normal things to do, and you've tried calling in to the IRS. What you might not know is that there are local IRS offices that you can visit and talk to a real person face-to-face. Hopefully, you'll find someone helpful there who can either explain to you what is going on or put you in touch with someone who can help. To find your local IRS office, go to the Contact Your Local IRS Office page and click on the Office Locator button. Office visits are generally by appointment only, so you'll need to call the number for the office you want to visit and make an appointment. Alternatively, if you can't get anywhere with the IRS, you could contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS that exists to help people with disputes with the IRS, and they have an office in every state. You could try contacting them and seeing if they can help you with your issue. To answer your question about this year's tax return: At least for the federal return, your refund from last year does not really affect this year's tax return. You should be able to file this year's return no matter what happens with last year's refund. That having been said, you should get the refund matter straightened out as soon as you can. Good luck." }, { "docid": "394472", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of this is already regulated. \"\"Food\"\" specifically is exempt from taxes if it's done on premise and for the \"\"convenience of the employer\"\", whatever that means. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/119 Other benefits, such as commuter aid (public transport, parking) are tax free up to a certain limit (I think $255 for 2017) and any excess it taxable income. You can study the whole gory details at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15b.pdf\"" }, { "docid": "562776", "title": "", "text": "I would at least encrypt the part of the drive you keep forms like that, but not to protect myself from the odd villain who works for the IRS. Your broker does report your capital gains to the IRS, whether in sales or dividends. I received a bill last month from the IRS for dividends I forgot to report on my 2013 return. The bill contained a partial duplicate of my 1099-DIV form from the brokerage, and included account numbers and SSN. Therefore it's safe to say IRS employees don't need to hack your laptop in order to get that info. :) As for minimum information, it depends on your broker. Call them and ask; they'll tell you everything you need to know. Vanguard, for example, has some security questions, among other things." }, { "docid": "312369", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post." }, { "docid": "108974", "title": "", "text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know." }, { "docid": "178386", "title": "", "text": "\"No, it doesn't look like you can use the employee benefit to pay for parking near your home. The definition for \"\"qualified parking\"\" is in the Internal Revenue Code Section 132 (\"\"Certain Fringe Benefits\"\") (f) (5) (c): (C) Qualified parking The term “qualified parking” means parking provided to an employee on or near the business premises of the employer or on or near a location from which the employee commutes to work by transportation described in subparagraph (A), in a commuter highway vehicle, or by carpool. Such term shall not include any parking on or near property used by the employee for residential purposes. Parking near your home is explicitly excluded. Your employer's human resources department can probably provide information on the details of where you can park and get reimbursement.\"" }, { "docid": "484596", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming USA: It is possible to make the interest deductible if you go to the trouble of structuring, and filing, the loan as an actual mortgage on a primary residence. Websearching \"\"intra-family loan\"\" will find several firms which specialize in this. It costs about $700 for all the paperwork and filing fees as of last time I checked, so unless you're going to pay at least three times that in interest over the life of the loan it probably isn't worth considering. (For an additional fee they'll take care of the payment processing, if you'd really rather be hands-off about it.) I have no idea whether the paperwork fees and processing fees can be deducted from the interest as a cost of producing that income. In theory that ought to be true, but I Am Not A Lawyer. Or accountant. Note: one of the interesting factors here is that the IRS sets a minimum interest rate on intra-family loans. It's pretty low (around 0.3%), so in most cases you can say you gifted the difference if you'd prefer to charge less... but that does set a floor on what the IRS will expect the lender to declare, and pay taxes on. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but since I am NOT an expert I'll refer you to those who are. I have no affiliation with any of this except as a customer, once; it seemed pretty painless but I can't claim to know whether they were really handling everything exactly correctly. The website seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining what choices had to be made and their effects, as well as discussing how these can be used to avoid excess gift taxes by spreading the gift over a number of years.\"" }, { "docid": "448521", "title": "", "text": "If the country went to a sustainable minimum wage like 15 dollars an hour we would benefit more. Anyone who thinks the walmart strikes are stupid and they should be fired clearly doesnt understand how the economy should work. You can blame walmart for trying to make as much as possible and not caring about their workforce. Look at costco and how they start all employees off at 12 dollars an hour. The company does amazing still. Also there have been countless studies that show increasing minimum wage does not hurt local businesses but actually helps out the economy. Because those lower/middle class people have a higher purchasing power, do not need government assistance as much, and can work on starting other small businesses that help out. The big nay sayers believe that it will cripple local businesses or increase the price of goods. While goods will increase in price some it is never anywhere near the amount to correlate with the wage increase. Its sad as a country people believe slavery is fine. If you are pro for under 15 dollars an hour, you are pro slavery. Im on my phone so i cant pull up all the fun statistics, but feel free to do the searches yourself. Lots of stories on how it benefits an economy overall. The only people making these facts up are the ones who own the businesses because their wealth will go down and be spread among employees more." } ]

[ { "docid": "51491", "title": "", "text": "You cannot deduct expenses directly. However, your employer may participate in programs to allow you to make a pretax deduction capped at $255 per month to pay for certain commuting expenses. For personal car commuters the main category is to pay for parking. IRS guidelines Qualified Transportation Benefits This exclusion applies to the following benefits. A ride in a commuter highway vehicle between the employee's home and work place. A transit pass. Qualified parking. Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement. You may provide an employee with any one or more of the first three benefits at the same time. However, the exclusion for qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement isn't available in any month the employee receives any of the other qualified transportation benefits." } ]

[ { "docid": "405115", "title": "", "text": "Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates. But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range. People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare. I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption. And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax. In theory this could last indefinitely. In practice, it is less likely. But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs. The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse. All without triggering the estate tax. People can put some of their estate into a trust. This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax. Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route. Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year. That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year. So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year. Plus $56k for the kids' spouses. And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k. Great-grandchildren count too. That's more than a million every five years. So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax. Consider the case of two wealthy siblings. They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs. So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs. This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication. Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate. So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift. This will use up some of the estate exemption. But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose. These are just the easy things to do. If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value. For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it. As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not. The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were. But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust). If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary). But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it. There are other examples of the same pattern: Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc. The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust. The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth. And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result. So the parent's estate does count. Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support. And those aren't even fiddles. Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities. A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements. Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them. The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die." }, { "docid": "254151", "title": "", "text": "\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "447593", "title": "", "text": "Based on my research, the answer is both. You would pay taxes on the bitcoin you mine as income, and then capital gains tax when you sell them for a profit (or capital loss if you lose value on the sale). You can write off a portion of your electricity bill and hardware purchased for the use of mining as a business expense, but it's recommended that you consult a tax professional for determining the proper amount that is eligible for a deduction. From Forbes: New Bitcoin are being issued by the system roughly every 10 minutes by a process called mining. In mining, computers running the Bitcoin software around the world attempt to solve math problems and the first computer to come up with the solution adds the most recent transactions to the ledger of all Bitcoin transactions, plus receives the new bitcoins created by the system, called the block reward. If you are a miner and win the block reward, you must record the fair market value of Bitcoin that day and mark that as an addition to your personal or business income. Also note the date and timestamp at which your coins were mined. Later, when you dispose of those Bitcoin, you will subtract the date of acquisition from the date of disposal, and you will be taxed a long-term capital gains rate on any Bitcoin you held for more than a year, and a short-term capital gains rate on any Bitcoin you held for a year or less. (The timestamp isn’t absolutely necessary, but is helpful to validate the order of multiple acquisitions or disposals within a day.) The amount you pay in taxes on a long-term capital gain will depend on your income-tax bracket, while short-term capital gains are taxed the same as ordinary income. From bitcoin.tax: Another clarification in the IRS's March notice was how mining should be treated. Mining is income, on the day of receipt of any coins and at the fair value of those coins. This means that if you mined any Bitcoins or alt-coins either solo, as part of a pool, or through a cloud provider, you need to report any coins you received as income. Where it is less clear, is what that dollar value might be, since the fair value is not always as easy to determine. Bitcoins, Litecoins, Dogecoins, are all examples of where there is a direct USD market and so you can easily find out their value of any given day. However, a newly created alt-coin that was mined in its early days has no direct market and so how do you determine its value? Or for any alt-coin, e.g. ABC coin, that has no direct USD market but does have a BTC market. Does it have a value? Do you have to make a conversion from ABC to BTC to USD? Since there is no clarification yet from the IRS on this issue you should discuss how to proceed with your own tax professional. BitcoinTaxes has taken a prudent approach and calculates value where a fiat or BTC market exists, converting an alt-coin to BTC to USD as necessary. And from Bitcoin magazine: The IRS also stated mined bitcoins are treated as immediate income at the market value of those mined coins on their date of mining. “Most don’t know they can write off any losses they have,” said Libra founder Jake Benson. “The IRS allows you to offset income by up to $3,000 per year on capital losses. If you have losses and you aren’t writing them off, then it’s like throwing money away. Nobody likes doing taxes, but if you can owe less or increase your return, then doing your Bitcoin taxes often results in a benefit. In fact, the majority of our users are filing a capital loss, which means they’ve actually saved money by using our tool.” Benson also gives insight for miners. “Mining is considered income, so know the price of Bitcoin at the time you mined it,” he said. “If you make money on Bitcoin trading, the IRS requires that you report gains with line level detail.” The appropriate form for that is 8949, a sub-form of schedule D. Gains and losses, as outlined above, are treated like every other capital asset." }, { "docid": "235825", "title": "", "text": "You have multiple things going on some of which will work in opposite directions. This is a second job for the family so that their income will be added onto of the main income. This generally means that the 2nd income has too little tax withheld. The tax tables used by employers have no way of handling this situation. This 2nd job is being started part way though the tax year, so too much in taxes is withheld. If they make 2,000 a month for 4 months that would mean 8,000 in income; but the tax tables used by the employer withhold at the $24,000 per year rate. The third issue is the great variation in the number of hours per pay period. This means that too much is withheld in checks with the most hours, and too little in the ones with the least hours. For this year you have a reprieve. As long as you make the safe-harbor levels for federal withholding, you can avoid penalties when you file next spring. To do so just make sure that the withholding of all the jobs in the family equal or exceed the total income tax for the family last year. Note this isn't equal to last years withholding, or equal to the refund last year, but the total tax you should have paid. The general advice is to set the smaller income to have 0 exemptions, and use the W-4 for the larger income to make adjustments. In the past I have done this to make sure that we make the safe-harbor level. You can make adjustments in the new year once you know what the safe harbor goal is for the rest of the year." }, { "docid": "199970", "title": "", "text": "Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate. Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with)." }, { "docid": "67767", "title": "", "text": "Err, isn't this article simply stating the obvious? I've been working for the last 18 years and I know those signs by heart, seen them on others, and on me even... The manager who can not spot those signs deserves to be deserted, the problem is with the manager who spots those signs and does nothing!" }, { "docid": "446190", "title": "", "text": "\"I assume you are filing US taxes because you are a US citizen, resident alien, or other \"\"US person\"\". If you have a total of $10,000 or more in assets in non-US accounts, you are required to file FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, also known as FBAR, to report those accounts. See Comparison of Form 8938 and FBAR Requirements. Note this refers to the total balance in the account (combined with any other accounts you may have); the amount you transferred this year is not relevant. Also note that the FBAR is filed separately from your income tax return (it does not go to the IRS), though if you have over $50,000 in offshore assets you may also have to file IRS Form 8938. Simply reporting those accounts does not necessarily mean you will owe extra taxes. Most US taxes are based on income, not assets. According to the page linked, the maximum penalty for a \"\"willful\"\" failure to report such accounts is a fine of $100,000 or 50% of the assets in question, whichever is greater, in addition to possible criminal sanctions. There may be other US filing requirements that I don't know about, so you may want to consult a tax professional. I do not know anything about your filing requirements under Indian law.\"" }, { "docid": "489633", "title": "", "text": "\"It is very helpful to understand that Free File is not actually \"\"by\"\" the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS does indeed offer access to the program through their website, but Free File is actually a public-private partnership program operated and maintained by the Free File Alliance. Who is the Free File Alliance? Well, according to their members list: 1040NOW Corp., Drake Enterprises, ezTaxReturn.com, FileYourTaxes, Free Tax Returns, H&R Block, Intuit, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax, OnLine Taxes, TaxACT, TaxHawk, and TaxSlayer. Why the income restriction? Well, that's part of the deal the IRS struck - the program is \"\"dedicated to helping 70 percent of American taxpayers prepare and e-file their federal tax returns\"\". Technically the member companies are offering their own software to handle tax preparation, and the rule is that 70% of American's must 'qualify' for at least one product, so this adjusted gross income limit changes periodically so that 70% of the population can use it. Why restrict it at all? This was part of the give and take involved in negotiation with the businesses involved. If the program was \"\"everyone files for free\"\", then it is presumed that many reputable businesses that make the program valuable would choose not to continue to participate. In other words, they want to be able to not give away their services for free to customers who are - at least by income definition - more than capable of paying them. The IRS has said it does not want to be in the tax prep software business, so they are not offering their own free software to do the job that private companies would otherwise charge for. However, there are other restrictions to being in the program - like the fact that no business in the program can offer \"\"refund anticipation loans\"\", offer commercial services more than a certain amount of times (so they can't hound you to upgrade), and so on. Some businesses were making a killing off these, though they are pretty much solely developed to be predatory on people with the lowest incomes (and education levels, and IQ, and with cognitive disabilities, and basically anyone they could sucker into paying what were effectively absurd rates for short term loans along with inflated filing/preparation fees). Finally, Free File was partly developed as an initiative to increase the amount of digitally filed taxes and reduce the paper-based burdens of accepting and processing turns. In other words: to cut government costs, not to be a government welfare program. Even if it were, one can generally obtain commercial software for $30-$100, so the benefit to those above gross income levels is pretty minor; yearly costs to file taxes with such software for those payers would be less than 0.001% of their yearly expenses. Compared to the benefits obtainable by households living below the poverty line, fighting to cover an extra 5-30% of the population at the potential expense of having the whole program be a failure probably seemed like a more than worthwhile trade-off.\"" }, { "docid": "489790", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"" }, { "docid": "268699", "title": "", "text": "Ok. I'll ask - Does the job offer a 401(k)? Matching deposits? You see, the answers given depend on your risk tolerance. There are two schools of thought, one extreme will tell you not to start investing until you have the emergency fund set up, the other, start from day one. I accept there are pros and cons to either approach. But - if you have access to a matched 401(k), even a conservative, risk-adverse approach might agree that a 100% match (on the first say 5% of your income) is preferable to saving in a low return emergency fund. If the emergency occurs, a low interest loan for the need is a cheap way out. Since the money goes in pre-tax and is matched, being able to borrow out half (IRS rules) effectively lets you borrow more than you deposited out of pocket. And the word emergency implies a low occurrence event. Deposit to the match and start the emergency fund in another account. If no matched 401(k) at work, the other two answers are great. Edit - To clarify, and answer a comment below - say the risk isn't just a money emergency, but job loss. $1000 deposited to the 401(k) cost $850 out of pocket, assuming 15% bracket. After the match, it's $2000. After the job loss, if this is withdrawn, if the 15% still applies (it may be 10% or even 0%) the net is $1700 less the 10% penalty, or $1500 back in your pocket. There are those who will say they are just not comfortable running an emergency account so lean, I understand that. For the OP here, $800/mo is nearly $10,000 per year. If even half of that can be deposited pre-tax and matched, the account will grow very quickly and there would still be cash on the side." }, { "docid": "592582", "title": "", "text": "Having been in the situation of commuting and working long hours at a low wage to just scrape by, I faced the following dilemma: I used all my income to pay bills and taxes and could not afford to go back to college to get another degree (or pay for distance learning). Even if I could afford to pay for classes, I couldn't figure out when I'd have the time to study because I was often only home 9 hours a day and needed to eat and sleep, shower and get ready for work. A wealthy friend of mine liked to read books about people who overcame great obstacles and she was sure I could figure out lot a way to improve my situation if I'd just try harder. One day I handed her a piece of paper showing my income after taxes and monthly bills and asked her to get back to me with a plan that would allow me to afford classes and give me say, an average of 6 hours of study time per week. She was happy to do it. Here was her longed for opportunity to show me it was possible to pull myself up by my bootstraps. After she studied my income, expenses and schedule, she decided she couldn't devise a plan that would work and she never again told me I wasn't trying hard enough." }, { "docid": "408865", "title": "", "text": "Be radical! (I assume you are not working for a city bank getting paid “city wages” – e.g. you are one of the 99% of people in London or more “normal” income.) House prices and rents in London and anywhere within reasonable commuting distances are now so high that couples in reasonable jobs often have to rent rooms in shared houses (HMOs). This is due to so many people wishing to live/work in London and there not being enough new homes built. If you are looking at buying a property to rent out, you need the rent to be about double the interest payments on the mortgage – otherwise you will not be able to afford repairs, or cope when interest rates increase – (you could also get a tax bill that is more the your profit). Finding such a property is very hard in London, as the prices of homes have gone up a lot more in London then rents have. There are still some flats where the rent will cover the landlord’s costs, but not many. (Any landlord that brought more than a few years ago, is making a very nice profit in London, as the rents have gone up a lot since they brought – but are you willing to bet your life on the rents going up even more?) Moving a short distance out of London, does not help much. So look at somewhere like Manchester or Birmingham" }, { "docid": "591529", "title": "", "text": "\"From your description, the taxes may have been withheld incorrectly. You were most likely a nonresident alien during your entire stay. \"\"Teachers and trainees\"\", which include anyone on J status who is not a student, are \"\"exempt individuals\"\" (exempt from the Substantial Presence Test) unless they have already been an exempt individual during any part of 2 of the prior 6 calendar years. So if you haven't been in the U.S. as an F-1, J-1, etc. for at least 6-7 years before you came on J-1 this time, the first two calendar years of your time on J-1 this time does not count towards the Substantial Presence Test. You said you were there for 18 months. That stretches over either 2 or 3 calendar years. The first two calendar years of it would be exempt from the SPT; even if it stretched into a third calendar year, an 18-month period could not stretch for more than 6 months into a 3rd calendar year; so even in that case you would still not meet the Substantial Presence Test for the 3rd year. Since you do not meet the Subtantial Presence Test during any of those years, you were a nonresident alien for all of those years (unless you decided to file jointly with a resident spouse or something). Nonresident aliens on J-1 are exempt from FICA taxes (Social Security tax and Medicare tax) for employment as a researcher that you were authorized to do on your J-1. They should not have withheld FICA taxes from you. You should have informed them at the beginning when you initially noticed that they did, because it is a huge pain to get it back afterwards. For FICA taxes withheld in error, you can first ask the employer to refund them; and, if that fails, get a written statement of their refusal and then file Form 843 and Form 8316 with the IRS. However, given that IRS is very underfunded these days, expect it to take a long time to hear back if you ever hear back.\"" }, { "docid": "586026", "title": "", "text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case." }, { "docid": "90591", "title": "", "text": "\"I know your pain oh, so much. I literally have a 14 gallon rubbermaid container FULL of solicitations I have received. Even worse, for-profit fundraising companies send most of those mailings! They take the money, and deduct their \"\"expenses\"\", rigged to consume almosts all your gift. Some companies have been caught passing as little as 9% to the charity. First let's talk about a few issues. Authentication. Is that outfit really a tax deductible 501c3 charity? Address. Is this their genuine address, or is it the dropbox of a scammer or one of those evil for-profit fundraising companies? Acknowledgement. For gifts over a certain size, you need a thank-you letter from them to show the IRS that you really donated. Will you get it? The limit is $250 (no letter, deduction rejected) but as a practical thing, it helps in an audit to show as many donation letters as possible. Charities cannot issue them retroactively, but can issue you second copies of ones they sent previously. If the charity drops the ball, you lose. Obviously enough, you go to the post office and spend $1 on a money order. This does not authenticate them as a charity. It does not assure it goes to their real address. You can do both these things yourself, by checking their data on the IRS website or on guidestar.org. You don't get an acknowledgement. I mention these because donation websites work much the same way. DAFs require a higher one-time commitment but are much simpler and more efficient after that. If you are planning to give $5000 in a single year, save it up and open a Donor Advised Fund account. A DAF is itself a charity. You donate to the DAF, and take the tax deduction for charitable contributons. Then, you tell the DAF to donate it to other charities on your behalf, or anonymously. Their concept is, you use the DAF as a \"\"buffer\"\" so you can easily make the tax-deductible donation when you need to for tax purposes, then at your leisure research charities and support them. However, I asked my DAF - most people donate and then immediately re-donate the money, leaving the fund at zero balance. My DAF doesn't mind that at all, and they charge zero fees for this. (Its expenses are paid by those of us who leave money sitting around in the DAF. Mine charges 0.6% a year. This money can be invested sort of like in a 401K, and each investment also has an expense ratio, such as 0.18% a year in my chosen index fund.) Websites like \"\"justgive.org\"\" will take any amount of your money and re-donate it to the charity you select. They deduct 3-5% for their expenses (notably paper, stamps, and the 2-3% it costs them to process your credit card).\"" }, { "docid": "473883", "title": "", "text": "NB - I live in Surrey and bought my house in January 2014. If you don't have a very social life, it does pay to stay outside London. Places outside London are cheap and you will get a better deal in relation to houses or flats as compared to London. I feel very priced out of the market regarding London mortgages I will strongly question you logic behind this ? Why only London ? Why not live in the commuter belt outside London. Good places to reside, good schools, nice neighbourhood and away from the hustle and bustle of London. Many of my colleagues commute from Cambridge and Oxford daily into Central London and they laugh at people who want to buy a house in London, just for the sake of buying a house. It seems that the housing market is generally in a bubble due to being distorted by the finance market London house market is different from the rest of UK. People from overseas tend to invest in London property market, so it is always inflated. Even the property tax hasn't deterred many. I could look into buying somewhere and renting it out You are trying to join the same people, because of whom you have been put out of the housing market. I strictly question this logic unless your mortgage is less than the rent you pay and what rent you get. Buy a roof over your head first, then think of profiting from property." }, { "docid": "526739", "title": "", "text": "You might spend 30/45 minutes a day sitting in traffic, but those towns are all so centrally located you can definitely shop around to try and find an affordable living situation. In Laurel you could live in Anne Arundel County, Prince Georges County, or Montgomery County and not be too far from work. Germantown and Temple Hills would be a bit more of a hellish commute, but you still have options if you don't mind sitting on the beltway everyday for a little while." }, { "docid": "129350", "title": "", "text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals." }, { "docid": "289120", "title": "", "text": "\"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \"\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\"\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \"\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\"\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \"\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\"\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "243356", "title": "", "text": "\"You cannot deduct commute expenses. Regarding your specific example, something to consider is that if the standard of living is higher in San Francisco, presumably the wages are higher too. Therefore, you must make a choice to trade \"\"time and some money for commuting costs\"\" for \"\"even more money\"\" in the form of higher wages. For example, if you can make $50K working 2 hours away from SF, or $80K working in SF, and it costs you $5K extra per year in commute costs, you still come out ahead by $25K (minus taxes). If it ends up costing $20K more to live in SF (due to higher rent/mortgage/food/etc), some people choose to trade 4 extra hours of commuting time to put that extra $20K in their pocket. It's sort of like having an extra part time job, except you get paid to read/watch tv/sleep on the job (assuming you can take a train to work).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "4247", "title": "", "text": "This is the exact reason why I think we will have self driving cars really soon. I would love to just surf the internet on my way to work and not have to drive. Of course I only work 6 blocks away, but I know many people have a 30+ minute commute." }, { "docid": "312369", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post." }, { "docid": "484819", "title": "", "text": "Similarly, too much long term investment seems unproductive, but what would be too much? In 1900, the life expectancy of someone in the United States was less than 50. It is now in the 70s. My grandparents were born around that time and all lived into their 80s and 90s. Life expectancy in India is currently about 66. You should expect that to increase into the 70s if not the 80s in the next fifty years. You should plan on living until 120. Why? If you die earlier than that, you may have wasted some money that you could have used for a better living standard. However, if you do live that long and you spent all your savings by the time that you were 66, you'll have a hard retirement. You've already said that you won't have descendants to take care of you. You'll need your investments to do so. You need long term investments more than someone with a family, not less. You need to able to afford a house for retirement. You need to be able to maintain it, buy food, etc. on your savings. In order to be sure it lasts, you need to build your long term investments until they produce a steady income that comes close to matching your preretirement income. There are some costs that you won't have in retirement. You won't need to save for retirement. You won't need to commute to work. So your retirement income doesn't need to support that. If I were you, I'd save like everyone else until income from investments matched my current expenses minus commuting. At that time, you can readjust. Overall, you are far more likely not to save enough than too much. I wouldn't worry about oversaving in your twenties. No one actually does so." }, { "docid": "479649", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;So you're telling me you can't commute upwards of one hour away from your work to find affordable housing? That is what Californians do. Because everyone can and should spend 2 hours commuting every day. Or three or four, \"\"if that's what it takes.\"\" Hell, why don't we just cancel nights and work through until it's time for sleep; that will save on commuting while allowing the same (near-zero) amount of seeing friends and family. Fallacy of the Argument to Sufficient Extremes: \"\"You can fly unaided if you're determined enough. You just have to put up with hitting the ground from a great height shortly after beginning your flight.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "105158", "title": "", "text": "\"Does location of EA or CPA matter? Not in particular. The FTB has field offices all over the State, so if a meeting needs to be arranged - it will be in the nearest office. When you interview the potential candidates, you can ask them how they would deal the case if there's a need of an in-person visit to the FTB, and if it is even an option you should be worrying about. Likely not, since as you mentioned before you're in a mail audit process. Are there websites that rate EAs or CPAs, for example, on how many audits they have won? Or should I simply rely on yelp.com ratings. There's no \"\"winning\"\" in audits. Ideally, given the same data, any EA or CPA would reach the same result in the discussion re audits with the FTB. Obviously, some are more experienced and some are less, and some are specializing on specific types of audits/entities, etc. Yelp is a place to start, but take the reviews there with a grain of salt since most reviewers are probably there to rant. If you see a repetitive pattern in the reviews - take that into consideration. For example, you probably don't want to hire someone who's been repeatedly unresponsive to their clients, not returning calls, not answering questions, being late, etc. Are all EAs and CPAs equal No. Some are generalists, some specialize in a specific area. Some build practice elusively on representation (IRS or FTB, or both), some provide a wide range of services from bookkeeping to Tax Court representation. I suggest looking for those who prominently advertise themselves as specializing in your area (whatever your type of business is), and representation in front of the FTB. Specialists, especially experienced, cost much more. Keep in mind - you'll be getting what you paid for. Also, when you hire a \"\"big shot\"\" EA/CPA - check who's actually going to do the work, and how much oversight the \"\"big shot\"\" is going to provide. Anything else that I potentially missed? Any specific questions that I should ask EA or CPA on initial interview? For example, if my EA/CPA could also talk with auditor in case FTB would want to talk directly with taxpayer, if possible? Well, that's the point of representation - to represent. They should be talking to the FTB in your name. You should verify credentials (IRS for EAs, CA CBA for CPAs), make sure their license is current. You can ask them about their continued education and how much of it is dedicated to the CA State law and FTB regulations. Ask them about their experience with similar cases. Overall, a decently qualified tax professional should be able to handle a mail audit without an issue, in-person representation may be harder since it does not only require being competent in the tax law, but also have some people skills.\"" }, { "docid": "115922", "title": "", "text": "Tax brackets refer to the range of taxable within which you fall. An income tax bracket usually refers to federal or state tax, not the combined rate. I have put here the tax brackets for 2016 for IRS and State of California. https://www.irs.com/articles/2016-federal-tax-rates-personal-exemptions-and-standard-deductions https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2016-california-tax-rates-and-exemptions.shtml According to those, a taxable income of 100,000USD would fall in the 28% bracket for the IRS and 9.30% for State of California. The combined rate is therefore 37.3%. However, this does not mean you would pay 37,300USD. First of all, your applicable tax rate applies only for each dollar in your tax bracket (e.g. 28% * 8,849USD for IRS). Therefore, to calculate your combined taxes you would need to do: Therefore, your effective tax rate would be much lower than the combined tax rate of 37.3%. Now do note that this is an example to illustrate tax brackets and is nowhere near the amount of taxes you would be required to pay because of various credits and deductions that you would be able to benefit from. Edit: As suggested in the comments, a note on marginal tax rate (referred to here as combined tax rate). This is the rate of taxes paid on an additional dollar of income. Here, every additional dollar of income would be taxed at 37.3%, leaving you with 62.7 cents." }, { "docid": "53996", "title": "", "text": "Your math is correct. As you point out, because of the commutative property of multiplication, Roth and traditional IRAs offer the same terminal wealth if your tax rate is the same when you pull it out as when you put it in. Roth does lock in your tax rate as of today as you point out, which is why it frequently does not maximize wealth (most of us have a higher tax bracket when we are saving than when we are withdrawing from savings). There are a few other potential considerations/advantages of a Roth: Roth and traditional IRAs have the same maximum contribution amount. This means the effective amount you can contribute to a Roth is higher ($5,500 after tax instead of before). If this constraint is binding for you and you don't expect your tax rate to change, Roth is better. Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw your contributed money (not the gains) at any time without any tax or penalty whatsoever. This can be an advantage to some who would like to use it for something like a down payment instead of keeping it all the way to retirement. In this sense the Roth is more flexible. As your income becomes high, the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions goes to zero if you have a 401(k) at work (you can still contribute but can't deduct contributions). At high incomes you also may be disallowed from contributing to a Roth, but because of the backdoor Roth loophole you can make Roth contributions at any income level and preserve the full Roth tax advantage. Which type of account is better for any given person is a complex problem with several unknowns (like future tax rates). However, because tax rates are generally higher when earning money, for most people who can contribute to them, traditional IRAs maximize your tax savings and therefore wealth. Edit: Note that traditional IRA contributions also reduce your AGI, which is used to compute eligibility for other tax advantages, like the child care tax credit and earned income credit. AGI is also often used for state income tax calculation. In retirement, traditional IRA distributions may or may not be state taxable, depending on your state and circumstances." }, { "docid": "108974", "title": "", "text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know." }, { "docid": "438038", "title": "", "text": "\"You don't want to do that. DON'T LIE TO THE IRS!!! We live overseas as well and have researched this extensively. You cannot make $50k overseas and then say you only made $45k to put $5k into retirement. I have heard from some accountants and tax attorneys who interpret the law as saying that the IRS considers Foreign Earned Income as NOT being compensation when computing IRA contribution limits, regardless of whether or not you exclude it. Publication 590-A What is Compensation (scroll down a little to the \"\"What Is Not Compensation\"\" section). Those professionals say that any amounts you CAN exclude, not just ones you actually do exclude. Then there are others that say the 'can' is not implied. So be careful trying to use any foreign-earned income to qualify for retirement contributions. I haven't ran across anyone yet who has gotten caught doing it and paid the price, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. AN ALTERNATIVE IN CERTAIN CASES: There are two things you can do that we have found to have some sort of taxable income that is preferably not foreign so that you can contribute to a retirement account. We do this by using capital gains from investments as income. Since our AGI is always zero, we pay no short or long term capital gains taxes (as long as we keep short term capital gains lower than $45k) Another way to contribute to a Roth IRA when you have no income is to do an IRA Rollover. Of course, you need money in a tax-deferred account to do this, but this is how it works: I always recommend those who have tax-deferred IRA's and no AGI due to the FEIE to roll over as much as they can every year to a Roth IRA. That really is tax free money. The only tax you'll pay on that money is sales tax when you SPEND IT!! =)\"" }, { "docid": "20193", "title": "", "text": "As somebody who has worked remotely for the last 5 years, first at 50%, then at 100%, I find this shift to be far superior to office work. My productivity is up, my focus is good, and the work/life balance is far better than if I was working in an office. I can put in a longer day than my colleagues, yet still be free to pursue outside goals sooner than they are by eliminating my commute. Instead of spending money on greasy rushed lunches near the office, I eat healthy and cheaply at home. My energy, focus, and balance are all better." }, { "docid": "90153", "title": "", "text": "\"You want a fee-only advisor. He charges like an architect or plumber: by the hour or some other \"\"flat fee\"\". That is his only compensation. He is not paid on commission at all. He is not affiliated with any financial services company of any kind. His office is Starbucks. He does not have a well lit office like the commission broker down the street. He does not want you to hand him your money - it stays in the brokerage account of your choice (within reason - some brokerage accounts are terrible and he'll tell you to get out of those). He never asks for the password to your brokerage account. Edit: The UK recently outlawed commission brokers. These guys were competitive \"\"sales types\"\" who thrive on commissions, and probably went into other sales jobs. So right now, everyone is clamoring for the few proper financial advisors available. High demand is making them expensive. It may not be cost-effective to hire an advisor; you may need to learn it yourself. It's not that hard. Ever hear of a plumber who works totally for free, and makes his money selling you wildly overpriced pipe? That's what regular \"\"financial advisors\"\" are. They sell products that are deliberately made unnecessarily complex. The purpose is first, to conceal sales commissions and high internal fees; and second to confuse you, so the financial world feels so daunting that you feel like you need their help just to navigate it. They're trying to fry your brain so you'l just give up and trust them. Products like whole life and variable annuities are only the poster children for how awful all of their financial products are. These products exist to fleece the consumer without quite breaking the law. Of course, everyone goes to see them because they have well lit offices in every town, and they're free and easy to deal with. Don't feel like you need to know everything about finance to invest. You don't need to understand every complex financial product that the brokerage houses bave dreamed up: they are designed to conceal and confuse, as I discuss above, and you don't want them. The core of it is fairly simple, and that's all you really need to know. Look at any smaller university and how they manage their endowments. If whole life, annuities and those complex financial \"\"products\"\" actually worked, university endowments would be full of them. But they're not! Endowments are generally made of investments you can understand. Partly because university boards are made of investment bankers who invented those products, and know what a ripoff they are. Some people refuse to learn anything. They are done with college and refuse to learn anything more. I hope that's not you. Because you should learn the workings of everything you're investing in. If you don't understand it, don't buy itl And a fee-only financial advisor won't ask you to. 1000 well-heeled, well-advised university endowments seek the most successful products on the market... And end up choosing products you can understand. That's good news for you.\"" }, { "docid": "235825", "title": "", "text": "You have multiple things going on some of which will work in opposite directions. This is a second job for the family so that their income will be added onto of the main income. This generally means that the 2nd income has too little tax withheld. The tax tables used by employers have no way of handling this situation. This 2nd job is being started part way though the tax year, so too much in taxes is withheld. If they make 2,000 a month for 4 months that would mean 8,000 in income; but the tax tables used by the employer withhold at the $24,000 per year rate. The third issue is the great variation in the number of hours per pay period. This means that too much is withheld in checks with the most hours, and too little in the ones with the least hours. For this year you have a reprieve. As long as you make the safe-harbor levels for federal withholding, you can avoid penalties when you file next spring. To do so just make sure that the withholding of all the jobs in the family equal or exceed the total income tax for the family last year. Note this isn't equal to last years withholding, or equal to the refund last year, but the total tax you should have paid. The general advice is to set the smaller income to have 0 exemptions, and use the W-4 for the larger income to make adjustments. In the past I have done this to make sure that we make the safe-harbor level. You can make adjustments in the new year once you know what the safe harbor goal is for the rest of the year." }, { "docid": "121393", "title": "", "text": "\"I work in the legal services industry, selling these products for a competitor of theirs who shall remain nameless. The LLC filing itself in most cases is a simple fill in the blank form. You can likely file yourself either online or through the mail, depending on the state. Only a handful require an original document. You can apply for the EIN for free on the IRS website and usually have it within a few minutes. If you already have someone assisting with your annual LLC taxes you wouldn't need their services for that either. If their compliance kit involves any business licensing research, it may be worthwhile - but you can also order those services a la carte from vendors like LLX and BusinessLicenses.com. What you're really paying for is the registered agent service - the address for public record with the state so they know where to send any service of process - and you're paying for the convenience of a \"\"one stop shop\"\" instead of handling all the legwork yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "55666", "title": "", "text": "I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not." }, { "docid": "555851", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;I fucking hate it when I see another rich kid acting like they came from slums Where did David Knopf claim he was from the slums? You got a source for that? &gt;and worked their way up the ladder How do you know he didn't? Life is a bell curve. Some people climb the ladder much faster than others. Some people may climb because of nepotism. Some people genuinely are better than most other people. You think everyone should rise up at the same pace? Move to Japan. &gt;delusional twats much like yourself believe that you can earn anything with just some \"\"hard work bruh.\"\" Not just hard work, but also talent. If everyone works the same amount, those who are more talented will *generally* have more success. Of course, some is subject to chance, some people have a head start, etc., but in general, that's the way that the world has proven to work. &gt;About every successful silicon valley startup such as Microsoft, Facebook, and Snapchat were founded by kids with very prominent parents. Yeah, Microsoft. K. So Bill Gates grew up with upper middle class parents. Know what? So did a fucking *huge* amount of people. Know how many are as rich as Bill Gates? Fucking none of them. He had a head start, absolutely, but that doesn't take away his success. He's done more with what he was given than any of his peers, and likely more than anyone regardless of beginning income level could do. Zuckerberg's dad was a dentist. Upper middle class, but if you're *really* being honest with yourself, you'd realize that there are almost 200k dentists in the US alone, and yet there aren't 200k multi billionaires. Hm. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was the son of a professor who immigrated from Russia. Steve Jobs was the adopted child of two blue collar workers. Of course, if we move out of just Silicon Valley, your narrative really, *really* falls apart, since Silicon Valley of course has a little bit of a lean towards the wealthy, as computers aren't cheap and getting started in that arena requires the use of a computer. [Take a look at billionaires in general](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2010-12-06/twenty-billionaires-who-started-with-nothing). Most billionaires [did not inherit their wealth](https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/self-made/#7d08bb1941cb). And, something like a [third](https://blog.adioma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/from-poor-to-rich-billionare-infographic.jpg) of the richest billionaires came from 'poor' parents, in addition to simply not inheriting their wealth. &gt;whats the fucking difference between someone who inherits their money and someone who practically has a trust fund? A trust fund is a sort of an inheritance. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up? &gt;Again he is not self made. He's just an extension of his parents achievements... Source? I saw that someone who shares the name Knopf is wealthy (posted in this thread), but are those actually his parents? Do you have proof of that? Or are you just guessing that since he's made it to an executive position and shares the name of someone wealthy, that those are his parents? Further, *if* those are his parents, how does wealth from publishing transferring into a job at a consumer staples company work? Why is your first assumption when you see someone successful that they had it handed to them? Why do you need to selectively choose a small subset of people (Silicon Valley startups) out of an already limited group (billionaires) to be able to even attempt to make your point?\"" }, { "docid": "360723", "title": "", "text": "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." }, { "docid": "484596", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming USA: It is possible to make the interest deductible if you go to the trouble of structuring, and filing, the loan as an actual mortgage on a primary residence. Websearching \"\"intra-family loan\"\" will find several firms which specialize in this. It costs about $700 for all the paperwork and filing fees as of last time I checked, so unless you're going to pay at least three times that in interest over the life of the loan it probably isn't worth considering. (For an additional fee they'll take care of the payment processing, if you'd really rather be hands-off about it.) I have no idea whether the paperwork fees and processing fees can be deducted from the interest as a cost of producing that income. In theory that ought to be true, but I Am Not A Lawyer. Or accountant. Note: one of the interesting factors here is that the IRS sets a minimum interest rate on intra-family loans. It's pretty low (around 0.3%), so in most cases you can say you gifted the difference if you'd prefer to charge less... but that does set a floor on what the IRS will expect the lender to declare, and pay taxes on. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but since I am NOT an expert I'll refer you to those who are. I have no affiliation with any of this except as a customer, once; it seemed pretty painless but I can't claim to know whether they were really handling everything exactly correctly. The website seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining what choices had to be made and their effects, as well as discussing how these can be used to avoid excess gift taxes by spreading the gift over a number of years.\"" }, { "docid": "446190", "title": "", "text": "\"I assume you are filing US taxes because you are a US citizen, resident alien, or other \"\"US person\"\". If you have a total of $10,000 or more in assets in non-US accounts, you are required to file FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, also known as FBAR, to report those accounts. See Comparison of Form 8938 and FBAR Requirements. Note this refers to the total balance in the account (combined with any other accounts you may have); the amount you transferred this year is not relevant. Also note that the FBAR is filed separately from your income tax return (it does not go to the IRS), though if you have over $50,000 in offshore assets you may also have to file IRS Form 8938. Simply reporting those accounts does not necessarily mean you will owe extra taxes. Most US taxes are based on income, not assets. According to the page linked, the maximum penalty for a \"\"willful\"\" failure to report such accounts is a fine of $100,000 or 50% of the assets in question, whichever is greater, in addition to possible criminal sanctions. There may be other US filing requirements that I don't know about, so you may want to consult a tax professional. I do not know anything about your filing requirements under Indian law.\"" }, { "docid": "296750", "title": "", "text": "\"Buried on the IRS web site is the \"\"Fillable Forms Error Search Tool\"\". Rather than including an explanation of errors in the rejection email itself, you're expected to copy and paste the error email into this form, which gives more details about what's wrong. (Don't blame me; I didn't design it.) If I copy your error message in, here's the response I get: There is an error with the “primary taxpayer’s Date of Birth” in Step 2 Section 4. The date of birth that was entered does not match IRS records. Make sure you enter the correct birth date, in the correct format, in the correct space. Scroll down, and enter the current date (“Today’s date”). Today’s date is the day you intend to e-file the return again. Also, if you are making an electronic payment you must re-date that section. E-File your return. You say that you've already checked your birthday, so I don't know as this is particularly helpful. If you're confident that it's correct and in the right place, I think your next step needs to be contacting the IRS directly. They have a link at the bottom of the error lookup response on how to contact them specifically about their solution not working, or you could try contacting your local IRS office or giving them a call.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "156640", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer, yes. But this is not done through the deductions on Schedule A. This can happen if the employer creates a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) for its employees. This can be created for certain approved uses like medical and transportation expenses (a separate account for each category). You can contribute amounts within certain limits to these accounts (e.g. $255 a month for transportation), with pre-tax income, deduct the contributions, and then withdraw these funds to cover your transportation or medical expenses. They work like a (deductible) IRA, except that these are \"\"spending\"\" and not \"\"retirement\"\" accounts. Basically, the employer fulfills the role of \"\"IRA\"\" (FSA, actually) trustee, and does the supporting paperwork.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "312369", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post." }, { "docid": "479649", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;So you're telling me you can't commute upwards of one hour away from your work to find affordable housing? That is what Californians do. Because everyone can and should spend 2 hours commuting every day. Or three or four, \"\"if that's what it takes.\"\" Hell, why don't we just cancel nights and work through until it's time for sleep; that will save on commuting while allowing the same (near-zero) amount of seeing friends and family. Fallacy of the Argument to Sufficient Extremes: \"\"You can fly unaided if you're determined enough. You just have to put up with hitting the ground from a great height shortly after beginning your flight.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "115884", "title": "", "text": "For a 401(k), only contributions that you make for the current tax year through payroll deduction are tax-deductible. Those contributions are subtracted off of your income for your W-2 Box 1 income amount. If you make a manual contribution to your 401(k) outside of that, it is not tax deductible, and there is nowhere on your Form 1040 to deduct it. Your commuter benefits are also paid for out of payroll deduction and deducted on your W-2, so this is not an option, either. You could contribute to a traditional IRA for last year up to your tax return deadline, and deduct the amount on Form 1040 Line 32. However, because you have access to a retirement plan at work, your IRA contribution is only tax deductible if your income is below certain limits." }, { "docid": "61022", "title": "", "text": "\"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for \"\"backdoor\"\" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire \"\"backdoor\"\" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the \"\"backdoor\"\" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets.\"" }, { "docid": "263259", "title": "", "text": "I looked at Publication 463 (2014), Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses for examples. I thought this was the mot relevant. No regular place of work. If you have no regular place of work but ordinarily work in the metropolitan area where you live, you can deduct daily transportation costs between home and a temporary work site outside that metropolitan area. Generally, a metropolitan area includes the area within the city limits and the suburbs that are considered part of that metropolitan area. You cannot deduct daily transportation costs between your home and temporary work sites within your metropolitan area. These are nondeductible commuting expenses. This only deals with transportation to and from the temporary work site. Transportation expenses do not include expenses you have while traveling away from home overnight. Those expenses are travel expenses discussed in chapter 1 . However, if you use your car while traveling away from home overnight, use the rules in this chapter to figure your car expense deduction. See Car Expenses , later. You will also have to consider the cost of tolls of the use of a trailer if those apply." }, { "docid": "360723", "title": "", "text": "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." }, { "docid": "555406", "title": "", "text": "\"There's no such thing as \"\"leniency\"\" when enforcing the law. Not knowing the law, as you have probably heard, is not a valid legal defence. Tax law is a law like any other. That said, some penalties and fines can be abated if the error was done in good faith and due to a reasonable cause. First time penalties can be abated in many cases assuming you're compliant otherwise (for example - first time late filing penalty can be abated if you're compliant in the last 5 years. Not many people know about that.). Examples for a reasonable cause (from the IRS IRM 20.1.1): Reliance on the advice of a tax advisor generally relates to the reasonable cause exception in IRC 6664(c) for the accuracy-related penalty under IRC 6662. See IRM 20.1.5, Return Related Penalties, and If the taxpayer does not meet the criteria for penalty relief under IRC 6404(f), the taxpayer may qualify for other penalty relief. For instance, taxpayers who fail to meet all of the IRC 6404(f) criteria may still qualify for relief under reasonable cause if the IRS determines that the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence in relying on the IRS’s written advice. IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.5 - Erroneous Advice or Reliance. Treas. Reg. 1.6664–4(c). There are more. IRM is the \"\"Internal Revenue Manual\"\" - the book of policies for the IRS agents. Of course, you should seek a professional advice when you're non-compliant and want to ask for abatement and become compliant again. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\"" }, { "docid": "592582", "title": "", "text": "Having been in the situation of commuting and working long hours at a low wage to just scrape by, I faced the following dilemma: I used all my income to pay bills and taxes and could not afford to go back to college to get another degree (or pay for distance learning). Even if I could afford to pay for classes, I couldn't figure out when I'd have the time to study because I was often only home 9 hours a day and needed to eat and sleep, shower and get ready for work. A wealthy friend of mine liked to read books about people who overcame great obstacles and she was sure I could figure out lot a way to improve my situation if I'd just try harder. One day I handed her a piece of paper showing my income after taxes and monthly bills and asked her to get back to me with a plan that would allow me to afford classes and give me say, an average of 6 hours of study time per week. She was happy to do it. Here was her longed for opportunity to show me it was possible to pull myself up by my bootstraps. After she studied my income, expenses and schedule, she decided she couldn't devise a plan that would work and she never again told me I wasn't trying hard enough." }, { "docid": "45090", "title": "", "text": "It might not be leniency for first time payers, but they do have programs, some federal some local, that help the poor and elderly complete their tax forms. There are also programs that allow the poor to file electronically for free. For most people the first time they file their taxes they are using the EZ form. Which is rather easy to do, even without the use of either web based or PC based software. The software tools all ask enough questions on the EZ forms to allow the user to know with confidence when their life choices have made it advantageous to use the more complex forms. The web versions of the software allow the taxpayer to start for free, thus reducing their initial investment for the software to zero. Because the first time filer is frequently a teenager the parents are generally responsible for proving that initial guidance. The biggest risk for a young taxpayer might be that the first year that itemizing deductions might be advantageous. They might never consider it, so they over pay. Or they discover in April that if they had only kept a receipt from a charity six months ago they could deduct the donation, so they are tempted to claim the donation without proof. Regarding leniency and assistance there is an interesting tax credit. The Earned Income Tax Credit. it gives a Tax credit to the working poor. They alert people that they need to Check Your Eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit They know that significant numbers of taxpayers fail to claim it. EITC can be a boost for workers who earned $50,270 or less in 2012. Yet the IRS estimates that one out of five eligible taxpayers fails to claim their EITC each year. The IRS wants everyone who is eligible for the credit to get the credit that they’ve earned. The rules for getting the credit are simple, all the information needed to claim it is already on the basic tax forms, but you have to know that you need a separate form to get the credit. But instead of making the credit automatic they say: If you use IRS e-file to prepare and file your tax return, the software will guide you and not let you forget this important step. E-file does the work and figures your EITC for you! and then : With IRS Free File, you can claim EITC by using brand name tax preparation software to prepare and e-file your tax return for free. It's available exclusively at IRS.gov/freefile. Free help preparing your return to claim your EITC is also available at one of thousands of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites around the country. To find the volunteer site nearest to you, use the VITA locator tool on IRS.gov. But if you don't use free file you might never know about the form. Apparently it escapes 20% of the people who could claim it." }, { "docid": "525645", "title": "", "text": "HCE is defined as being above 120k$ or in the top 20 % of the company. The exact cutoff point might be different for each company. Typically, only the base salary is considered for that, but it's the company's (and 401(k)-plan's) decision. The IRS does not require HCE treatment; the IRS requires that 401(k) plans have a 'fair' distribution of usage between all employees. Very often, employees with lower income save (over-proportionally) less in their 401(k), and there is a line where the 401(k) plan is no longer acceptable to the IRS. HCE is a way for companies to ensure this forced balance; by limiting the amount of 401(k) savings for HCE, the companies ensure that the share of all contributions by below-HCE is appropriate. They will calculate/define the HCE cutoff point so that the required distribution is surely achieved. One of the consequences is that when you move over the HCE cutoff point, you can suddenly save a lot less in your 401(k). Nothing can be done about that. See this IRS page: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/definitions Highly Compensated Employee - An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015 or 2016), and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation." }, { "docid": "489790", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"" }, { "docid": "129350", "title": "", "text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals." }, { "docid": "121393", "title": "", "text": "\"I work in the legal services industry, selling these products for a competitor of theirs who shall remain nameless. The LLC filing itself in most cases is a simple fill in the blank form. You can likely file yourself either online or through the mail, depending on the state. Only a handful require an original document. You can apply for the EIN for free on the IRS website and usually have it within a few minutes. If you already have someone assisting with your annual LLC taxes you wouldn't need their services for that either. If their compliance kit involves any business licensing research, it may be worthwhile - but you can also order those services a la carte from vendors like LLX and BusinessLicenses.com. What you're really paying for is the registered agent service - the address for public record with the state so they know where to send any service of process - and you're paying for the convenience of a \"\"one stop shop\"\" instead of handling all the legwork yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "318260", "title": "", "text": "\"Besides money and time lost, it is pretty clear that most tax advisors are not well versed in non-resident taxes. It seems that their main clients are either US residents or H1B workers (who are required to file as residents). I share your pain on this one. In fact, even for H1B/green card holders or Americans with income/property abroad vast majority of advisers will make mistakes (which may become quite costly). IRS licensing exams for EA/RTRP do not include a single question on non-resident taxation or potential issues, let alone handling treaties. Same goes for the AICPA unified CPA exam (the REG portion of which, in part, deals with taxes). I'm familiar with the recent versions of both exams and I am very disappointed and frustrated by that lack of knowledge requirement in such a crucial area (I am not a licensed tax preparer now though). That said, the issue is very complicated. I went through several advisers until I found the one I can trust to know her stuff, and while at it happened to learn quite a lot about the US tax code (which doesn't make me sleep any better by the least). It is my understanding that preparing a US tax return for a foreign person without a mistake is impossible, but the question is how big is the mistake you're going to make. I had returns prepared by solo working advisers where I found mistakes as ridiculous as arithmetic calculation errors (fired after two seasons), and by big-4 firms where I found mistakes that cost me quite a lot (although by the time I figured that they cost me significant amounts, it was too late to sue or change; fired after 2 seasons as well). As you can see, it is relevant to me as well, and I do not do my own tax returns. I usually ask for the conservative interpretations from my adviser, IRS is very aggressive on enforcement and the penalties, especially on foreigners are draconian (I do not know if it ever went through a judicial review, as I believe some of these penalties are unconstitutional under the 8th amendment, but that's my personal opinion). Bottom line - its hard to find a decent tax adviser, and that's why the good ones are expensive. You get what you pay for. How do I go about locating a CPA/EA who is well versed in non-resident taxes located in the Los Angeles area (Orange County area is not too far away either) These professionals are usually active in large metropolitan areas with a lot of foreigners. You should be able to find decent professionals in LA/OC, SF Bay, Seattle, New York, Boston, and other cities and metropolises attracting foreigners. Also, look for those working in the area of a major university. Specific points: If I find none, can I work with a quaified person who lives in a different state and have him file my taxes on my behalf (electronically or via scans going back and forth) Yes. But that person my have a problem representing you in California (in case you're audited), unless he's an EA (licensed by the Federal government, can practice everywhere) or is licensed as a CPA or Attorney by the State of California. Is there a central registry of such quaified people I can view (preferably with reviews) - akin to \"\"yellow pages\"\" IRS is planning on opening one some time this year, but until then - not really. There are some commercial sites claiming to have that, but they're using the FOIA access to the IRS and states' listings, and may not have updated information. They definitely don't have updated license statuses (or any license statuses) or language/experience information. Wouldn't trust them.\"" }, { "docid": "405115", "title": "", "text": "Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates. But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range. People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare. I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption. And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax. In theory this could last indefinitely. In practice, it is less likely. But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs. The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse. All without triggering the estate tax. People can put some of their estate into a trust. This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax. Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route. Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year. That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year. So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year. Plus $56k for the kids' spouses. And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k. Great-grandchildren count too. That's more than a million every five years. So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax. Consider the case of two wealthy siblings. They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs. So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs. This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication. Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate. So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift. This will use up some of the estate exemption. But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose. These are just the easy things to do. If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value. For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it. As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not. The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were. But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust). If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary). But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it. There are other examples of the same pattern: Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc. The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust. The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth. And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result. So the parent's estate does count. Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support. And those aren't even fiddles. Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities. A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements. Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them. The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die." }, { "docid": "256261", "title": "", "text": "And directly from IRS notice 2014-21 FAQ: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property? A-6: Yes. If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer’s adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency.… Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income." }, { "docid": "108974", "title": "", "text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know." }, { "docid": "469601", "title": "", "text": "Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230." }, { "docid": "70668", "title": "", "text": "\"I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence. I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society. Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence. What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence? It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility? Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. \"\"Because my parents want me to succeed\"\" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? \"\"Why yes, I guess they do.\"\" Why? \"\"Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life.\"\" Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education. But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations. With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story. My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer: Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less. Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less. Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later. Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours. You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "44256", "title": "", "text": "Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)" } ]

[ { "docid": "266952", "title": "", "text": "\"As a rule of thumb, go in the order of proximity to the transaction. This would typically mean: Side note: I own a website that provides an online service that accepts PayPal and credit cards (via PayPal), and I personally have experience with all 3 of the above options. I can tell you from the merchant's point of view that I would also prefer the same order. I've had people contact my customer service department asking for a refund and we always immediately comply. Some people never contact us and just file a dispute directly with PayPal, and although refunding through the PayPal dispute is just as easy as refunding directly, it always makes me ask, \"\"Why didn't they just contact us first?\"\" One time we had a customer skip us and PayPal, and filed a dispute directly with their Credit Card. The CC company contacted PayPal and PayPal contacted us. The process was the same from my point of view, I just clicked a button saying issue refund. But my $5 refund cost me an additional $20 due to the CC dispute. Now that I know this I will never approve a CC dispute again. Anytime one happens I would just issue a refund directly, and then notify the dispute that their CC has already been refunded, which should end the dispute.\"" }, { "docid": "71253", "title": "", "text": "\"The usual approach is to set up a \"\"Friends of X Park\"\" charity. The charity raises money and then donates it towards work done in the park. Here's an example that's local to me: Friends of Hastings Country Park. There will be quite a bit of work needed to set up a new charity, so it will only be worth it if there's enough money likely to be raised.\"" }, { "docid": "243503", "title": "", "text": "You do actually have some profits (whatever is left from donations). The way it goes is that you report everything on your Schedule C. You will report this: Your gross profits will then flow to Net Profit (line 31) since you had no other expenses (unless you had some other expenses, like paypal fees, which will appear in the relevant category in part II), and from line 31 it will go to your 1040 for the final tax calculation." }, { "docid": "375708", "title": "", "text": "If you have no need for the money. Donate it. Spend the next few years determining what charities make sense and then when the wills are settled, then make those donations. You should get advice how how to best do that, there can be some limitations and complications. Sometimes the source of the money/property makes it more complicated. The form of the inheritance can also make a difference. You could even setup a charitable trust to spread the donations out over year or decade. You could even make it so that you can live off the interest until you die, and then the rest goes to the charity. Note: just because they have no other children, there is no guarantee that you will receive the money/property. They, at any time, could write a will and cut you out of some, most , or all of the wealth." }, { "docid": "526459", "title": "", "text": "Because best buy doesn't hire hoards of extremely low wage workers. Pay starts at $9 for cashiers at my store and only goes up from there. Best buy also has a community service program that donates $1000 chunks to local charities/ schools a couple times a year." }, { "docid": "372107", "title": "", "text": "In some case the customer wants the name to be cryptic or misleading. They don't want to advertise the true nature of the business they visited. In other cases the transaction may be reported through another business. A few years ago the local PTA was having a silent auction as a fundraiser. A local business allowed the PTA to use their credit card reader to process transactions over a certain amount. Of course when the credit card statement arrived it looked like you spent $500 at the florist. I have seen PayPal listed when donating to some small charities. I have noted another case where confusion can occur. I used a debit card to buy a soda from a vending machine: the name and location were the name of the vending machine company and the location of their main office. It didn't say soda machine city A. It said Joe's vending company city B. In most cases the business and the credit card company want to make it easy to identify the transactions to keep the cost of research and charge backs to a minimum." }, { "docid": "407313", "title": "", "text": "Put one of your monthly bills on it. (Utility bill, Netflix, monthly donation to charity, etc.) I have several automatic, recurring monthly charges on my credit card. If you don't have any current monthly bills that you want to switch, contact the Red Cross, or a charity of your choice. They would be very happy to charge your credit card once a month. Alternatively, it might be okay to let it close." }, { "docid": "585916", "title": "", "text": "Yes. I have a US based website that accepts payments via PayPal and can confirm we have many customers from India. Here is a list of countries PayPal supports. Note typically there are some additional fees associated with currency conversion." }, { "docid": "120438", "title": "", "text": "One possibility to consider would be making an arrangement with a registered UK charity where you would donate the necessary amount for the specific purpose of covering medical costs of that particular person. Charitable donations are expressly deductible from business profits. Some charities may be genuinely interested in helping people from developing countries get quality medical help that's not available in those countries. There may be some organizations in the proposed beneficiary's country that have contacts among the UK charities. PS. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, nor do I claim to be either. The above is not a legal or accounting advice. Consider seeking professional assistance." }, { "docid": "132881", "title": "", "text": "If you are interested, simply collect their contact information and donate by mail or in the office. You can't vet a door to door or phone call charity; not quickly enough anyway. A real charity would be happy for your donation anytime, not just when a volunteer happens to catch you at home on the weekend. It is simply to ripe for scams in my opinion. The big exception is when a kid comes to my door with a food item. I try to buy one just to make the kid feel successful. Even if they never turn in the money at least I got a $2 chocolate bar." }, { "docid": "546509", "title": "", "text": "Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing." }, { "docid": "330255", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a short list of charities that I support, so it's relatively easy for me to say \"\"I'm sorry, all my donations go to _.\"\" I do all my donations online, as well, so keeping receipts is very easy.\"" }, { "docid": "264932", "title": "", "text": "\"I linked my bank account (by making a transfer from bank account to Paypal) without linking a card. This should not give Paypal any rights to do anything with my bank account - transfer that I made to link it was exactly the same as any other outgoing transfer from my bank account. On attempting to pay more that resides in my Paypal balance I get To pay for this purchase right now, link a debit or credit card to your PayPal account. message. Paypal is not mentioning it but one may also transfer money to Paypal account form bank to solve this problem. Note, that one may give allow Paypal to access bank account - maybe linking a card will allow this? Paypal encourages linking card but without any description of consequences so I never checked this. It is also possible that Paypal gained access to your bank balance in other way - for example in Poland it just asked for logins and passwords to bank accounts (yes, using \"\"Add money instantly using Trustly\"\" in Poland really requires sharing full login credentials to bank account - what among other things breaks typical bank contract) source for \"\"Paypal attempts phishing\"\": https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/uwaga-uzytkownicy-paypala-nie-korzystajcie-z-najnowszej-funkcji-tego-serwisu/\"" }, { "docid": "148288", "title": "", "text": "I think about as close as you're going to get is to use a personal PayPal account, and set up a reminder to yourself to log in and send the money. (Because, as you said, setting up a recurring payment is a business account thing.) From PayPal's website: Sending money – Personal payments: It's free within the U.S. to send money to family and friends when you use only your PayPal balance or bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. ... Receiving money – Personal payments: It's free to receive money from friends or family in the U.S. when they send the money from the PayPal website using only their PayPal balance or their bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. You can automate the reminder to yourself with any of the gazillion task managers out there: Google Calendar, MS Outlook, Todoist, Remember the Milk, etc." }, { "docid": "134037", "title": "", "text": "\"I know your \"\"pain\"\". But don't worry about investing the money right now -- leave it uninvested in the short term. You have other stuff you need to school up on. Investment will come, and it's not that hard. In the short term, focus on taxes. Do some \"\"mock\"\" run-throughs of your expected end-of-year taxes (use last year's forms if this year's aren't available yet). Must you pay estimated tax periodically throughout the year? The tax authorities charge hefty penalties for \"\"forgetting\"\" to do it or \"\"not knowing you have to\"\". Keep an eye out for any other government gotchas. Do not overlook this! This is the best investment you could possibly make. Max out your government sanctioned retirement funds - in the US we have employer plans like 401K or Keogh, and personal plans like the IRA. This is fairly straightforward. Avoid any \"\"products\"\" the financial advisors want to sell you, like annuities. Also if you have the Roth type IRA, learn the difference between that and a normal one. There are some tricks you can do if you expect to have an \"\"off\"\" year in the future. Charitable giving is worth considering at high income levels. Do not donate directly to charities. Instead, use a Donor Advised Fund. It is a charity of its own, which accepts your tax deductible donation, and holds it. You take the tax deduction that year. Then later, when the spirit moves, tell your DAF to donate to the charity of your choice. This eliminates most of the headaches associated with giving. You don't get on the soft-hearted sucker lists, because you tell the DAF not to disclose your address, phone or email. You don't need the charity's acknowledgement letter for your taxes, since your donation was actually to the DAF. It shuts down scams and non-charities, since the DAF confirms their nonprofit status and sends the check to their official address only. (This also bypasses those evil for-profit \"\"fundraising companies\"\".) It's a lot simpler than they want you to know. So-called \"\"financial advisors\"\" are actually salesmen working on commission. They urge you to invest, because that's what they sell. They sell financial products you can't understand because they are intentionally unduly complex, specifically to confuse you. They are trying to psych you into believing all investments are too complex to understand, so you'll give up and \"\"just trust them\"\". Simple investments exist. They actually perform better since they aren't burdened down with overhead and internal complexity. Follow this rule: If you don't understand a financial product, don't buy it. But seriously, do commit and take the time to learn investment. You are the best friend your money will have - or its worst enemy. The only way to protect your money from inflation or financial salesmen is to understand investment yourself. You can have a successful understanding of how to invest from 1 or 2 books. (Certainly not everything; those ingenious salesmen keep making the financial world more complicated, but you don't need any of that junk.) For instance how do you allocate domestic stocks, foreign stocks, bonds, etc. in an IRA if you're under 40? Well... how do smaller universities invest their endowments? They all want the same thing you do. If you look into it, you'll find they all invest about the same. And that's quite similar to the asset mix Suze Orman recommends for young people's IRAs. See? Not that complicated. Then take the time to learn why. It isn't stupid easy, but it is learnable. For someone in your tier of income, I recommend Suze Orman's books. I know that some people don't like her, but that segues into a big problem you'll run into: People have very strong feelings about money. Intense, irrational emotions. People get it from their parents or they get sucked into the \"\"trust trap\"\" I mentioned with so-called financial advisors. They bet their whole savings on whatever they're doing, and their ego is very involved. When they push you toward their salesman or his variable annuity, they want you to agree they invested well. So you kinda have to keep your head low, not listen too much to friends/family, and do your research for yourself. John Bogle's book on mutual funds is a must-read for picking mutual funds and allocating assets. Certain financial advisors are OK. They are \"\"fee only\"\" advisors. They deal with all their customers on a fee-only basis, and are not connected to a company which sells financial products. They will be happy for you to keep your money in your account at your discount brokerage, and do your own trading on asset types (not brands) they recommend. They don't need your password. Here's what not to do: A good friend strongly recommended his financial advisor. In the interview, I said I wanted a fee-only advisor, and he agreed to charge me $2000 flat rate. Later, I figured out he normally works on commissions, because he was selling me the exact same products he'd sell to a commission (free advice) customer, and they were terrible products of course. I fired him fast.\"" }, { "docid": "179556", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll answer your second question: it depends what your charity is for. There are two types: i) Emergency (i.e. to respond to environmental or social disasters where it acts a bit like an insurance policy); ii) Development (i.e. where the intention is to subsidise something missing in the local economy); A lack of insurance is certainly a problem for people who lose their homes and livelihoods to disaster. Your donations can go far. As for development aid: \"\"We find little evidence of a robust positive correlation between aid and growth,\"\" write two ex-IMF economists, Raghuram Rajan, who stepped down as IMF chief economist at the end of 2006, and Arvind Subramanian, who left the IMF this year. \"\"One of the most enduring and important questions in economics is whether foreign aid helps countries grow ... There is a moral imperative to this question: it is a travesty for so many countries to remain poor if a relatively small transfer of resources from rich countries could set them on the path to growth ... But if there is no clear evidence that aid boosts growth, then handing out more money makes little sense,\"\" they conclude. I do somewhat further in declaring that charity is equivalent to trade dumping. By artificially lowering the real cost of a particular good it ensures that there will be no local investment in that good. Free clothes to Africa has destroyed the local textiles industry. Free doctors has resulted in more African doctors in New York than in the whole of Africa. So decide where your charity is going: emergencies or development? Then decide what you can afford. But your first investment should always be in yourself. If by making use of that investment you can benefit the economy and keep others around you employed and productive you will achieve far more.\"" }, { "docid": "438199", "title": "", "text": "&gt;We are the second most charitable country on the planet (source: world giving index), if Granny can't find support, she isn't really looking. Americans donated $212 billion to charity, sure, but the total Medicaid budget was $553 billion in 2016. The amount of support charity can provide just isn't as great as the amount public assistance can provide, and how could it? You will always get more money out of people when you point a gun at them than when you ask nicely. &gt;The support is there for those genuinely in need. I like how your assertion has a built-in way to move the goal posts. If she can't get support, then it *must* be because she didn't *genuinely* need help. &gt;And, the money goes further because it doesn't have to pay bureaucrat salaries. Do you not know how charities work? They have bureaucrats too, and they don't work for free." }, { "docid": "57494", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, the decrease of home prices is very appealing, especially living in a high cost of living area. On the other hand, no tax right offs for charities does not seem like a good idea. If people are going to contribute less to charitable organizations, that will directly hurt the people they are trying to help such as the poor, homeless, and disadvantaged. And these aren't small donations like the average person. These are thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. I understand most of the money doesn't necessarily reach the ones they claim to help due to salaries, overhead, and marketing, but there are some good charities that try to give as much of the donated money to their cause. I just don't trust our local and state government to put the money into these kinds of programs." }, { "docid": "92282", "title": "", "text": "[&amp;#9733;&amp;#9733;&amp;#9733; Register To Vote &amp;#9733;&amp;#9733;&amp;#9733;](https://myvote.wi.gov/en-us/registertovote) [**Randy Bryce**](https://randybryceforcongress.com/) is running against Paul Ryan. [Donate](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/randy-bryce-for-congress-1) | [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/RandyBryce) | [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/RandyBryce2018) | [Twitter](https://twitter.com/IronStache) Bryce supports universal health care, living wages, protecting Social Security and Medicare, affordable college, renewable energy, campaign finance reform, and DACA. [**Cathy Myers**](https://cathymyersforcongress.com/) is running against Paul Ryan. [Donate](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/cathy-for-congress-1?refcode=website) | [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/cathymyersforcongress/) [Map of Wisconsin District 1](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/WI/1) ^(I'm a bot and I'm learning. Let me know how I can do better. I'll add candidates who will represent working-class people instead of billionaire political donors.)" } ]

[ { "docid": "233877", "title": "", "text": "Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button." } ]

[ { "docid": "120438", "title": "", "text": "One possibility to consider would be making an arrangement with a registered UK charity where you would donate the necessary amount for the specific purpose of covering medical costs of that particular person. Charitable donations are expressly deductible from business profits. Some charities may be genuinely interested in helping people from developing countries get quality medical help that's not available in those countries. There may be some organizations in the proposed beneficiary's country that have contacts among the UK charities. PS. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, nor do I claim to be either. The above is not a legal or accounting advice. Consider seeking professional assistance." }, { "docid": "407313", "title": "", "text": "Put one of your monthly bills on it. (Utility bill, Netflix, monthly donation to charity, etc.) I have several automatic, recurring monthly charges on my credit card. If you don't have any current monthly bills that you want to switch, contact the Red Cross, or a charity of your choice. They would be very happy to charge your credit card once a month. Alternatively, it might be okay to let it close." }, { "docid": "320816", "title": "", "text": "Are there any local charities that could fund the work, and thus take Gift-Aided donations for it? Depending on the details, a School PTA or the Parish Church could justify sponsoring some improvements to the local park as part of their remit. You then give donations to them and they claim the Gift Aid and pay for the improvements with the total. Setting up a whole new charity is the other option, but unless the improvements are very expensive, that feels like overkill." }, { "docid": "148288", "title": "", "text": "I think about as close as you're going to get is to use a personal PayPal account, and set up a reminder to yourself to log in and send the money. (Because, as you said, setting up a recurring payment is a business account thing.) From PayPal's website: Sending money – Personal payments: It's free within the U.S. to send money to family and friends when you use only your PayPal balance or bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. ... Receiving money – Personal payments: It's free to receive money from friends or family in the U.S. when they send the money from the PayPal website using only their PayPal balance or their bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. You can automate the reminder to yourself with any of the gazillion task managers out there: Google Calendar, MS Outlook, Todoist, Remember the Milk, etc." }, { "docid": "174543", "title": "", "text": "\"It really depends on what your goals are. If your intent is to benefit the charity, I'm sure that they would tell you that the sooner you give them the money, the better. If they think that the money would do them more good invested then spent, they will invest it. The money you have sitting in your \"\"charitable account\"\" doesn't benefit anyone until you give it away. It really doesn't benefit you, either. You take your tax deduction when you contribute, and it is really out of your hands at this point. The only reason I could see for using a charitable account this way is if you don't know who you want to give money to. If this is the case, you can contribute money to your charitable account now and take the tax deduction now, and wait to identify a worthy charity later. But if I were you, I wouldn't wait too long to find someone to give the money to. There are lots of good organizations that would do a lot of good with that money, and the sooner they get it, the better. If you skip the charitable account and donate directly to them on a regular basis, you can experience the joy of partnering with a charity to help people. If you decide in the future to switch to a different charity, then you do so. Waiting until the \"\"right time\"\" to donate doesn't really do anyone any good.\"" }, { "docid": "213591", "title": "", "text": "\"Standard federal candidate political donations are limited to $2700 per candidate per election. The primary and general elections are different elections for this purpose. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml There are no tax implications to a campaign contribution. Even if you contribute to the campaign of someone to whom you have made gifts now or in the past, that does count. You are contributing to the campaign, not the person. Such money has to be used for campaign purposes. The candidate could be prosecuted (for something like embezzlement) for using the funds for something else. Example source: http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006985.php Congress itself ordered the IRS away from direct political contributions by enacting what is now Code Section 2501(c)(4) in 1975, which prohibits gift tax assessments on \"\"political organizations,\"\" defined by Section 527 as \"\"...a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.\"\" There is no way to donate to a candidate's campaign in a tax deductible way. The only tax-deductible money in politics is money given to a charity that the charity then uses to fund their own campaigning activities like advertisements or get out the vote calls. Such spending might supplant some candidate spending, but it can't be given to the candidate's campaign to spend. In fact, such spending can't be coordinated with the campaign at all. Example source: http://blogs.hrblock.com/2013/03/04/how-to-capture-political-contributions-on-your-tax-return/ If you wrote a check for a presidential candidate or even a local mayoral candidate, you’re out of luck when it comes to deductions. Contributions given directly to campaigns and parties are absolutely non-deductible. Note that it spends a lot of time explaining how you can deduct contributions to independent charities that happen to do campaign work.\"" }, { "docid": "134037", "title": "", "text": "\"I know your \"\"pain\"\". But don't worry about investing the money right now -- leave it uninvested in the short term. You have other stuff you need to school up on. Investment will come, and it's not that hard. In the short term, focus on taxes. Do some \"\"mock\"\" run-throughs of your expected end-of-year taxes (use last year's forms if this year's aren't available yet). Must you pay estimated tax periodically throughout the year? The tax authorities charge hefty penalties for \"\"forgetting\"\" to do it or \"\"not knowing you have to\"\". Keep an eye out for any other government gotchas. Do not overlook this! This is the best investment you could possibly make. Max out your government sanctioned retirement funds - in the US we have employer plans like 401K or Keogh, and personal plans like the IRA. This is fairly straightforward. Avoid any \"\"products\"\" the financial advisors want to sell you, like annuities. Also if you have the Roth type IRA, learn the difference between that and a normal one. There are some tricks you can do if you expect to have an \"\"off\"\" year in the future. Charitable giving is worth considering at high income levels. Do not donate directly to charities. Instead, use a Donor Advised Fund. It is a charity of its own, which accepts your tax deductible donation, and holds it. You take the tax deduction that year. Then later, when the spirit moves, tell your DAF to donate to the charity of your choice. This eliminates most of the headaches associated with giving. You don't get on the soft-hearted sucker lists, because you tell the DAF not to disclose your address, phone or email. You don't need the charity's acknowledgement letter for your taxes, since your donation was actually to the DAF. It shuts down scams and non-charities, since the DAF confirms their nonprofit status and sends the check to their official address only. (This also bypasses those evil for-profit \"\"fundraising companies\"\".) It's a lot simpler than they want you to know. So-called \"\"financial advisors\"\" are actually salesmen working on commission. They urge you to invest, because that's what they sell. They sell financial products you can't understand because they are intentionally unduly complex, specifically to confuse you. They are trying to psych you into believing all investments are too complex to understand, so you'll give up and \"\"just trust them\"\". Simple investments exist. They actually perform better since they aren't burdened down with overhead and internal complexity. Follow this rule: If you don't understand a financial product, don't buy it. But seriously, do commit and take the time to learn investment. You are the best friend your money will have - or its worst enemy. The only way to protect your money from inflation or financial salesmen is to understand investment yourself. You can have a successful understanding of how to invest from 1 or 2 books. (Certainly not everything; those ingenious salesmen keep making the financial world more complicated, but you don't need any of that junk.) For instance how do you allocate domestic stocks, foreign stocks, bonds, etc. in an IRA if you're under 40? Well... how do smaller universities invest their endowments? They all want the same thing you do. If you look into it, you'll find they all invest about the same. And that's quite similar to the asset mix Suze Orman recommends for young people's IRAs. See? Not that complicated. Then take the time to learn why. It isn't stupid easy, but it is learnable. For someone in your tier of income, I recommend Suze Orman's books. I know that some people don't like her, but that segues into a big problem you'll run into: People have very strong feelings about money. Intense, irrational emotions. People get it from their parents or they get sucked into the \"\"trust trap\"\" I mentioned with so-called financial advisors. They bet their whole savings on whatever they're doing, and their ego is very involved. When they push you toward their salesman or his variable annuity, they want you to agree they invested well. So you kinda have to keep your head low, not listen too much to friends/family, and do your research for yourself. John Bogle's book on mutual funds is a must-read for picking mutual funds and allocating assets. Certain financial advisors are OK. They are \"\"fee only\"\" advisors. They deal with all their customers on a fee-only basis, and are not connected to a company which sells financial products. They will be happy for you to keep your money in your account at your discount brokerage, and do your own trading on asset types (not brands) they recommend. They don't need your password. Here's what not to do: A good friend strongly recommended his financial advisor. In the interview, I said I wanted a fee-only advisor, and he agreed to charge me $2000 flat rate. Later, I figured out he normally works on commissions, because he was selling me the exact same products he'd sell to a commission (free advice) customer, and they were terrible products of course. I fired him fast.\"" }, { "docid": "508381", "title": "", "text": "\"A slower approach: keep any discussion of income out of it to begin with. Remaining within discretionary income Z, just go back to the charities your SO has proposed, and say that you would like to set up monthly donations. You would also like to donate a similar amount to charities of your choice. Say what bills your proposed contribution is less than. Once your SO has got used to the idea of charitable giving as a regular expenditure, and has got back the grateful charity newsletters and whatnot, then address the issue of how much you \"\"should\"\" give by comparison with income. Whenever you do consider income, your SO doesn't really seem to want anything to do with this. So I'd approach it as seeking agreement. Eric Lippert has a more long-term approach for seeking involvement. So, present the following information however seems best, probably with a pre-amble establishing that you both want to support charities, so the question is how much and how to get it done. \"\"We earn U. This means we are fortunate enough to be in the top V% of households. Our income breaks down as: This being the case, we can afford to be generous. I would like us to give to the charities that we each care about, to the extent of N. Charitable giving is important to me because ... The amount I suggest we give is less than what we spend annually on ..., and I chose that amount because ... \"\" Depending on the tax situation, you may then have to explain how N from gross income translates to an actual amount available to give to charity. Or charitable giving might be tax free. If the N you want is greater than Z-A then it might be wise to suggest a smaller amount, but ask that you both make a plan in increase it in a year or whatever. Similarly if N strikes your SO as a scarily large number then I would think the best thing to do is just reduce it so that at least you start somewhere. If Y is low or zero, and your SO suffers from anxiety about financial security, then increasing Y at the same time might be a good way to offset the fear of N. When stating income you might want to exclude any income from savings/investments. Although legally it's income your SO might see it psychologically as capital gains and hence touching it would endanger your savings/investment/pension returns. Even though it's all fungible.\"" }, { "docid": "131131", "title": "", "text": "A rather good IRS paper on the topic states that a donation of a business' in-kind inventory would be Under IRC 170(e)(1), however, the fair market value must be reduced by the amount of gain that would not be long-term capital gain if the property had been sold by the donor at the property's fair market value (determined at the time of the contribution). Under this rule, deductions for donated inventory are limited to the property's basis (generally its cost), where the fair market value exceeds the basis. There are references to IRC regulations in a narrative context you may find helpful: This paper goes on for 16 pages describing detailed exceptions and the political reasons for the exceptions (most of which are concerned with encouraging the donation of prepared food from restaurants/caterers to hunger charities by guaranteeing a value for something that would otherwise be trashed valueless); and a worked out example of fur coats that had a cost of goods of $200 and a market value of $1000." }, { "docid": "585916", "title": "", "text": "Yes. I have a US based website that accepts payments via PayPal and can confirm we have many customers from India. Here is a list of countries PayPal supports. Note typically there are some additional fees associated with currency conversion." }, { "docid": "262358", "title": "", "text": "How is taxing them preventing a donation to their charity of choice? It isn't one or the other. You can be taxed and voluntarily charitable. The whole GOP point, though, is to make it ALL voluntary charity so if they give, they get to decide who deserves their money and they deserve a big fat tax deduction." }, { "docid": "546509", "title": "", "text": "Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing." }, { "docid": "409980", "title": "", "text": "In 2012, the standard deduction is $5950 for a single person. Let's assume you are very charitable, and by coincidence you donate exactly $5950 to charity. Everything that falls under itemized deductions would then be deductible. So, if your property tax is $6000, in your example - Other adjustments come into play, including an exemption of $3850, I am just showing the effect of the property tax. The bottom line is that deductions come off income, not off your tax bill. The saving from a deduction is $$ x your tax bracket." }, { "docid": "173348", "title": "", "text": "very simple. RBI has stopped connecting Indian Bank's to Paypal, for deposit or withdrawal. You need to use a third party website (Online wallet etc) to send whatever money you have in the Paypal account. Connect your Bank account with the third party website, and withdraw the money" }, { "docid": "57494", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, the decrease of home prices is very appealing, especially living in a high cost of living area. On the other hand, no tax right offs for charities does not seem like a good idea. If people are going to contribute less to charitable organizations, that will directly hurt the people they are trying to help such as the poor, homeless, and disadvantaged. And these aren't small donations like the average person. These are thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. I understand most of the money doesn't necessarily reach the ones they claim to help due to salaries, overhead, and marketing, but there are some good charities that try to give as much of the donated money to their cause. I just don't trust our local and state government to put the money into these kinds of programs." }, { "docid": "182856", "title": "", "text": "The good news is that your parent organization is tax exempt and your local organization might be. The national organization even has guidelines and even more details. Regarding donations they have this to say: Please note: The law requires charities to furnish disclosure statements to donors for such quid pro quo donations in excess of $75.00. A quid pro quo contribution is a payment made partly as a contribution and partly for goods or services provided to the donor by the charity. An example of a quid pro quo contribution is when the donor gives a charity $100.00 in consideration for a concert ticket valued at $40.00. In this example, $60.00 would be deductible because the donor’s payment (quid pro quo contribution) exceeds $75.00. The disclosure statement must be furnished even though the deductible amount does not exceed $75.00. Regarding taxes: Leagues included under our group exemption number are responsible for their own tax filings with the I.R.S. Leagues must file Form 990 EZ with Schedule A if gross receipts are in excess of $50,000 but less than $200,000. Similar rules also apply to other youth organizations such as scouts, swim teams, or other youth sports." }, { "docid": "5838", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure what the situation is in Canada, but in the US, the IRS does not look kindly on people overvaluing donations of used goods. The rule is obviously abused quite a bit, but that doesn't mean it's legal! Different used books have different values, usually depending on supply and demand, and there are online databases that make it easy to check the value of a book using a barcode scanner. If you took a book to a used bookstore and they didn't want to buy it, that's because supply greatly exceeds demand... it might be last year's bestseller, for example. In this situation, donating the book to charity and claiming that the book is \"\"worth\"\" more than it's actually worth is really nothing more than cheating on your taxes. You may or may not get caught, but it's certainly not the intent of any tax code to give people a break on their taxes for donating worthless books to a charity which will inevitably just have to recycle or shred them.\"" }, { "docid": "63366", "title": "", "text": "It depends on what provider they are using to process your charge and if it's through a website, a phone application or a desktop application. For example, if they build a desktop application with Authorize.net, the desktop application will take your information in, and then make a webservice call with it to a secure authorize.net processing platform. Something similar is true for FirstData. However, if they are using PayPal to process your request, you are routed to a paypal site to make the charge, then the funds are sent to the merchant. As for what is returned that also depends on the provider and the application. If you are using a website it's likely an XML response with all the information they provide upon a transaction attempt. If it's a desktop application they may just hand the cc info off to a library which processes the charge and then returns specific confirmed or denied flags. So to be totally honest without knowing the exact situation in which you are charging your card, it's impossible to know. For all you know they are putting your credit card information in a database unencrypted and then charging them all at the end of the week in one giant batch. If you are able to find out whom they are using as a credit card processing provider then you can look for that companies developer documentation. It will provide you with all the information you are looking for including examples." }, { "docid": "164391", "title": "", "text": "Yes, #2: the Hackathon prize money counts as income, but a donation to charity is a deductible charitable gift. For more background and a few scenarios: http://people.opposingviews.com/deductible-donor-donates-prize-2517.html" } ]

[ { "docid": "174034", "title": "", "text": "An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe." } ]

[ { "docid": "409980", "title": "", "text": "In 2012, the standard deduction is $5950 for a single person. Let's assume you are very charitable, and by coincidence you donate exactly $5950 to charity. Everything that falls under itemized deductions would then be deductible. So, if your property tax is $6000, in your example - Other adjustments come into play, including an exemption of $3850, I am just showing the effect of the property tax. The bottom line is that deductions come off income, not off your tax bill. The saving from a deduction is $$ x your tax bracket." }, { "docid": "97561", "title": "", "text": "For larger items such as cars this is certainly possible; I've donated a car before (in Canada) and got a tax receipt that was probably worth more than I would have got from a dealer for the car. However with donations of this kind there are two obstacles: Two other options for you to consider. Most medium towns have used book shops which you can sell them to. If the used book shops don't want them then your books really aren't worth enough to be worrying about, in which case see option two: give the books to a charity or thrift shop and don't worry about the receipt. Sometimes a nice feeling is the best return you will get." }, { "docid": "243503", "title": "", "text": "You do actually have some profits (whatever is left from donations). The way it goes is that you report everything on your Schedule C. You will report this: Your gross profits will then flow to Net Profit (line 31) since you had no other expenses (unless you had some other expenses, like paypal fees, which will appear in the relevant category in part II), and from line 31 it will go to your 1040 for the final tax calculation." }, { "docid": "330255", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a short list of charities that I support, so it's relatively easy for me to say \"\"I'm sorry, all my donations go to _.\"\" I do all my donations online, as well, so keeping receipts is very easy.\"" }, { "docid": "474105", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have mentioned, it's important that there is a fair assessment of the market value of the items being donated. Joel's point about the government not looking kindly upon overvalued donations also applies in Canada: the CRA doesn't look kindly upon donation schemes such as \"\"buy-low, donate-high arrangements.\"\" Since nobody has offered up authoritative information for Canada yet, here's something to look at: Excerpts: 3) Gifts in kind of a taxpayer include capital property, depreciable property, personal-use property ... [...] 6) The fair market value of a gift in kind as of the date of the donation (the date on which beneficial ownership is transferred from the donor to the donee) must be determined before an amount can be recorded on a receipt for tax purposes. [...] The person who determines the fair market value of the property must be competent and qualified to evaluate the particular property being transferred by way of a gift. Property of little or only nominal value to the donor will not qualify as a gift in kind. Used clothing of little value would be an example of a non-qualifying contribution. You will need to find a charity that would both value the books you would be donating and be willing to issue you a receipt for your charitable donation. Whatever receipt they issue should be in line with fair market value of the goods donated. Assume your donation receipt will be challenged, and keep both: Finally, reasonable comparables might be prices for similar used goods, not a percentage of new. Though, if you can't find a price for a particular title in the used market, an estimate consistent with other valuations in the lot would be better than nothing, perhaps.\"" }, { "docid": "131131", "title": "", "text": "A rather good IRS paper on the topic states that a donation of a business' in-kind inventory would be Under IRC 170(e)(1), however, the fair market value must be reduced by the amount of gain that would not be long-term capital gain if the property had been sold by the donor at the property's fair market value (determined at the time of the contribution). Under this rule, deductions for donated inventory are limited to the property's basis (generally its cost), where the fair market value exceeds the basis. There are references to IRC regulations in a narrative context you may find helpful: This paper goes on for 16 pages describing detailed exceptions and the political reasons for the exceptions (most of which are concerned with encouraging the donation of prepared food from restaurants/caterers to hunger charities by guaranteeing a value for something that would otherwise be trashed valueless); and a worked out example of fur coats that had a cost of goods of $200 and a market value of $1000." }, { "docid": "379353", "title": "", "text": "If you don't have much money, and more important, don't itemize, donations are strictly between you and your karma. If you itemize (from a combination of mortgage interest, property tax, and state tax), by donating used goods, you can get some return on your taxes, and feel good about yourself. When I donate at charity time (December for me) I don't look at every $1000 check as a $250 benefit back to me, although that's the effect. I care deeply about the charity's cause and have personally visited each of them. You want to drop $50 to some huge agency that's funding cancer research? No objection. But when I visit a Veteran's Center or School for the Blind, I can see the good work my money is doing." }, { "docid": "167879", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of benefits to this type of account. If one has highly appreciated stock (think Apple), donations of the stock are taken at current value, so for example, I donate $10,000 worth of shares, which cost me $100. In the 28% bracket, and itemizing, I see a $2800 benefit. But, I also avoid a $9900 capital gain and the 15% tax on that, or $1485. In this example, the fund comes into play as it would allow me to break up that $10,000 into smaller donations, and over a number of years. Next example - In my article some years ago Fun with Schedule A I describe how a strategy of 'bunching' ones itemized deductions every other year can help push people into the ability to itemize where normally they just miss doing so. Using the charitable fund can help people smooth out their contributions to the end charities while actually making the out of pocket withdrawal every other year. Last - there are many whose income is irregular for whatever reason. This type of account can be useful to help people in this situation make a deposit in high income/high tax rate years, skipping the deposit in low income/low rate years, but still keep up with the annual charity support. Obviously, one's goal is to help the charities they wish to support, it's silly to donate 'for the deduction.' But, for those who are charitable, these strategies help them divert more money to the charity and less to Uncle Sam. Sorry, I'm not sure about the math to show that 6.46%. My answer was to share the benefits of using these types of accounts." }, { "docid": "134037", "title": "", "text": "\"I know your \"\"pain\"\". But don't worry about investing the money right now -- leave it uninvested in the short term. You have other stuff you need to school up on. Investment will come, and it's not that hard. In the short term, focus on taxes. Do some \"\"mock\"\" run-throughs of your expected end-of-year taxes (use last year's forms if this year's aren't available yet). Must you pay estimated tax periodically throughout the year? The tax authorities charge hefty penalties for \"\"forgetting\"\" to do it or \"\"not knowing you have to\"\". Keep an eye out for any other government gotchas. Do not overlook this! This is the best investment you could possibly make. Max out your government sanctioned retirement funds - in the US we have employer plans like 401K or Keogh, and personal plans like the IRA. This is fairly straightforward. Avoid any \"\"products\"\" the financial advisors want to sell you, like annuities. Also if you have the Roth type IRA, learn the difference between that and a normal one. There are some tricks you can do if you expect to have an \"\"off\"\" year in the future. Charitable giving is worth considering at high income levels. Do not donate directly to charities. Instead, use a Donor Advised Fund. It is a charity of its own, which accepts your tax deductible donation, and holds it. You take the tax deduction that year. Then later, when the spirit moves, tell your DAF to donate to the charity of your choice. This eliminates most of the headaches associated with giving. You don't get on the soft-hearted sucker lists, because you tell the DAF not to disclose your address, phone or email. You don't need the charity's acknowledgement letter for your taxes, since your donation was actually to the DAF. It shuts down scams and non-charities, since the DAF confirms their nonprofit status and sends the check to their official address only. (This also bypasses those evil for-profit \"\"fundraising companies\"\".) It's a lot simpler than they want you to know. So-called \"\"financial advisors\"\" are actually salesmen working on commission. They urge you to invest, because that's what they sell. They sell financial products you can't understand because they are intentionally unduly complex, specifically to confuse you. They are trying to psych you into believing all investments are too complex to understand, so you'll give up and \"\"just trust them\"\". Simple investments exist. They actually perform better since they aren't burdened down with overhead and internal complexity. Follow this rule: If you don't understand a financial product, don't buy it. But seriously, do commit and take the time to learn investment. You are the best friend your money will have - or its worst enemy. The only way to protect your money from inflation or financial salesmen is to understand investment yourself. You can have a successful understanding of how to invest from 1 or 2 books. (Certainly not everything; those ingenious salesmen keep making the financial world more complicated, but you don't need any of that junk.) For instance how do you allocate domestic stocks, foreign stocks, bonds, etc. in an IRA if you're under 40? Well... how do smaller universities invest their endowments? They all want the same thing you do. If you look into it, you'll find they all invest about the same. And that's quite similar to the asset mix Suze Orman recommends for young people's IRAs. See? Not that complicated. Then take the time to learn why. It isn't stupid easy, but it is learnable. For someone in your tier of income, I recommend Suze Orman's books. I know that some people don't like her, but that segues into a big problem you'll run into: People have very strong feelings about money. Intense, irrational emotions. People get it from their parents or they get sucked into the \"\"trust trap\"\" I mentioned with so-called financial advisors. They bet their whole savings on whatever they're doing, and their ego is very involved. When they push you toward their salesman or his variable annuity, they want you to agree they invested well. So you kinda have to keep your head low, not listen too much to friends/family, and do your research for yourself. John Bogle's book on mutual funds is a must-read for picking mutual funds and allocating assets. Certain financial advisors are OK. They are \"\"fee only\"\" advisors. They deal with all their customers on a fee-only basis, and are not connected to a company which sells financial products. They will be happy for you to keep your money in your account at your discount brokerage, and do your own trading on asset types (not brands) they recommend. They don't need your password. Here's what not to do: A good friend strongly recommended his financial advisor. In the interview, I said I wanted a fee-only advisor, and he agreed to charge me $2000 flat rate. Later, I figured out he normally works on commissions, because he was selling me the exact same products he'd sell to a commission (free advice) customer, and they were terrible products of course. I fired him fast.\"" }, { "docid": "263440", "title": "", "text": "\"In addition to tax-related benefits, one answer may be that it helps them avoid being inundated with requests to support other foundations. Most charities have access to public records that indicate potential donors based on income and demographic. They can use that info to solicit for donations. \"\"Hey NFL Player, you have lots of money, and we have cute starving emus that really need your help!\"\" Here's a blurb from Foundation Source about some of the benefits to starting your own foundation. Get an Immediate Tax Deduction, but Give Later: You get the tax deduction when the foundation is funded, then make your charitable gifts over time. Leave a Lasting Legacy: Foundations set up in perpetuity can burnish your name far beyond your lifetime. Because gifts are made from an endowment that generates investment revenue, the total gifts made by the foundation can far surpass the actual funding. Be Taken More Seriously as a Philanthropist: A foundation imparts a gravitas that causes people to take your philanthropy more seriously, due to the structured, organized approach you employ for your giving. Sidestep Unsolicited Requests: When you focus your foundation on specific giving areas, your mission statement can be used to politely turn down off-target funding requests. Deepen and Focus Your Philanthropy: Whereas individual donors often spread their giving among as many causes as possible, the formalized structure of a foundation often encourages donors to narrow their focus to specific causes. Build a Better Family: As family members take on philanthropic research, present their findings to the board, participate in the decision-making process, and track results, they hone skills that will serve them for years to come. Tax-Deductible Grants to Individuals in Need: A private foundation allows you to provide emergency assistance directly to individuals using dollars for which you’ve already received a tax deduction. Run Charitable Programs Without Setting Up a Separate Nonprofit: Direct charitable activities are IRS-approved programs that permit foundations to directly fund and carry out their own projects. Pay Charitable Expenses: All legitimate and reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out the foundation’s charitable mission can be paid by the foundation and will count toward the annual minimum distribution requirement. Provide Loans Instead of Grants: When used to support a charitable purpose, private foundations can employ loans, loan guarantees, and even equity investments, which are paid back (potentially with interest), so you can recycle your philanthropic capital for other charitable causes. https://www.foundationsource.com/resources/library/top-10-advantages-of-a-private-foundation/ There's a similar list here on the website for an attorney that specializes in philanthropy and non-profits. I won't copy/paste that list as it's similar, but I wanted to provide an additional source confirming the above benefits. This link contains some disadvantages as well. http://www.hurwitassociates.com/l_start_pros.php\"" }, { "docid": "264271", "title": "", "text": "This might be blasphemy in the context of an audience that may be most focused on the gift itself, but you should be donating in a manner that helps advance the landscape, as well as your particular favourite charity. Almost 90% of businesses are in the process of trying to move away from issuing and receiving checks, and several countries in the world have already stopped using them. Checks are inefficient, costly and in a resource constrained environment like that facing most charities, create an opportunity cost that is even higher than the manual processing cost that flows directly. As donors, we need to think about scale in a manner that many individual charities don't. Send your donation via ACH!" }, { "docid": "569461", "title": "", "text": "If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500." }, { "docid": "438199", "title": "", "text": "&gt;We are the second most charitable country on the planet (source: world giving index), if Granny can't find support, she isn't really looking. Americans donated $212 billion to charity, sure, but the total Medicaid budget was $553 billion in 2016. The amount of support charity can provide just isn't as great as the amount public assistance can provide, and how could it? You will always get more money out of people when you point a gun at them than when you ask nicely. &gt;The support is there for those genuinely in need. I like how your assertion has a built-in way to move the goal posts. If she can't get support, then it *must* be because she didn't *genuinely* need help. &gt;And, the money goes further because it doesn't have to pay bureaucrat salaries. Do you not know how charities work? They have bureaucrats too, and they don't work for free." }, { "docid": "444365", "title": "", "text": "\"A direct gift to a person is never deductible. The kind relative was confusing this with a charitable gift. Which if to a qualified charity can be deducted as part of your itemized deductions. But there, the $14K doesn't enter the equation. But, if your wife is a dog lover, you can donate to the ASPCA, and give her a note saying \"\"in your honor I donated $14K to the ASPCA.\"\" That's a deduction.\"" }, { "docid": "57494", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, the decrease of home prices is very appealing, especially living in a high cost of living area. On the other hand, no tax right offs for charities does not seem like a good idea. If people are going to contribute less to charitable organizations, that will directly hurt the people they are trying to help such as the poor, homeless, and disadvantaged. And these aren't small donations like the average person. These are thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. I understand most of the money doesn't necessarily reach the ones they claim to help due to salaries, overhead, and marketing, but there are some good charities that try to give as much of the donated money to their cause. I just don't trust our local and state government to put the money into these kinds of programs." }, { "docid": "416378", "title": "", "text": "\"Can a company say \"\"StackExchange\"\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \"\"StackExchange\"\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \"\"StackExchange\"\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\"" }, { "docid": "92282", "title": "", "text": "[&amp;#9733;&amp;#9733;&amp;#9733; Register To Vote &amp;#9733;&amp;#9733;&amp;#9733;](https://myvote.wi.gov/en-us/registertovote) [**Randy Bryce**](https://randybryceforcongress.com/) is running against Paul Ryan. [Donate](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/randy-bryce-for-congress-1) | [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/RandyBryce) | [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/RandyBryce2018) | [Twitter](https://twitter.com/IronStache) Bryce supports universal health care, living wages, protecting Social Security and Medicare, affordable college, renewable energy, campaign finance reform, and DACA. [**Cathy Myers**](https://cathymyersforcongress.com/) is running against Paul Ryan. [Donate](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/cathy-for-congress-1?refcode=website) | [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/cathymyersforcongress/) [Map of Wisconsin District 1](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/WI/1) ^(I'm a bot and I'm learning. Let me know how I can do better. I'll add candidates who will represent working-class people instead of billionaire political donors.)" }, { "docid": "526459", "title": "", "text": "Because best buy doesn't hire hoards of extremely low wage workers. Pay starts at $9 for cashiers at my store and only goes up from there. Best buy also has a community service program that donates $1000 chunks to local charities/ schools a couple times a year." }, { "docid": "390614", "title": "", "text": "If they charge a fee to accept an item, it's reasonable to assume the item has insignificant value, so the only tax-deductible bit would be the money you donated to their charity. What you describe sounds like a fee for service, not a charitable donation. The organization should provide a fee breakdown to show what percentage (if any) of the fee is a deductible contribution. There could be some additional PA-only tax benefit, but I didn't come across anything in my brief search." } ]

[ { "docid": "558042", "title": "", "text": "Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data. They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead. Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified. If you scroll down, you'll see:" } ]

[ { "docid": "65835", "title": "", "text": "\"Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value. So each year, another .02N is removed. Assume the property value rises with inflation. Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N. After inflation return. Let's assume a 20% rate. And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation. Inflation is still taxable. Result Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase. Return after inflation. After-inflation return minus property taxes. Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry). Amount left. If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes. But with the property, that drops to .008N. Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k. So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year? If so, then no problem. If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house. On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N. You still need housing out of the .036N without the house. These formulas should be considered examples. I don't know how much your property taxes might be. Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes. Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation. You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return. But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is. If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly. The \"\"no house\"\" number becomes .024N. The \"\"with house\"\" number becomes So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed). There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the \"\"with house\"\" option. Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year. This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually. Lower property taxes would of course make this better. Higher property taxes would be even less feasible. When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home. If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested. You'll also have less tied up with property taxes. It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k. Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes. You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually. There are options with a house that you don't have without one.\"" }, { "docid": "82159", "title": "", "text": "When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that." }, { "docid": "589957", "title": "", "text": "In a situation like this, I presume you'd invest in the child company if you thought that the child company would increase in value at a higher rate than the parent. You'd invest in the parent company if you thought the parent company would perform well as a whole, but you did not want to assume the risk of an individual company underneath it. Say the child company is worth 100 million, and the parent company is worth 500 million. You've invested a sum of money in the child company. The child company performs very well, and increases in value by, say, 20 million. As the parent company owns the child, we could say it also increases in value by roughly 20 million. The difference is proportional - Your investment in the child sees a 20% gain in value, whereas your investment in the parent sees a 4% gain in total value, as in this example the parent company, which owns nearly 100% of the child company, is worth 5x more and thus proportionally sees 1/5 the increase in value, due to it being worth more as a whole. Think of it similarly to a mutual fund or ETF that invests in many different stocks on the market. As the market does well, that mutual fund or ETF does well, too. As the mutual fund is made up of many individual stocks, one stock performing very well, say at a 10-20% increase in value, does not raise the value of the ETF or mutual fund by 10-20%. The etf / mutual fund will perform slightly better (Assuming all other components remain equal for this example), but only proportionally to the fraction of it that's made up of the stock that's performing well." }, { "docid": "46967", "title": "", "text": "I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!" }, { "docid": "234640", "title": "", "text": "I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!" }, { "docid": "67472", "title": "", "text": "One reason it matters whether or not you're beating the S&P 500 (or the Wilshire 5000, or whatever benchmark you choose to use) is to determine whether or not you'd be better off investing in an index fund (or some other investment vehicle) instead of pursuing whatever your current investment strategy happens to be. Even if your investment strategy makes money, earning what the S&P 500 has averaged over multiple decades (around 10%) with an index fund means a lot more money than a 5% return with an actively managed portfolio (especially when you consider factors like compound interest and inflation). I use the S&P 500 as one of my criteria for judging how well (or poorly) my financial adviser is doing for me. If his recommendations (or trading activity on my behalf, if authorized) are inferior to the S&P 500, for too long, then I have a basis to discontinue the relationship. Check out this Wikipedia entry on stock market indices. There are legitimate criticisms, but on the whole I think they are useful. As an aside, the reason I point to index funds specifically is that they are the one of the lowest-cost, fire-and-forget investment strategies around. If you compare the return of the S&P 500 index over multiple decades with most actively managed mutual funds, the S&P 500 index comes out ahead." }, { "docid": "49168", "title": "", "text": "The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)" }, { "docid": "238360", "title": "", "text": "The investments offered in 401K are usually limited to a selection of mutual funds offered by a 401K provider. The 401K providers and the mutual funds charge fees. The mutual fund industry has a lobbying group that will push for increased 401K contributions to direct money into their mutual funds to collect fees. The top 401 K provider in 2005 was fidelity. It managed $337 billion in 401Ks of which $334 billion was directed into mutual funds. Although I would have to use some of the same providers to open an IRA, I would not have to invest in the providers' mutual funds when I open an IRA. I can buy a stock and hold onto it for 10, 20, 50 years inside of my IRA. Thus, the only fee the investment company would collect from me would be from when I purchased the stock and when I sold the stock. Not nearly as profitable as mutual fund fees." }, { "docid": "212540", "title": "", "text": "\"So, you have $100k to invest, want a low-maintenance investment, and personal finance bores you to death. Oooohhh, investment companies are gonna love you. You'll hand them a wad of cash, and more or less say \"\"do what you want.\"\" You're making someone's day. (Just probably not yours.) Mutual fund companies make money off of you regardless of whether you make money or not. They don't care one bit how carefully you look at your investments. As long as the money is in their hands, they get their fee. If I had that much cash, I'd be looking around for a couple of distressed homes in good neighborhoods to buy as rentals. I could put down payments on two of them, lock in fixed 30-year mortgages at 4% (do you realize how stupid low that is?) and plop tenants in there. Lots of tax write-offs, cash flow, the works. It's a 10% return if you learn about it and do it correctly. Or, there have been a number of really great websites that were sold on Flippa.com that ran into five figures. You could probably pay those back in a year. But that requires some knowledge, too. Anything worthwhile requires learning, maintenance and effort. You'll have to research stocks, mutual funds, bonds, anything, if you want a better than average chance of getting worthwhile returns (that is, something that beats inflation, which savings accounts and CDs are unlikely to do). There is no magic bullet. If someone does manage to find a magic bullet, what happens? Everyone piles on, drives the price up, and the return goes down. Your thing might not be real estate, but what is your thing? What excites you (i.e., doesn't bore you to death)? There are lots of investments out there, but you'll get out of it what you put into it.\"" }, { "docid": "422739", "title": "", "text": "A lot of people on here will likely disagree with me and this opinion. In my opinion the answer lies in your own motives and intentions. If you'd like to be more cognizant of the market, I'd just dive in and buy a few companies you like. Many people will say you shouldn't pick your own stocks, you should buy an index fund, or this ETF or this much bonds, etc. You already have retirement savings, capital allocation is important there. You're talking about an account total around 10% of your annual salary, and assuming you have sufficient liquid emergency funds; there's a lot of non-monetary benefit to being more aware of the economy and the stock market. But if you find the house you're going to buy, you may have to liquidate this account at a time that's not ideal, possibly at a loss. If all you're after is a greater return on your savings than the paltry 0.05% (or whatever) the big deposit banks are paying, then a high yield savings account is the way I'd go, or a CD ladder. Yes, the market generally goes up but it doesn't ALWAYS go up. Get your money somewhere that it's inured and you can be certain how much you'll have tomorrow. Assuming a gain, the gain you'll see will PALE in comparison to the deposits you'll make. Deposits grow accounts. Consider these scenarios if you allocate $1,000 per month to this account. 1) Assuming an investment return of 5% you're talking about $330 return in the first year (not counting commissions or possible losses). 2) Assuming a high yield savings account at 1.25% you're talking about $80 in the first year. Also remember, both of these amounts would be taxable. I'll admit in the event of 5% return you'll have about four times the gain but you're talking about a difference of ~$250 on $12,000. Over three to five years the most significant contributor to the account, by far, will be your deposits. Anyway, as I'm sure you know this is not investment advice and you may lose money etc." }, { "docid": "39115", "title": "", "text": "\"Do you recall where you read that 25% is considered very good? I graduated college in 1984 so that's when my own 'investing life' really began. Of the 29 years, 9 of them showed 25% to be not quite so good. 2013 32.42, 2009 27.11, 2003 28.72, 1998 28.73, 1997 33.67, 1995 38.02, 1991 30.95, 1989 32.00, 1985 32.24. Of course this is only in hindsight, and the returns I list are for the S&P index. Even with these great 9 years, the CAGR (compound annual growth) of the S&P from 1985 till the end of 2013 was 11.32% Most managed funds (i.e. mutual funds) do not match the S&P over time. Much has been written on how an individual investor's best approach is to simply find the lowest cost index and use a mix with bonds (government) to match their risk tolerance. \"\"my long term return is about S&P less .05%\"\" sounds like I'm announcing that I'm doing worse than average. Yes, and proud of it. Most investors (85-95% depending on survey) lag by far more than this, many percent in fact)\"" }, { "docid": "353337", "title": "", "text": "\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"" }, { "docid": "82627", "title": "", "text": "To get rich in a short time, it's more likely what you want to do is go into business. You could go into a non-investment business such as opening a restaurant or starting a tech company, of course. Warren Buffett was working in investing, which is quite a bit different than just buying stocks: The three ways to get rich investing I can think of are: I think the maximum real (after-inflation) return you can really count on over a lot of years is in the 5-6% range at most, maybe less. Here's a post where David Merkel argues 3-4% (assuming cash interest is close to zero real return): http://alephblog.com/2009/07/15/the-equity-premium-is-no-longer-a-puzzle/ At that rate you can double every 10-15 years. Any higher rate is probably risking much lower returns. I often post this argument against that on investment questions: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Agree with you that lots of people seem to think they can make up for not saving money by picking a winning investment. Lots of people also use the lottery as a retirement strategy. I'm not sure this is totally irrational, if for some reason someone just can't save. But I'm sure it will fail for almost all the people who try it." }, { "docid": "2809", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm in a similar situation. First, a 529 plan can be use for \"\"qualifying\"\" international schools. There are 336 for 2015, which includes many well known schools but also excludes many schools, especially lower level or vocational schools and schools in non-English speaking countries. I ran 3 scenarios to see what the impact would be if you invested $3000 a year for 14 years in something tracking the S&P 500 Index: For each of these scenarios, I considered 3 cases: a state with 0% income tax, a state with the median income tax rate of 6% for the 25% tax bracket, and California with an income tax rate of 9.3% for the 25% tax bracket. California has an addition 2.5% penalty on unqualified distributions. Additionally, tax deductions taken on contributions that are part of unqualified distributions will be viewed as income and that portion of the distribution will be taxed as such at the state level. Vanguard's 500 Index Portfolio has a 10 year average return of 7.63%. Vanguard's S&P 500 Index fund has a 10 year average return of 7.89% before tax and 7.53% after taxes on distributions. Use a 529 as intended: Use a 529 but do not use as intended: Invest in a S&P 500 Index fund in a taxable account: Given similar investment options, using a 529 fund for something other than education is much worse than having an investment in a mutual fund in a taxable account, but there's also a clear advantage to using a 529 if you know with certainty you can use it for qualified expenses. Both the benefits for correct use of a 529 and the penalties for incorrect use increase with state tax rates. I live in a state with no income tax so the taxable mutual fund option is closer to the middle between correct and incorrect use of a 529. I am leaning towards the investment in a taxable account.\"" }, { "docid": "537783", "title": "", "text": "This is a very good question! The biggest difference is that when you put money in a savings bank you are a lender that is protected by the government, and when you buy stocks you become an owner. As a lender, whether the bank makes or loses money on the loans it makes, they still maintain your balance and pay you interest, and your principal balance is guaranteed by the government (in the USA). The bank is the party that is primarily at risk if their business does not perform well. As an owner, you participate fully in the company's gains and losses, but you also put your money at risk, since if the company loses money, you do too. Because of this, many people prefer to buy funds made up of many stocks, so they are not at risk of one company performing very poorly or going bankrupt. When you buy stock you become a part owner and share in the profitability of the company, often through a dividend. You should also be aware that stocks often have years where they do very poorly as well as years when they do very well. However, over a long period of time (10 years or more), they have historically done better in outpacing inflation than any other type of investment. For this reason, I would recommend that you only invest in the stock market if you expect to be able to leave the money there for 10 years or more, ideally, and for 5 years at the very least. Otherwise, you may need to take the money out at a bad time. I would also recommend that you only invest in stocks if you already have an emergency fund, and don't have consumer debt. There isn't much point in putting your money at risk to get a return if you can get a risk-free return by paying off debt, or if you would have to pull your money back out if your car broke down or you lost your job." }, { "docid": "418551", "title": "", "text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"" }, { "docid": "88575", "title": "", "text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"" }, { "docid": "346474", "title": "", "text": "I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund." }, { "docid": "41675", "title": "", "text": "The Paragraph talks about dividends given by Mutual Funds. Say a fund has NAV of $ 10, as the value of the underlying security grows, the value of the fund would also grow, lets say it becomes $ 12 in 2 months. Now if the Mutual Fund decides to pay out a dividend of $ 1 to all unit holder, then post the distribution of dividend, the value of the Fund would become to $ 11. Thus if you are say investing on 1-April and know that dividends of $1 would be paid on 5-April [the divided distribution date is published typically weeks in advance], if you are hoping to make $1 in 5 days, that is not going to happen. On 6-April you would get $1, but the value of the fund would now be $11 from the earlier $12. This may not be wise as in some countries you would ending up paying tax on $1. Even in shares, the concept is similar, however the price may get corrected immediately and one may not actually see it going down by $1 due to market dynamics." } ]

[ { "docid": "136438", "title": "", "text": "Banks, the big ones, have shareholders and the board to answer to. Credit Unions have members and the board to answer to. You become a member by joining a CU. Banks' prime objective is profit maximization, a credit union's prime objective is members' welfare. Personal experience: I didn't mind that the banks charge fees, what was frustrating was keeping up with the policy changes. Have X amount to avoid Y fees. Once you fulfill that, do something else to avoid some other fees. You miss one notice and you'll pay dearly! This constant jumping of hoops was enough to switch. Not saying CUs don't change rules, but in my opinion, not as frequently as big banks. On fee, for instance, my overdraft with my CU is $5. With BofA it was something like $35 before regulations put a cap on such ridiculous fees." } ]

[ { "docid": "443134", "title": "", "text": "Go to your local bank or credit union before talking to a dealership. Ask them if putting both names on the loan makes a difference regarding rates and maximum loan you qualify for. Ask them to run the loan application both ways. Having both names on the loan helps build the credit of the spouse that has a lower score. You may find that both incomes are needed for a car loan if the couple has a mortgage or other joint obligations. The lender will treat the entire mortgage payment or rent payment as a liability against the person applying for the loan, they won't split the housing payment in half if only one name will be on the car loan. Therefore sometimes the 2nd persons income is needed even if their credit is not as good. That additional income without a significant increase in liabilities can make a huge difference regarding the loan they can qualify for. Once the car is in your possession, it doesn't matter who drives it. In general the insurance company will put both spouses as authorized drivers. Note: it is almost always better to ask your bank or credit union about a car loan before going to the dealership. That gives you a solid data point regarding a loan, and removes a major complexity to the negotiations at the dealership." }, { "docid": "475478", "title": "", "text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\"" }, { "docid": "359335", "title": "", "text": "The rates seem a little higher that those available at my credit union, but you seem to be able to borrow larger sums of money than many banks/credit unions will allow. Overall, it's a viable way to go." }, { "docid": "530175", "title": "", "text": "There are several ways to minimize the international wire transfer fees: Transfer less frequently and larger amounts. The fees are usually flat, so transferring larger amounts lowers the fee percentage. 3% is a lot. In big banks, receiving is usually ~$15. If you transfer $1000 at a time, its 1.5%, if you transfer $10000 - it's much less, accordingly. If you have the time - have them send you checks (in US dollars) instead of wire transferring. It will be on hold for some time (up to a couple of weeks maybe), but will be totally free for you. I know that many banks have either free send and/or receive. I know that ETrade provides this service for free. My credit union provides if for free based on the relationship level, I have a mortgage with them now, so I don't pay any fees at all, including for wire transfer. Consider other options, like Western Union. Those may cost more for the sender (not necessarily though), but will be free for the receiver. You can get the money in cash, or checks, which you can just deposit on your regular bank account. For smaller amounts, it should be much cheaper than wire transfer, for example - sending $500 to India costs $10, while wire transfer is $30." }, { "docid": "172722", "title": "", "text": "If you are going to live in the house for awhile, you can probably use a regular mortgage. Shop around and look for a mortgage program that works. Look at local banks/credit unions, particularly those with community development programs. Usually an investment mortgage is higher rate, higher payment and has higher underwriting standards." }, { "docid": "256803", "title": "", "text": "Never buy a new car if cost is an issue. A big chunk of the price will disappear to depreciation as you drive it off the lot. If you want a shiny new car with the latest equipment (and if you can afford it!), buy a lightly-used car. Normally I would recommend a 1-3 year old car. 95% of the value, with a big cost savings. But this depends on your financial situation. Given that you just need a commuter car for mostly highway driving, in a place where the weather is easier on cars, you could be fine with a 5-6 year old import. Camry's, Accords, Civics, etc are all well-built, reliable, and affordable due to their numbers. As for financing, shop around. Don't blindly use dealer financing. Check with banks and especially local credit unions and see what rate they can offer you. Then, when you are ready to go, get pre-approved (this is when they pull your credit) and get the car." }, { "docid": "205196", "title": "", "text": "My son who is now 21 has never needed me to cosign on a loan for him and I did not need to establish any sort of credit rating for him to establish his own credit. One thing I would suggest is ditch the bank and use a credit union. I have used one for many years and opened an account there for my son as soon as he got his first job. He was able to get a debit card to start which doesn't build credit score but establishes his account work the credit union. He was able to get his first credit card through the same credit union without falling work the bureaucratic BS that comes with dealing with a large bank. His interest rate may be a bit higher due to his lack of credit score initially but because we taught him about finance it isn't really relevant because he doesn't carry a balance. He has also been able to get a student loan without needing a cosigner so he can attend college. The idea that one needs to have a credit score established before being an adult is a fallacy. Like my son, I started my credit on my own and have never needed a cosigner whether it was my first credit card at 17 (the credit union probably shouldn't have done that since i wasn't old enough to be legally bound), my first car at 18 or my first home at 22. For both my son and I, knowing how to use credit responsibly was far more valuable than having a credit score early. Before your children are 18 opening credit accounts with them as the primary account holder can be problematic because they aren't old enough to be legally liable for the debt. Using them as a cosigner is even more problematic for the same reason. Each financial institution will have their own rules and I certainly don't know them all. For what you are proposing I would suggest a small line of credit with a credit union. Being small and locally controlled you will probably find that you have the best luck there." }, { "docid": "42611", "title": "", "text": "Check with your bank. As of January, 2015, the following banks and credit unions are offering free credit-scores: Announced, in the pipeline: Source: Banks to offer FICO credit scores for free Personal Experience: I've been receiving free FICO score from my credit union for more than 6 months now. Advice: Most people have multiple bank/credit-union accounts. The FICO score will be the same whoever offers it. If none of your financial institutions offer you a free credit-score then you may opt for free services like creditkarma.com or other paid services. Please note that a credit-score is number summarizing your credit-report and should not be confused. In the news:" }, { "docid": "12391", "title": "", "text": "\"Accept that the money's gone. It could, as others have mentioned, been a lot more. Learn. Make sure your son (and you!) have learned the lesson (at least try to get something out of the $650). The world isn't always a nice place unfortunately. Don't wire money to strangers - use an escrow service or paypal or similar. As the saying goes: \"\"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me\"\". Report it to the authorities. Does have the advantage of the domestic rather than foreign bank account used. The scammer might have closed it by now, but there should be some paper tail. I imagine the id required for opening a bank account in the US is as strict as it is most places these days. They may have used fake Id, but that's not your problem. Assuming contact was made over the internet, bearing in mind IANAL (or American), this could be a crime of Wire Fraud, in which case I believe it's a case for the FBI rather than your local police. The phone calls your son is still receiving could also be construed as attempted extortion and if across state lines could also come under federal jurisdiction. The FBI have a better chance of catching such a scammer, generally having more chance of knowing one end of a computer from the other compared to a local beat cop. If other victims have also contacted the authorities, it will probably be taken more seriously. Give as much information as you can. Not just the bank account details, but all communication, exact time of phone calls, etc. The cops may say there's nothing they can do as it's a civil matter (breach of contract) rather than a criminal one. In which case you have the (probably expensive) option of going the civil route as described by Harper above. Inform Others. Assuming initial contact with the scammer was made through a website or forum or similar. I imagine this must be a niche area for hand made toys. Post your experience to warn other potential victims. Inform the site owner - they may ban the scammers account where applicable. Stop the calls. Block the number. If the number's being withheld, contact the provider - they should have a policy regarding harassment and be able to block it their end. If the calls keep coming, your son will need to change his number. Don’t let it get to you. You may have warm cosy fantasies of removing the guys kneecaps with a 2x4. Don't however dwell on the b*stard for too long and let it get under your skin. You will have to let it go.\"" }, { "docid": "309077", "title": "", "text": "Yes, banks still offer combo loans, but it is going to depend on the appraised value of your home. Typically lenders will allow you to finance up to 80% loan to value on the first mortgage (conforming loan amount) and 95% combined loan to value on a HELOC. I would start by checking with your local credit union or bank branch. They have more competitive rates and can be more flexible with loan amount and appraised value guidelines." }, { "docid": "14731", "title": "", "text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)" }, { "docid": "132693", "title": "", "text": "First, you'll need to find a service that can handle transferring that amount of money, whether it's using a bank, or wire transferring service. Any major Wall Street bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) should be able to handle it. You could also use services such as Western Union. As for your legal and tax obligations, according to Western Union: Individuals in Canada and the U.K. don’t have any tax considerations, unless international payments are received as income or in the form of capital gains. Only then must they report it on their income taxes, says Ilyas Patel, director at Ilyas Patel Chartered Certified Accountants based in Preston, U.K., and the director of Tax Expert, a tax advice website. To that end, when considering their tax obligations, individuals should take care to look into the reporting requirements on foreign income or gifts ranging up to a certain amount. For example, in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires individuals who receive more than $100,000 U.S. dollars from a foreign source to report it on a Form 3520. “You may not owe taxes on the money, but it informs the IRS that you received it,” Gragg says, stressing the importance of consulting with a professional. “They’re looking for certain terrorist activities and other illegal activity.” Due to the large sum of money your transferring, it would be in your best interest to speak with a banker (maybe even a lawyer or CPA) about this." }, { "docid": "593554", "title": "", "text": "The slips from your bank for your HSA account are for an account already established and thus the bank is willing to accept your deposits even if they arrive at the bank after the April 15 deadline, as long as the postmark is April 15 or earlier. The account exists in the bank, they know who you are, and that the payment is received after April 15 is just due to the normal (or even abnormal) delays in postal delivery. For the new account that you tried to establish (with appropriate notarization and timely postmark etc), the credit union could not have received the paperwork as of the close of business on April 15 (except in the very unlikely circumstance that a local letter deposited in the mailbox in the morning gets delivered the same day by USPS: don't extrapolate from stories of how mail was delivered in London in Victorian times). Ergo, you did not have an HSA account in the credit union as of April 15, and they are perfectly correct in refusing to open an account with a April 15 date and put money into it for the previous tax year. To answer the question asked: Are they allowed to ignore the postmark date? Yes, not only are they allowed to ignore the postmark date, the IRS insists that they ignore the postmark date. The credit union prefers to report only the truth: as of April 15, you had not established an HSA account as of April 15; to say otherwise would be making a false statement to the IRS." }, { "docid": "566234", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking personal loans have higher rates than car loans. During fairly recent times, the market for car loans has become very competitive. A local credit union offers loans as low as 1.99% which is about half the prevailing mortgage rate. In comparison personal loans are typically in the 10-14% range. Even if it made mathematical sense to do so, I doubt any bank would give you a personal loan secured by a car rather than car loan. Either the brain would not work that way; or, it would simply be against company policy. These questions always interest me, why the desire to maximize credit score? There is no correlation between credit score and wealth. There is no reward for anything beyond a sufficiently high score to obtain the lowest rates which is attained by simply paying one's bills on time. One will always be limited by income when the amount able to borrow is calculated regardless of score. I can understand wanting to maximize different aspects of personal finance such as income or investment return percentage, etc.. By why credit score? This is further complicated by a evolving algorithm. Attempts to game the score today, may not work in the future." }, { "docid": "580935", "title": "", "text": "Online banks are the future. As long as you don't need a clerk to talk to (and why would you need?) there's nothing you can't do with an online bank that you can with a brick and mortar robbers. I use E*Trade trading account as a checking account (it allows writing paper checks, debit card transactions, ACH in/out, free ATM, etc). If you don't need paper checks that often you can use ING or something similar. You can always go to a local credit union, but those will wave the fee in exchange for direct deposit or high balance, and that you can also get from the large banks as well, so no much difference there. Oh where where did Washington Mutual go...." }, { "docid": "406219", "title": "", "text": "I would suggest your local credit union or local bank for security and liquidity. Liquidity is probably the most important issue for a emergency fund." }, { "docid": "1897", "title": "", "text": "Wire transfers normally run through either the Fedwire system or the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The process generally works like this: You approach a bank or other financial institution and ask to transfer money. You give the bank a certain code, either an international bank account number or one of several other standards, which informs the bank where to send the money. The bank sends a message through a system like Fedwire to the receiving bank, along with settlement instructions. This is where the process can get a bit tricky. For the wire transfer to work, the banks must have reciprocal accounts with each other, or the sending bank must send the money to a bank that does have such an account with the receiver. If the sending bank sends the money to a third-party bank, the transaction is settled between them, and the money is then sent to the receiving bank from the third-party bank. This last transaction may be a wire transfer, ACH transfer, etc. The Federal Reserve fits into this because many banks hold accounts for this purpose with the Federal Reserve. This allows them to use the Fed as the third-party bank referred to above. Interestingly enough, this is one of the significant ways in which the Fed makes a profit, because it, along with every other bank and routing agent in the process, collects a miniscule fee on this process. You'll often find sources that state that Fedwire is only for transferring large transactions; while this is technically correct, it's important to understand that financial institutions don't settle every wire transfer or payment immediately. Although the orders are put in immediately, the financial institutions settle their transactions in bulk at the end of the business day, and even then they normally only settle the difference. So, if Chase owes Bank of America $1M, and Bank of America owes Chase $750K, they don't send these as two transactions; Chase simply credits BAC $250K. You didn't specifically ask about ACH transfers, which as littleadv pointed out, are different from wire transfers, but since ACH transfers can often form a part of the whole process, I'll explain that process too. ACH is a payment processing system that works through the Federal Reserve system, among others. The Federal Reserve (through the Fedline and FedACH systems) is by far the largest payment processor. The physical cash itself isn't transferred; in simple terms, the money is transferred through the ACH system between the accounts each bank maintains at the Federal Reserve. Here is a simple example of how the process works (I'm summarizing the example from Wikipedia). Let's say that Bob has an account with Chase and wants to get his paycheck from his employer, Stack Exchange, directly deposited into this account. Assume that Stack Exchange uses Bank of America as their bank. Bob, the receiver, fills out a direct deposit authorization form and gives it to his employer, called the originator. Once the originator has the authorization, they create an entry with an Originating Depository Financial Institution, which acts as a middleman between a payment processor (like the Federal Reserve) and the originator. The ODFI ensures that the transaction complies with the relevant regulations. In this example, Bank of America is the ODFI. Bank of America (the ODFI) converts the transaction request into an ACH entry and submits it, through an ACH operator, to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI), which in this case is Chase bank. Chase credits (deposits) the paycheck in Bob's account. The Federal Reserve fits into all of this in several ways. Through systems like Fedline and FedACH, the Fed acts as an ACH operator, and the banks themselves also maintain accounts at the Federal Reserve, so it's the institution that actually performs the settling of accounts between banks." }, { "docid": "564709", "title": "", "text": "Politicians are for sale and regulations are useless when they are not enforced.  Community banks and credit unions have to comply or get hammered by the state and federal governments.  The mega banks soldier on under an utterly feckless and corrupt congress.  People should never pay fees or credit card interest, pay off their loans, and get out from under banker's thumbs.  They are giant impoverishing machines." }, { "docid": "268034", "title": "", "text": "Some options: See if the seller will sell to you on Contract. With a significant down payment the seller may be willing to sell you the condo on contract. This fill in the year or so you will probably need to go from contractor to full time employee with enough time on the job to get a mortgage. Keep Shopping. Be up front with the lenders with the problems you are running into and see if any of them can find you a solution. You may need to take a higher rate in the short term but hopefully you can refinance in a few years to a more reasonable rate. Check with a local bank or credit union. Many times local banks or CU's will finance high demand properties that may be out of favor with the super banks that have no ties to your community. These banks sometimes realize that just because the standard spreadsheet says this is a bad risk the reality is the specific property you are interested in is not the risk that it appears on paper. You will have to find a bank that actually retains its mortgages as many local banks have become agents that just sell mortgages to the mortgage market. Talk to a Realtor. If you are not using one now it may be time to engage one. They can help you navigate these bumps and steer you towards lenders that are more amenable to the loan you need." } ]

[ { "docid": "363678", "title": "", "text": "Don't switch just because you hear people panicking on the talk shows. Banks are competitive business and won't start charging for using debit cards too fast. If and when they decide to do such a thing after all - then start shopping and see who doesn't catch up with the fees and still provides the services you want for the price you're willing to pay." } ]

[ { "docid": "484313", "title": "", "text": "Why don't people switch banks? It's honestly not that hard. Once I switched to a local credit union, I'll never use a big bank again. The service is amazing and there are pretty much no fees for anything." }, { "docid": "15070", "title": "", "text": "After collecting information via web searching, the comments above, and a additional call to BOA, i have concluded the following to the best of my knowledge. Zelle Transfers are final. Irreversible. As Jay mentioned above, funds are subtracted from the sending account before the transfer is made, therefore it eliminates sending funds that do not exist. I validated this information with BOA, and the BOA representative said that once a zelle transfer is initiated and the receiving party has received the funds, it can no longer be canceled. Funds received by the receiving party is credited immediately. I will note that the BOA representative was a BOA representative and not a Zelle representative. I say this because the representatives seemed to be slightly weary in answering my questions about Zelle, as if he was looking up the information as we spoke. If someone is reading this and plans to transfer huge amount of cash from a highly likely malicious user, i would recommend contacting Zelle or your personal bank directly to further validate this information. Zelle, from what i can find, is a fairly new technology. I could not find a Zelle contact number via the web for questioning, so i can only rely on the knowledge on my BOA representative." }, { "docid": "475478", "title": "", "text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\"" }, { "docid": "268034", "title": "", "text": "Some options: See if the seller will sell to you on Contract. With a significant down payment the seller may be willing to sell you the condo on contract. This fill in the year or so you will probably need to go from contractor to full time employee with enough time on the job to get a mortgage. Keep Shopping. Be up front with the lenders with the problems you are running into and see if any of them can find you a solution. You may need to take a higher rate in the short term but hopefully you can refinance in a few years to a more reasonable rate. Check with a local bank or credit union. Many times local banks or CU's will finance high demand properties that may be out of favor with the super banks that have no ties to your community. These banks sometimes realize that just because the standard spreadsheet says this is a bad risk the reality is the specific property you are interested in is not the risk that it appears on paper. You will have to find a bank that actually retains its mortgages as many local banks have become agents that just sell mortgages to the mortgage market. Talk to a Realtor. If you are not using one now it may be time to engage one. They can help you navigate these bumps and steer you towards lenders that are more amenable to the loan you need." }, { "docid": "14731", "title": "", "text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)" }, { "docid": "443134", "title": "", "text": "Go to your local bank or credit union before talking to a dealership. Ask them if putting both names on the loan makes a difference regarding rates and maximum loan you qualify for. Ask them to run the loan application both ways. Having both names on the loan helps build the credit of the spouse that has a lower score. You may find that both incomes are needed for a car loan if the couple has a mortgage or other joint obligations. The lender will treat the entire mortgage payment or rent payment as a liability against the person applying for the loan, they won't split the housing payment in half if only one name will be on the car loan. Therefore sometimes the 2nd persons income is needed even if their credit is not as good. That additional income without a significant increase in liabilities can make a huge difference regarding the loan they can qualify for. Once the car is in your possession, it doesn't matter who drives it. In general the insurance company will put both spouses as authorized drivers. Note: it is almost always better to ask your bank or credit union about a car loan before going to the dealership. That gives you a solid data point regarding a loan, and removes a major complexity to the negotiations at the dealership." }, { "docid": "580935", "title": "", "text": "Online banks are the future. As long as you don't need a clerk to talk to (and why would you need?) there's nothing you can't do with an online bank that you can with a brick and mortar robbers. I use E*Trade trading account as a checking account (it allows writing paper checks, debit card transactions, ACH in/out, free ATM, etc). If you don't need paper checks that often you can use ING or something similar. You can always go to a local credit union, but those will wave the fee in exchange for direct deposit or high balance, and that you can also get from the large banks as well, so no much difference there. Oh where where did Washington Mutual go...." }, { "docid": "530175", "title": "", "text": "There are several ways to minimize the international wire transfer fees: Transfer less frequently and larger amounts. The fees are usually flat, so transferring larger amounts lowers the fee percentage. 3% is a lot. In big banks, receiving is usually ~$15. If you transfer $1000 at a time, its 1.5%, if you transfer $10000 - it's much less, accordingly. If you have the time - have them send you checks (in US dollars) instead of wire transferring. It will be on hold for some time (up to a couple of weeks maybe), but will be totally free for you. I know that many banks have either free send and/or receive. I know that ETrade provides this service for free. My credit union provides if for free based on the relationship level, I have a mortgage with them now, so I don't pay any fees at all, including for wire transfer. Consider other options, like Western Union. Those may cost more for the sender (not necessarily though), but will be free for the receiver. You can get the money in cash, or checks, which you can just deposit on your regular bank account. For smaller amounts, it should be much cheaper than wire transfer, for example - sending $500 to India costs $10, while wire transfer is $30." }, { "docid": "532804", "title": "", "text": "Some credit unions also offer them and support Business banking as well. First Tech Credit Union is a great example. They also have the most security-oriented banking website I've seen to date. https://www.firsttechfed.com/ As a side note I've found that Credit Unions are a MUCH better deal for personal and business banking." }, { "docid": "24344", "title": "", "text": "\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\"" }, { "docid": "359335", "title": "", "text": "The rates seem a little higher that those available at my credit union, but you seem to be able to borrow larger sums of money than many banks/credit unions will allow. Overall, it's a viable way to go." }, { "docid": "271459", "title": "", "text": "\"Why isn't the above the business model of a loan? It is the model of some types of loans. It's called a \"\"Line of credit\"\" (LOC). I have two them, one for my business, and one for me personally. (Why does this question exist:) Is it an 30-year loan or a 10-year loan? As you mentioned, the concept of term doesn't exist for these types of loans. As long as I pay the interest and don't go over the max of my credit limit, I could keep the money indefinitely. Due to this, lines of credit almost always have a variable interest rate. (In the US they are tied to the Prime rate.) (Why does this question exist:) If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or toward the principal? Again, this concept also doesn't exist with a LOC. There is a minimum payment that you must make each month, but there is nothing that prevents you from making the minimum payment and then immediately taking the exact payment you made back out again. Of course this increases the total you owe, and eventually you would hit your maximum credit limit and would no longer be able to take the full payment back out. Years ago I maxed out my business line and didn't have enough money to make the payment so my bank was nice enough to raise my limit for me (so I could take enough out to make the payment), but if I did that multiple times I'm sure they would have eventually said no. Fortunately my clients finally paid me and I paid off the line, but I still keep the LOC today even though I rarely use it. By the way, beyond traditional LOCs, they also exist in other forms, both secured and unsecured. A common secured product in the US is a 2nd lien holder to a home (the first being the mortgage), called a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit). Many banks also offer unsecured LOCs on a checking account which they sometimes call \"\"overdraft protection\"\". Update: based on a comment to this answer, I now realize that the full question now becomes something similar to: Given that the Line of Credit loan model exists, why aren't all loans like this? or, refining it further: What advantages do other loan types have over the Line of Credit model, specifically finite term loans? A main advantage of a term loan over a line of credit is that the bank knows when they will get the money back. If every loan a bank made was a LOC product, and no one ever paid it back, then they'd eventually run out of money. That's obviously an oversimplification but the principle (pun intended) holds. To prevent this the bank would have to call due the loan, and doing this usually leaves customers angry. Years ago I had a business LOC with a bank that discontinued their business LOC product, and called every customer's loan due. I had a balance and they offered to convert it to a 5 year term loan, which I did, but I was so mad at them that I switched banks and paid off the term loan shortly after. Another advantage of a term loan is it forces the customer to be a little more responsible. Lines of credit can be dangerous for those that misuse it because if the amount owed is driven up due to bad behavior, there is nothing to force the bad behavior to stop. A perfect example of this can be found with governments. Some governments borrow money until their line of credit is used up, and then they just keep increasing their credit limit. There is no incentive for the officials in charge of the government to stop doing this because it isn't even their money. If those lines of credits were converted to term loans, the government would be forced to increase revenue and/or decrease expenses, which is the only way to get out of debt. Some other advantages of term loans over a LOC:\"" }, { "docid": "42611", "title": "", "text": "Check with your bank. As of January, 2015, the following banks and credit unions are offering free credit-scores: Announced, in the pipeline: Source: Banks to offer FICO credit scores for free Personal Experience: I've been receiving free FICO score from my credit union for more than 6 months now. Advice: Most people have multiple bank/credit-union accounts. The FICO score will be the same whoever offers it. If none of your financial institutions offer you a free credit-score then you may opt for free services like creditkarma.com or other paid services. Please note that a credit-score is number summarizing your credit-report and should not be confused. In the news:" }, { "docid": "225452", "title": "", "text": "A counterpoint to that is that a money / finance system depends on a significant degree of trust that this paper is worth something, that banks will return your deposits when you collect them etc. This is an area where developed countries have an advantage over 3rd world countries - it is hard to start a business when you are scared that the local police chief will just come a long and steal your assets." }, { "docid": "330229", "title": "", "text": "\"I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment. I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation. When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you. But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank. The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front. The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a \"\"95% Loan-to-Value ratio\"\" is 2.75%. Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling. Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP? There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy. I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada. Read here, here, and here.\"" }, { "docid": "39495", "title": "", "text": "Ben already covered most of this in his answer, but I want to emphasize the most important part of getting a loan with limited credit history. Go into a credit union or community bank and talk to the loan officer there in person. Ask for recommendations on how much they would lend based on your income to get the best interest rate that they can offer. Sometimes shortening the length of the loan will get you a lower rate, sometimes it won't. (In any case, make sure you can pay it off quickly no matter the term that you sign with.) Each bank may have different policies. Talk to at least two of them even if the first one offers you terms that you like. Talking to a loan officer is valuable life experience, and if you discuss your goals directly with them, then they will be able to give you feedback about whether they think a small loan is worth their time." }, { "docid": "593554", "title": "", "text": "The slips from your bank for your HSA account are for an account already established and thus the bank is willing to accept your deposits even if they arrive at the bank after the April 15 deadline, as long as the postmark is April 15 or earlier. The account exists in the bank, they know who you are, and that the payment is received after April 15 is just due to the normal (or even abnormal) delays in postal delivery. For the new account that you tried to establish (with appropriate notarization and timely postmark etc), the credit union could not have received the paperwork as of the close of business on April 15 (except in the very unlikely circumstance that a local letter deposited in the mailbox in the morning gets delivered the same day by USPS: don't extrapolate from stories of how mail was delivered in London in Victorian times). Ergo, you did not have an HSA account in the credit union as of April 15, and they are perfectly correct in refusing to open an account with a April 15 date and put money into it for the previous tax year. To answer the question asked: Are they allowed to ignore the postmark date? Yes, not only are they allowed to ignore the postmark date, the IRS insists that they ignore the postmark date. The credit union prefers to report only the truth: as of April 15, you had not established an HSA account as of April 15; to say otherwise would be making a false statement to the IRS." }, { "docid": "550924", "title": "", "text": "Ya small local banks effectively do not exist in Canada. We do however have a number of credit unions. I'm actually going to be defensive of the big five as they are actually well run (or rather well regulated). Our banking context is in many ways radically different up north." }, { "docid": "141189", "title": "", "text": "The key here is the bank, they hold the title to the car and as such have the final say in things. The best thing you can do is to pay off the loan. Could you work like crazy and pay off the car in 6 months to a year? The next best thing would be to sell the car. You will probably have to cover the depreciation out of pocket. You will also need to have some cash to buy a different car, but buy it for cash like you should have done in the first place. The worst option and what most people opt for, which is why they are broke, is to seek to refinance the car. I am not sure why you would have to wait 6 months to a year to refinance, but unless you have truly horrific credit, a local bank or credit union will be happy for your business. Choose this option if you want to continue to be broke for the next five years or so. Once any of those happen it will be easy to re-title the car in your name only provided you are on good terms with the girlfriend. It is just a matter of going to the local title office and her signing over her interest in the car. My hope is that you understand the series of foolish decisions that you made in this vehicle purchase and avoid them in the future. Or, at the very least, you consciously make the decision to appear wealthy rather than actually being wealthy." } ]

[ { "docid": "30253", "title": "", "text": "Fees mostly. BOA, for example, just announced $5/month for for all debit cards. Chase has foreign transaction fees, mostly hidden. BOA once famously raised interest rates on credit card holders to 28%, legally. Also, some people do not like patronizing a bank with CEOs that bankrupt the company and then get multi-million dollar golden parachutes. Finally some people have a problem with banks or institutions that suspend accounts based on political or unproven legal proceedings (ala Wikileaks and BOA). Credit unions are less like to be involved in this sort of activity since they are not privately traded, and as such they are not ruled by shareholders who demand bottom line results at all costs." } ]

[ { "docid": "291486", "title": "", "text": "Regular wire transfer from bank to bank would be the easiest, safest, and likely the cheapest (next to carrying cash over the border) method. Get the SWIFT info from the US bank you want the many land in (I believe all of the ones you mentioned support SWIFT wire transfers), and give it to your family in China. They'll have to find a local bank that supports SWIFT out-going transfers (might not be as easy as in the US) and send it out from there. Other, more expensive, options would be Western Union/MoneyGram. Or carrying cash over the border, which in these amounts can trigger some questioning from the authorities." }, { "docid": "462036", "title": "", "text": "\"This may be a bit advanced now, but once you start really working and get a place, I think this will apply more... Do I set up a bank account now? Yes. There is no reason not to. As an adult you will be using this much more than you think. Assuming you have a little money, you can walk in to any bank almost any day of the week and set up an account with them in very little time. Note that they may require you to be 18 if your parents won't be with you on the account. Otherwise, just ask any bank representative to help you do this. Just to be clear, if you can get a credit union account over a typical bank account, this is a great idea. Credit unions provide exactly the same financial services as a normal bank, but typically have variety of advantages over banks. Bank Account Parts Bank accounts typically have two parts, a checking account and a savings account. Your checking account typically is what you use for most day-to-day transactions and your savings account is generally used for, well, saving money. Having a bank account often gives you the following advantages: They give you an ability to store money without having large amounts of cash on hand. Once you start working regularly, you'll find you won't want to keep ~$600+ cash every two weeks in your wallet or apartment. They help you pay bills. When you set up your bank account, you will likely be able to get a Visa debit card which will process like a regular credit card but simply deduct funds from your checking account. You can use this card online to pay utilities (i.e. electricity and water), general bills (e.g. your cell phone and cable), purchase items (ex. at Amazon) or use it in stores to pay in lieu of cash. Be aware -- some banks will give you an ATM-only card before they send you the Visa debit card in the mail. This ATM-only card can only be used at ATMs as it's name implies. Similarly, if you can invest about ~$200 to build your credit, you can often get a deposit secured credit card attached to your account (basically a credit card where the bank keeps your money in case you can't pay your bill). If you treat this card with responsibility, you can eventually transition to an unsecured credit card. They save you hassles when cashing your check. If you don't have a bank where you can cash your check (e.g. you don't have an account), you will likely be charged check cashing fees (usually by places such as grocery stores or payday loan chains, or even other banks). Furthermore, if your check is over a certain amount, some places may refuse to cash your check period and a bank may be your only option. They give you a way to receive money electronically. The most common example of this is direct deposit. Many employers will send your money directly to your bank account instead of requiring you to cash a check. If they are prompt, this money gets to you faster and saves you trouble (on payday, you'll just receive a pay stub detailing your wages and the amount deposited rather than a check). Also, since you asked about taxes, you should know that when you do eventually file with the IRS, they have an option to receive your tax refund electronically as well (e.g. direct deposit into your bank account) and that can literally save you months in some cases depending on when you file your return and how many paper checks they have to process. Does it cost money to setup? It depends. Some banks have special offers, some don't. Most places will set up an account for free, but may require a minimum deposit to open the account (typically $50-$100). The Visa debit card mentioned above generally comes free. If you want a secured credit card as above, you will want about an additional $200 (so $250 - $300 total). Note that this is absolutely NOT required. You can exclusively use the Visa debit card above if you wish. Bank Account Fees Any fees charged when you have a bank account are usually minor anymore. Regardless, the bank will hand you a whole bunch of paperwork (mostly in legalese) detailing exactly how your account works. That said, the bank person helping set things up will cover what you need to know about keeping the account in plain English. The most common types of fee associated with a bank account are monthly maintenance fees and overdraft fees, but these aren't always necessarily charged. Likewise, there may be some other fees associated with the account but these vary from bank to bank. Monthly Maintenance Fees To give some examples... Overdraft Fees Overdraft fees are typically charged when you attempt to spend more money than you have in your bank account and the bank has to cover these charges. Overdraft fees typically apply to using paper checks (which it is unlikely you will be using), but not always. That said, it is very unlikely you will be charged overdraft fees for three reasons: Many banks have done away with these fees in lieu of other ways of generating revenue. Banks that still charge these fees usually have \"\"overdraft protection\"\" options for a little more money a month, effectively negating the possibility you will be charged these fees. The ability to deduct an amount of money from your checking account is now typically checked electronically before the payment is authorized. That is, using a Visa debit card, the card balance is checked immediately, and even when using paper check, most retailers have check scanning machines that do roughly the same thing. On a personal note, the bank that I have allows my account to be deducted below my checking account balance only if the payment is requested electronically (e.g. someone who has my card information charges me for a monthly service). In this case, the funds are simply listed in the negative and deducted from any amount I deposit till the proper amount is repaid (e.g. if I'm at -$25 dollars due to a charge when my account balance was $0 and then I deposit $100, my available balance will then be $75, not $100). Finally, per the comment by @Thebluefish, while I minimize the likelihood you will be charged overdraft fees, it is good to check into the exact circumstances under which you might be charged unexpectedly by your bank. Read the documentation they give you carefully, including any mailed updates, and you'll reduce the chance of receiving a nasty surprise. For reference, here are some of the fees charged by Bank of America. What about taxes? When you begin working, an employer will usually have you fill out a tax form such as a W-4 Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate so that your employer can withhold the correct federal income tax from your wages. If they don't, then it is your responsibility to calculate and file your own income taxes (if you are self-employed, an independent contractor or paid under the table). If your employer is reputable, they will send you additional information (generally in February) you need to properly file your taxes prior to April 15th (the IRS tax deadline for most people). This additional information will likely be some variation of a W-2 Wage and Tax Statement or possibly a Form 1099-MISC. Do I have to worry about money in my bank account? Unless you have a significant amount in your bank savings account earning interest (see \"\"Should I save for the future?\"\" below), you won't have to pay any sort of tax on money in your bank account. If you do earn enough taxable interest, the bank will send you the proper forms to file your taxes. How do I file taxes? While it won't apply till next year, you will likely be able to fill out a Form 1040EZ Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents, as long as you don't have any kids in the meantime. ;-) You will either mail in the paper form (available at your local IRS office, post office, public library, etc.) or file electronically. There will be a lot of information on how to do this when the time comes, so don't worry about details just yet. Assuming your all paid up on your taxes (very likely unless you get a good paying job and take a lot of deductions throughout the year on your W-4), you'll probably get money back from the IRS when you file your tax return. As I mentioned above, if you have a bank account, you can opt to have your refund money returned electronically and get it much sooner than if you didn't have a bank account (again, possibly saving you literal months of waiting). Should I save for my future? If so, how much? Any good articles? Yes, you should save for the future, and start as soon as possible. It's outside the scope of this answer, but listen to your Economics professor talk about compound interest. In short, the later you start saving, the less money you have when you retire. Not that it makes much difference now, but you have to think that over 45 years of working (age 20-65), you likely have to have enough money for another 20+ years of not working (65-85+). So if you want $25,000 a year for retirement, you need to make ~$50,000 - $75,000 a year between your job and any financial instruments you have (savings account, stocks, bonds, CDs, mutual funds, IRAs, job retirement benefits, etc.) Where you should stick money your money is a complicated question which you can investigate at length as you get older. Personally, though, I would recommend some combination of IRA (Individual Retirement Account), long term mutual funds, and some sort of savings bonds. There is a metric ton of information regarding financial planning, but you can always read something like Investing For Dummies or you can try the Motley Fool's How To Invest (online and highly recommended). But I'm Only 17... So what should you do now? Budget. Sounds dumb, but just look at your basic expenses and total them all up (rent, utilities, phone, cable, food, gas, other costs) and divide by two. Out of each paycheck, this is how much money you need to save not to go into debt. Try to save a little each month. $50 - $100 a month is a good starting amount if you can swing it. You can always try to save more later. Invest early. You may not get great returns, but you don't need much money to start investing. Often you can get started with as little as $20 - $100. You'll have to do research but it is possible. Put money in your savings account. Checking accounts do not typically earn interest but money in savings accounts often do (that is, the bank will actually add money to your savings assuming you leave it in there long enough). Unfortunately, this rate of interest is only about 3.5% on average, which for most people means they don't get rich off it. You have to have a significant amount of money ($5,000+) to see even modest improvements in your savings account balance each month. But still, you may eventually get there. Get into the habit of putting money places that make you money in the long run. Don't go into debt. Don't get payday loans, pawn items, or abuse credit cards. Besides wrecking your credit, even a small amount of debt ($500+) can be very hard to break out of if you don't have a great paying job and can even make you homeless (no rent means no apartment). Remember, be financially responsible -- but assuming your parents aren't totally tight with money, don't be afraid to ask for cash when you really need it. This is a much better option than borrowing from some place that charges outrageous interest or making your payments late. Have an emergency account. As already mentioned in another excellent answer, you need to have money to \"\"smooth things out\"\" when you encounter unexpected events (your employer has trouble with your check, you have to pay for some sort of repair bill, you use more gas in your car in a month than normal, etc.) Anywhere from $200 - $2000+ should do it, but ideally you should have at least enough to cover a month of basic expenses. Build good credit. Avoid the temptation to get a lot of credit cards, even if stores and banks are dying to give them to you. You really only need one to build good credit (preferably a secured one from your bank, as mentioned above). Never charge more than you can pay off in a single month. Charging, then paying that amount off before the due date on your next statement, will help your credit immensely. Likewise, pay attention to your rent, utilities and monthly services (cell phone, cable, etc.). Even though these seem like options you can put off (\"\"Oh my electric bill is only $40? I'll pay that next month...\"\") late payments on all of these can negatively affect your credit score, which you will need later to get good loans and buy a house. Get health insurance. Now that the Affordable Care Act (ACA a.k.a Obamacare) has been enacted, it is now simpler to get health insurance, and it is actually required you have some. Hopefully, your employer will offer health coverage, you can find reasonably priced coverage on your own, or you live in a state with a health exchange. Even if you can't otherwise get/afford insurance, you may qualify for some sort of state coverage depending on income. If you don't have some sort of health insurance (private or otherwise), the IRS can potentially fine you when you file your taxes. Not to be too scary, but the fine as currently proposed is jumping up to about $700 for individuals in 2016 or so. So... even if you don't grab health insurance (which you absolutely should), you need to save about $60 a month, even if just for the fine. This answer turned out a bit longer than intended, but hopefully it will help you a little bit. Welcome to the wonderful world of adult financial responsibility. :-)\"" }, { "docid": "12391", "title": "", "text": "\"Accept that the money's gone. It could, as others have mentioned, been a lot more. Learn. Make sure your son (and you!) have learned the lesson (at least try to get something out of the $650). The world isn't always a nice place unfortunately. Don't wire money to strangers - use an escrow service or paypal or similar. As the saying goes: \"\"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me\"\". Report it to the authorities. Does have the advantage of the domestic rather than foreign bank account used. The scammer might have closed it by now, but there should be some paper tail. I imagine the id required for opening a bank account in the US is as strict as it is most places these days. They may have used fake Id, but that's not your problem. Assuming contact was made over the internet, bearing in mind IANAL (or American), this could be a crime of Wire Fraud, in which case I believe it's a case for the FBI rather than your local police. The phone calls your son is still receiving could also be construed as attempted extortion and if across state lines could also come under federal jurisdiction. The FBI have a better chance of catching such a scammer, generally having more chance of knowing one end of a computer from the other compared to a local beat cop. If other victims have also contacted the authorities, it will probably be taken more seriously. Give as much information as you can. Not just the bank account details, but all communication, exact time of phone calls, etc. The cops may say there's nothing they can do as it's a civil matter (breach of contract) rather than a criminal one. In which case you have the (probably expensive) option of going the civil route as described by Harper above. Inform Others. Assuming initial contact with the scammer was made through a website or forum or similar. I imagine this must be a niche area for hand made toys. Post your experience to warn other potential victims. Inform the site owner - they may ban the scammers account where applicable. Stop the calls. Block the number. If the number's being withheld, contact the provider - they should have a policy regarding harassment and be able to block it their end. If the calls keep coming, your son will need to change his number. Don’t let it get to you. You may have warm cosy fantasies of removing the guys kneecaps with a 2x4. Don't however dwell on the b*stard for too long and let it get under your skin. You will have to let it go.\"" }, { "docid": "132693", "title": "", "text": "First, you'll need to find a service that can handle transferring that amount of money, whether it's using a bank, or wire transferring service. Any major Wall Street bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) should be able to handle it. You could also use services such as Western Union. As for your legal and tax obligations, according to Western Union: Individuals in Canada and the U.K. don’t have any tax considerations, unless international payments are received as income or in the form of capital gains. Only then must they report it on their income taxes, says Ilyas Patel, director at Ilyas Patel Chartered Certified Accountants based in Preston, U.K., and the director of Tax Expert, a tax advice website. To that end, when considering their tax obligations, individuals should take care to look into the reporting requirements on foreign income or gifts ranging up to a certain amount. For example, in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires individuals who receive more than $100,000 U.S. dollars from a foreign source to report it on a Form 3520. “You may not owe taxes on the money, but it informs the IRS that you received it,” Gragg says, stressing the importance of consulting with a professional. “They’re looking for certain terrorist activities and other illegal activity.” Due to the large sum of money your transferring, it would be in your best interest to speak with a banker (maybe even a lawyer or CPA) about this." }, { "docid": "110674", "title": "", "text": "Reversing your math, I am assuming you have $312K to work with. In that case, I would simply shop around your local banks and/or credit unions and have them compete for your money and you might be quite surprised how much they are willing to pay. A couple of months ago, you would be able to get about 4.25% from Israel Bonds in Canada on 5 years term (the Jubilee product, with minimum investment of $25K). It's a bit lower now, but you should still be able to get very good rates if you shop around tier-2 banks or credit unions (who are more hungry for capital than the well-funded tier-1 banks). Or you could look at preferred shares of a large corporation. They are different from common shares in the sense they are priced according to the payout rate (i.e. people buy it for the dividend). A quick screen from your favorite stock exchange ought to find you a few options. Another option is commercial bonds. You should be able to get that kind of return from investment grade (BBB- and higher) bonds on large corporations these days. I just did a quick glance at MarketWatch's Bond section (http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/Default.aspx) and found AAA grade bonds that will yield > 5%. You will need to investigate their underlying fundamentals, coupon rate and etc before investing (second thought, grab a introduction to bonds book from Chapters first). Hope these helps." }, { "docid": "346852", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think credit cards support depositing money into to begin with. Anyone could deposit money to a Credit Card acccount. All they need is your bank's name, Visa/Mastercard, and 16 digit number. It is done through the \"\"Pay Bills / Make Payments\"\" function in online banking. So tell me, what does it mean that PayPal will transfer the money to my VISA card You can use the new balance for spending via Credit Card, the effect is same as making a payment from your chequing account to credit card account. Will it simply just get transferred to my bank account by the local bank after that Some banks would refund the excess amount from your Credit Card to your Chequing Account after a while, but most don't. People keep credit balance on credit card to make a purchaes larger than credit limit. For example, if your credit limit is $1000, balance is $0, and you made $500 payment to the credit card, you can make a purchase of $1500 without asking for credit limit increase.\"" }, { "docid": "187734", "title": "", "text": "\"The Option 2 in your answer is how most of the money is moved cross border. It is called International Transfer, most of it carried out using the SWIFT network. This is expensive, at a minimum it costs in the range of USD 30 to USD 50. This becomes a expensive mechanism to transfer small sums of money that individuals are typically looking at. Over a period of years, the low value payments by individuals between certain pair of countries is quite high, example US-India, US-China, Middle-East-India, US-Mexico etc ... With the intention to reduce cost, Banks have built a different work-flow, this is the Option 1. This essentially works on getting money from multiple individuals in EUR. The aggregated sum is converted into INR, then transferred to partner Bank in India via Single SWIFT. Alongside the partner bank is also sent a file of instructions having the credit account. The Partner Bank in India will use the local clearing network [these days NEFT] to credit the funds to the Indian account. Option 3: Other methods include you writing a check in EUR and sending it over to a friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically very nominal costs. Typically one month of timelines. Option 4: Another method would be to visit an Indian Bank and ask them to issue a \"\"Rupee Draft/Bankers Check\"\" payable in India. The charges for this would be higher than Option 3, less than Option 1. Mail this to friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically couple of days timelines for transfer to happen.\"" }, { "docid": "269447", "title": "", "text": "Credit unions are mutually-owned (i.e. customer owned) financial institutions that provide banking services. They take deposits from their members (customers) and loan them to other members. Members vote on a board of directors who manage operations. They are considered not-for-profit, but they pay interest on deposits. They get some preferential tax treatment and regulation and their deposits are insured by a separate organization if federally accredited. State-chartered credit unions don't have to maintain deposit insurance at all. Their charters specify who can join. They can be regionally based, employer based, or based on some other group with common interests. Regulators restrict them so that they don't interfere too much with banks. Otherwise their preferential tax and regulatory treatment would leave banks uncompetitive. Other organizations with similar limits have gone on to be competitive when the limits were released. For example, there used to be an insurance company just for government employees, the Government Employees Insurance Company. You may know it better as GEICO (yes, the one with the gecko advertisements). Now they offer life and auto insurance all over. Credit unions would like looser limitations (or no limitations at all), but not enough to give up their preferential tax treatment. Banks oppose looser limitations and have as much political clout as credit unions." }, { "docid": "506113", "title": "", "text": "I switched to a credit union for a year and the only complaint that I had was that the service was absolutely horrible when compared with my previous bank. Flow time in the drive through and help when going inside were pretty bad. The credit union was UFCU, has anyone else experienced this and switched back to their old bank? I realize that many people can do almost all of their banking online, and that credit unions probably benefit those people. But, for those that need to go to the bank several times a month I wouldn't recommend it. I switched back for this reason." }, { "docid": "349856", "title": "", "text": "With only $2000 in the account, I wouldn't worry about investing it. Instead, I would roll this over into a new HSA account with a different provider. Find a provider that doesn't charge ongoing fees, perhaps with a local credit union or bank. Although you won't be able to add money to it, you can withdraw as you have eligible medical expenses, until it is gone." }, { "docid": "5644", "title": "", "text": "\"Your instructor's numbers do not seem to have any basis in current reality. At this page you can see a comparison of interest rates offered by banks and credit unions. In the most recent table for June 2014, banks paid an average interest rate of 0.12 percent on savings accounts, while credit unions paid an average of 0.13 percent. If you look back further, you will see that interest rates paid by banks and credit unions are generally comparable. Credit union rates tend to be a little bit higher, but certainly not 7 times higher. The last time any financial institution paid as much as 15% on a savings account would probably be the early 1980s. You can see here a historical chart of the \"\"prime rate\"\" for lending. Savings account rates (at either banks or credit unions) would typically be lower. (This is based on the US, in accordance with your tag. Interest rates in other places, especially developing countries with less stable currencies, can be dramatically different.)\"" }, { "docid": "24344", "title": "", "text": "\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\"" }, { "docid": "564709", "title": "", "text": "Politicians are for sale and regulations are useless when they are not enforced.  Community banks and credit unions have to comply or get hammered by the state and federal governments.  The mega banks soldier on under an utterly feckless and corrupt congress.  People should never pay fees or credit card interest, pay off their loans, and get out from under banker's thumbs.  They are giant impoverishing machines." }, { "docid": "39495", "title": "", "text": "Ben already covered most of this in his answer, but I want to emphasize the most important part of getting a loan with limited credit history. Go into a credit union or community bank and talk to the loan officer there in person. Ask for recommendations on how much they would lend based on your income to get the best interest rate that they can offer. Sometimes shortening the length of the loan will get you a lower rate, sometimes it won't. (In any case, make sure you can pay it off quickly no matter the term that you sign with.) Each bank may have different policies. Talk to at least two of them even if the first one offers you terms that you like. Talking to a loan officer is valuable life experience, and if you discuss your goals directly with them, then they will be able to give you feedback about whether they think a small loan is worth their time." }, { "docid": "256803", "title": "", "text": "Never buy a new car if cost is an issue. A big chunk of the price will disappear to depreciation as you drive it off the lot. If you want a shiny new car with the latest equipment (and if you can afford it!), buy a lightly-used car. Normally I would recommend a 1-3 year old car. 95% of the value, with a big cost savings. But this depends on your financial situation. Given that you just need a commuter car for mostly highway driving, in a place where the weather is easier on cars, you could be fine with a 5-6 year old import. Camry's, Accords, Civics, etc are all well-built, reliable, and affordable due to their numbers. As for financing, shop around. Don't blindly use dealer financing. Check with banks and especially local credit unions and see what rate they can offer you. Then, when you are ready to go, get pre-approved (this is when they pull your credit) and get the car." }, { "docid": "105828", "title": "", "text": "The bank is expected to issue you a check for the balance of your account, make sure your name and address on file is correct as that is who they will make the check to and send it. Have the credit union also contact Chase, or get a statement from the credit union, about their customer. If the check does bounce back to the credit union and the account was under his name, then you will have to deal with the state and his estate and you will have to find a different solution for the bills." }, { "docid": "166627", "title": "", "text": "That is an opinion. I don't think so. Here are some differences: If you use credit responsibly and take the time to make sure the reporting agencies are being accurate, a good report can benefit you. So that isn't like a criminal record. What is also important to know is that in the United States, a credit report is about you, not for you. You are the product being sold. This is, in my opinion, and unfortunate situation but it is what it is. You will more than likely benefit for keeping a good report, even if you never use credit. There are many credit scores that can be calculated from your report; the score is just a number used to compare and evaluate you on a common set of criteria. If you think about it, that doesn't make sense. The score is a reflection of how you use credit. Having and using credit is a commitment. Your are committing to the lender that you will repay them as agreed. Your choice is who you decide to make agreements with. I personally find the business practices of my local credit union to be more palatable than the business practices of the national bank I was with. I chose to use credit provided by the credit union rather than by the bank. I am careful about where I take auto loans from, and to what extent I can control it, where I take home loans from. Since it is absolutely a commitment, you are personally responsible for making sure that you like who you are making commitments with." }, { "docid": "95715", "title": "", "text": "When traveling you can use any flavor of credit card or exchange usd to local currency. When you move, just switch to a new local credit union. Leaving big banks for a credit union might not personally give you a different experience, but at least you can know you're not supporting scum." }, { "docid": "461233", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the answer to this question depends on how much you trust yourself. Most people are wonderful at deceiving themselves. I'd personally not trust myself; I'll use Liam's points for the pitfalls some people get into. You can pay off your loans with summer internships and retain the initial cash you had for additional activities that make college enjoyable, i.e - Fraternity/ Sorority, clubs, dinners, and social nights. This is actually the risk I've seen many people do. They'll blow their money in one semester under the assumption that 'they'll just earn more in Summer and keep it for expenses or the future.\"\" Another benefit to taking these loans would assist in building credit, No Credit (in the USA) is actually a good standing. Many sensible banks or credit unions will happily give people with No Credit a loan. This makes intuitive sense if you think about it. Imagine two people with the same income. One owes money regularly to multiple sources and the other has no debt obligations. Which one are you loaning money to? Simplifying things a lot: Great Credit is best, followed by No Credit, then Good Credit, and then Bad Credit. The advantage of Great Credit over No Credit is simply that some institutions in some sectors don't have the policies in place to process No Credit people (No Credit people plan to not apply for credit often, for self-explanatory reasons, so this is a mote point).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "170042", "title": "", "text": "\"If they could really do this, do you really think they would be wasting their time offering this course? You are being lied to. (Or more accurately: It's certainly possible to gamble and get lucky, but those gambles are more likely to result in your rapidly losing your money than in your rapidly gaining value.) It is possible to make money in the market. But \"\"market rate of return\"\" has historically averaged around 8%. That won't make you rich by itself, but it's better return than you can get from banks... at higher risk, please note. There are places in the market where, by accepting more risk of losing your money, you can improve on that 8%. For me the risk and effort are too much for the potential additional gains, but de gustibus.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "57516", "title": "", "text": "\"The fallacy in your question is in this statement: \"\"The formulas must exist, because prices can be followed real time.\"\" What you see are snapshots of the current status of the stock, what was the last price a stock was traded at, what is the volume, is the price going up or down. People who buy and hold their stock look at the status every few days or even every few months. Day traders look at the status every second of the trading day. The math/formula comes in when people try to predict where the stock is going based on the squiggles in the line. These squiggles move based on how other people react to the squiggles. The big movements occur when big pieces of news make large movements in the price. Company X announces the release of the key product will be delayed by a year; the founder is stepping down; the government just doubled the order for a new weapon system; the insiders are selling all the shares they can. There are no formulas to determine the correct price, only formulas that try to predict where the price may go.\"" }, { "docid": "298308", "title": "", "text": "Use the chrome extension called Xray - the complete article is below Why Goldman Sachs Seized a Client’s 217-Foot Yacht Wall Street banks’ latest gold rush is making loans to wealthy clients; collateral includes Warhol and rare wine collection The yacht ‘Natita’ is listed for $39.9 million. The yacht ‘Natita’ is listed for $39.9 million. PHOTO: DUTCHMEGAYACHTS By Liz Hoffman Aug. 10, 2017 5:30 a.m. ET 158 COMMENTS Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS 0.33% owns hundreds of billions of dollars of stocks, bonds and commodities. Add to its portfolio: a 217-foot luxury yacht called Natita. The story behind the boat begins with a 2014 loan to a prized Goldman client, billionaire Texas oilman William Kallop. It ends with Goldman suing its own client and the U.S. Marshals last month swooping down on a West Palm Beach marina to impound the yacht—which boasts a movie theater, Jacuzzi and helipad. Goldman’s nautical trophy is a strange but inevitable outcome of Wall Street’s latest gold rush: lending to wealthy clients, the loans backed by everything from Warhols to wine. These loans, which are growing quickly at firms such as Goldman, Morgan Stanley and UBS Group AG, are an exotic spin on the most basic thing banks do: lending money to people. They have the added benefit of building loyalty among prized, ultrawealthy clientele. RELATED Wall Street Needs You to Borrow Against Your Stock (July 27) Like any loans, though, they can go bad and leave banks holding assets that aren’t easy to value or sell. Goldman will likely auction Natita, which already has been on the market for almost two years with no takers. A Goldman spokesman declined to comment on the case. Mr. Kallop didn’t respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Kallop declined to comment. “If you do it right, it’s a great business and clients will absolutely love you for it,” said Bruce Holley, a partner at the Boston Consulting Group who advises private banks on wealth-management strategy. “But there are a lot of ways to mess up.” Banks pushed wealth lending in recent years against a backdrop of increasing deposits and tepid demand for traditional loans. Goldman’s private bank has quadrupled its overall lending balances since 2012 to $29 billion. Morgan Stanley wealth-loan balances are up 420% since 2012 to $74 billion. The largest chunk of wealth loans are mortgages and loans backed by stock portfolios. A smaller but growing segment is secured by valuables such as classic cars, hedge-fund stakes, and even rare violins. Wealth loans are especially profitable for banks because the revenue they generate is shared less generously with brokers than trading commissions and other fees. Banks say these loans are safe because they already know the borrowers, their assets, and their ability to repay. And unlike, say, credit cards, these loans have collateral and often a personal guarantee as well. Goldman said in a February filing that the value of collateral in its wealth loans “generally exceed[s]” the loan amount. Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank AG have lent against the art collection of hedge-fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen, who owns works by Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso, according to Connecticut state filings. Top Blackstone Group LP executives including founder Stephen Schwarzman have borrowed from UBS against their stakes in the private-equity firms’ funds, New York filings show. Goldman lent to natural-gas wildcatter Aubrey McClendon against his wine collection, according to an Oklahoma filing. Executives joked the collateral was “particularly liquid.” After Mr. McClendon’s death in 2015, the collection—heavy on rare Bordeaux—was auctioned for $8.4 million. Goldman made its money back. Although not as well-known as those borrowers, Mr. Kallop was the kind of client whom private banks court. In the 1970s, he joined a family-owned marine-services company called McAllister Towing &amp; Transportation. A legal dispute in 1993 resulted in a split of the company. The tugboat and ferry operations stayed with the family. Mr. Kallop took the offshore oil business, which he built over the next two decades into a portfolio of drilling rights, rig operators and construction arms. He sold the business for nearly $1 billion in 2009 to a consortium of Colombian and Korean investors. Mr. Kallop then dabbled in investing, taking a 7% stake in energy company Quicksilver Resources and buying a 300-year-old liquor distillery in Peru. He spent lavishly, acquiring three Gulfstream jets and at least eight residences, including a Peruvian mansion, two homes in the Dominican Republic and a working cattle ranch in Texas, according to property record, lawsuits and people who have worked for him. And he bought yachts—at least seven of them over the past eight years. In addition to Natita, which he bought in 2010 and named for his mother-in-law, Mr. Kallop’s fleet includes Bad Girl, moored in the Dominican Republic, and Honey Fitz, a 93-footer used by President John F. Kennedy that he bought at Sotheby’s Camelot auction in 1998 and restored. Another yacht, La Diva, which was once owned by Ivana Trump, was destroyed in a fire. A few years ago, Goldman came calling. The Wall Street firm’s private bank manages some $450 billion in assets for 11,500 ultrarich clients, and was developed in the 1980s to help business owners like Mr. Kallop manage their windfall after a sale. Mr. Kallop became a client. In 2014, he borrowed $21.2 million from the bank to buy a 12,000-square-foot Tahitian-inspired oceanfront mansion just down the beach from Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla., county records show. In 2014, Mr. Kallop borrowed $32 million from Goldman against the Natita and Bad Girl, court records show. The loan, the maritime equivalent of a home-equity loan, carried an interest rate of three percentage points above the London interbank offered rate. But then Mr. Kallop hit money troubles, according to former employees and acquaintances. He put off upgrades to the boats, which were showing signs of wear—bad enough for a March 2016 charter group to walk off Natita in Nassau, a former crew member said. Goldman ordered periodic valuations of the yacht after making the loan, according to the crew member. Mr. Kallop laid off crew members and put Natita up for sale in 2015 for €59.5 million ($67 million at that time), then dropped the price to $57.5 million last year, according to court documents. He sold a second Palm Beach house in April 2015 for $19 million. Goldman alleges he stopped paying back on the loan last November. Three crew members, including the captain, were recently awarded roughly $90,000 in back pay by a Florida court. A Texas judge last month awarded his former bodyguard more than $500,000 for unpaid services. Mr. Kallop also owes the Florida marina where Natita is docked hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, employees said. Eventually, Goldman filed suit in a Miami federal court to seize the boat in a maritime version of a foreclosure. Acting on a judge’s orders, U.S. Marshals impounded Natita at a West Palm Beach marina, where it remains. Goldman’s first move as owner-in-waiting: buying $67,000 worth of fuel to keep the yacht’s generator running, according to court filings. Today, the yacht is listed for $39.9 million, according to broker​Worth Avenue Yachts. The outstanding balance of the loan owed to Goldman is roughly $28 million. Write to Liz Hoffman at liz.hoffman@wsj.com" }, { "docid": "564957", "title": "", "text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong)." }, { "docid": "445652", "title": "", "text": "The limits on an HSA are low enough that there's no real danger of overfunding it. The limits max out at (as of 2011, for an individual) at just over $3000 per year. Sometime in the next few years, you will have more than $3000 in health care expenses. It might be something like a car accident, acid reflux, a weird mole that the doctor wants to check out, a broken toe, a few nasty cavities that need to be filled, an expensive antibiotic, or something else entirely. Or, it might be something less dramatic, getting eaten away by copays and contact lenses. When that happens, you want the peace of mind that you can pay for your deductible plus any other expenses. Keep in mind that even a $5000 deductible can cost you more than $5000 out-of-pocket; either because of non-insured expenses, or simply an illness that straddles multiple calendar years. Besides, it's not like your HSA money is going anywhere; even if you never touch it, it's just a savings account that you can't touch until you turn 65. And if you do truly have an emergency, you can get at it if you have to. Even if your HSA is filled with several years' worth of deductibles, it's still a way to shield thousands of dollars a year from taxes, with luck moving them into lower-tax years 40 years from now. And it's a way that doesn't involve income limits or mandatory withdrawals." }, { "docid": "78224", "title": "", "text": "Stock price is based on supply and demand. Unless the stock you are looking to buy usually has very low volume trading 100 shares isn't likely to have any effect on price. There are many companies that have millions or tens of millions of shares trade daily. For stocks like that 100 shares is barely a trivial percentage of the daily volume. For thinly traded stocks you can look at the bid and ask size but even that isn't likely to get you an exact answer. Unless you are trading large volumes your trade will have no effect on the price of shares." }, { "docid": "223278", "title": "", "text": "Everyone that owns a share of stock in a company is part owner. Some just own more than others. According to Apple's latest proxy statement he owns 5.5 million shares of the 914 million shares outstanding. So he owns approximately 0.6% of the company. If he owned more than 50% of the company's outstanding stock he would effectively control the board of directors by being able to pick whoever he wanted. Then he would control the company. Very few publicly traded companies are that way. Most have sold off parts of the company to the public in order to raise cash for the company and make their investment more liquid." }, { "docid": "562784", "title": "", "text": "Source? I have seen success stories constantly, and the company has donated tens of thousands of dollars of product to employees who lost homes in the recent disasters. And thats only a small part of how Amazon treats their employees. A simple google search would reveal even more, including details on the tuition assistance and employee assistance programs which Amazon spends millions to run." }, { "docid": "66829", "title": "", "text": "You’re missing the point it’s also an investment. People buy them and never sell them. People also lose them. Reducing supply. The fbi seizes them. Pretty sure the ceo of overstock said they will long term hold. If it’s true they turned thousands into hundreds of millions." }, { "docid": "116647", "title": "", "text": "\"The game is not zero sum. When a friend and I chop down a tree, and build a house from it, the house has value, far greater than the value of a standing tree. Our labor has turned into something of value. In theory, a company starts from an idea, and offers either a good or service to create value. There are scams that make it seem like a Vegas casino. There are times a stock will trade for well above what it should. When I buy the S&P index at a fair price for 1000 (through an etf or fund) and years later it's 1400, the gain isn't out of someone else's pocket, else the amount of wealth in the world would be fixed and that's not the case. Over time, investors lag the market return for multiple reasons, trading costs, bad timing, etc. Statements such as \"\"90% lose money\"\" are hyperbole meant to separate you from your money. A self fulfilling prophesy. The question of lagging the market is another story - I have no data to support my observation, but I'd imagine that well over 90% lag the broad market. A detailed explanation is too long for this forum, but simply put, there are trading costs. If I invest in an S&P ETF that costs .1% per year, I'll see a return of say 9.9% over decades if the market return is 10%. Over 40 years, this is 4364% compounded, vs the index 4526% compounded, a difference of less than 4% in final wealth. There are load funds that charge more than this just to buy in (5% anyone?). Lagging by a small fraction is a far cry from 'losing money.' There is an annual report by a company named Dalbar that tracks investor performance. For the 20 year period ending 12/31/10 the S&P returned 9.14% and Dalbar calculates the average investor had an average return of 3.83%. Pretty bad, but not zero. Since you don't cite a particular article or source, there may be more to the story. Day traders are likely to lose. As are a series of other types of traders in other markets, Forex for one. While your question may be interesting, its premise of \"\"many experts say....\"\" without naming even one leaves room for doubt. Note - I've updated the link for the 2015 report. And 4 years later, I see that when searching on that 90% statistic, the articles are about day traders. That actually makes sense to me.\"" }, { "docid": "432665", "title": "", "text": "Don't throw good money after bad. If you bought on the peak of an event like news/earnings hoping for more and ignored its value than you might be doomed. Determine the stocks value and see it as a buying opportunity if it's still sweet. If not buy more carefully. Those kinds of moves in that range you must have been involved in micro-small caps like biotechs. Thats where money goes to talk to itself and chew on its arm. You win big by finding an alien chip under your skin to reverse engineer or far more likely just wind up eating yourself. If your not holding inside info or at the higher levels of a pyramid for a pump/dump you really shouldn't let your greed take you there. I can expect and stomach w/o worry being wrong at my buy time as much as 10-15% and live with it for a year or more because I see I'm buying a quarter for a dime and will continue to buy into it without staking everything though). I bought in heavy when netflix (prior to split) was $50 or so hoping for a quick bounce and it sunk to like 20 something. No I didn't buy more, I felt like I just got my own .com bubble experience. I stopped looking at it,helpless to do anything other than eat a huge loss I adopted an out of sight out of mind thinking. I no longer wished to be in it, I felt like an ass for getting myself into it, it did NOT look good at the time and I risked a huge amount of capital for what I felt wrongly was a nice quick trade to make some thousands off. Checked it one day, must have wanted to hurt myself, and it was near $300 a share. My extreme loss had turned into something wonderful. A big tax bomb. Netflix eventually split and rose even more meteorically. I held on and only exited a while back and my worst mistake became my best success. Yet still, you trade like that, on unsound things, don't rely on getting the winning ticket because they are few and all others are losers. If your in for a penny you need to be in for the pound and help yourself immensely by sticking to sound stocks and currencies. You trade on news you may find yourself in Zimbabwe dollars with Enron stock. Bad footing, no matter the news or excitement is bad footing." }, { "docid": "384983", "title": "", "text": "\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"" }, { "docid": "379314", "title": "", "text": "\"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \"\"business\"\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\"" }, { "docid": "503981", "title": "", "text": "\"Before the prevalence of electronic trading, trading stocks was very costly, dropping from ~15c in the late 1970s to less than a nickel per share today. Exchange fees for liquidity takers are ~0.3c per share, currently. When orders were negotiated exclusively by humans, stocks used to be quoted in fractions rather than decimal, such as $50 1/2 instead of something more precise like $50.02. That necessary ease of negotiation for humans to rapidly trade extended to trade size as well. Traders preferred to handle orders in \"\"round lots\"\", 100 shares, for ease of calculation of the total cost of the trade, so 100 shares at $50 1/2 would have a total cost of $5,050. The time for a human to calculate an \"\"odd lot\"\" of 72 shares at $50.02 would take much longer so would cost more per share, and these costs were passed on to the client. These issues have been negated by electronic trading and simply no longer exist except for obsolete brokerages. There are cost advantages for extremely large trades, well above 100 shares per trade. Brokerage fees today run the gamut: they can be as insignificant as what Interactive Brokers charges to as high as a full service broker that could charge hundreds of USD for a few thousand USD trade. With full service brokerages, the charges are frequently mystifying and quoted at the time a trade is requested. With discount brokerages, there is usually a fee per trade and a fee per share or contract. Interactive Brokers will charge a fee per share or option only and will even refund parts of the liquidity rebates exchanges provide, as close as possible to having a seat on an exchange. Even if a trader does not meet Interactive Brokers' minimum trading requirement, the monthly fee is so low that it is possible that a buy and hold investor could benefit from the de minimis trade fees. It should be noted that liquidity providing hidden orders are typically not rebated but are at least discounted. The core costs of all trades are the exchange fees which are per share or contract. Over the long run, costs charged by brokers will be in excess of charges by exchanges, and Interactive Brokers' fee schedule shows that it can be reduced to a simple markup over exchange fees. Exchanges sometimes have a fee schedule with lower charges for larger trades, but these are out of reach of the average individual.\"" }, { "docid": "487738", "title": "", "text": "? Share price reflects the residual value of the company to the shareholders and therefore the value they assume it can create for its customers. Now, if you have a better understanding of that value than the millions of investors that own and trade its share, that's a different story." }, { "docid": "174404", "title": "", "text": "Ditto @MichaelBorgwardt Just to get concrete: I just checked one bank in India and they say they are paying 4% on savings accounts. I don't know what you're getting or if 4% is typical in India, but it's at least an example. So if the bank pays interest based on average daily balance, and you left the money in the bank for a week, you'd get 4%/52 = .077%. So on Rs 95,000 that would be Rs 73. I live in the US where typical interest on a savings account today is about 1%. So an equivalent amount of money -- I think that would be about $1,500 -- would get 1/52 of 1%, or 29 cents. Don't leave the lights turned on while you do the calculations -- you'll spend more on the electricity than you make on the interest. :-) ** Addendum ** This suddenly reminds me ... I read a news story a few years ago about a man who was expecting a tax refund check from the IRS of a few hundred dollars, and when the check arrived it was for several million. Well obviously it was a mistake. But he came up with the clever idea: Deposit the check in an interest-bearing account. Promptly contact the IRS, inform them of the mistake, and ask how and where to go about returning the money. Hope that it takes at least a few days for them to figure everything out. Then keep the interest accumulated on the several-million dollars for the time that he had the money. And as he contacted them immediately about the error, they can't say he was trying to hide anything. It was a nice try, but it didn't work. They demanded he send them the interest as well as the principle." }, { "docid": "166844", "title": "", "text": "The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. ET Friday. So it changed its mind every single time? That's either a bug or it's front running. I think it's front running no matter how you look at it. If I ran the SEC, I'd put in place a rule that says all orders must stand for 2 seconds before they can be cancelled. That's enough time for humans to react in the market. This 25 ms for 500 stocks is nonsense. That's just front running to defraud real investors and make money on very small differences in price millions of times a day. It distorts the markets and does no good for anyone except the brokerage that is running the scam." }, { "docid": "292338", "title": "", "text": "If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt." }, { "docid": "155376", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;They lie right to your face. \"\"Borrow tens of thousands of dollars to give to us, it will totally work out...for us.\"\" I don't believe they verbalize those last two words. They pretty much end it with a period after the \"\"work out\"\" part. And then of course, they produce that BS statistic that college grads make a \"\"million dollars more over their career\"\". I mean really? Which grads are those? You mean the ones who graduated circa 45-50 (or more) years ago (when very few people had college degrees)? And in exactly what inflation-adjusted time-frame was that \"\"million dollars\"\"? Was it 1960 dollars? 1980 dollars? 2000 dollars? Because a million bucks, while still not pocket change even in 2012, was worth a LOT more the further you go back.\"" }, { "docid": "77802", "title": "", "text": "That’s how sellers sell their home fast. It provides extensive listing exposure because hundreds of thousands visit the military rental homes every day. In fact, it is one of the top 25 most visited real estate homes in the U.S. getting millions of visitors looking to buy or sell a military home every month." } ]

[ { "docid": "44417", "title": "", "text": "\"Consider this thought experiment: Take 10 million people and give them each $3,000. Every day they each purchase a random stock with all of their money. The next day they flip a coin and if it's heads they do nothing, and if it's tails they sell it and purchase another random stock. Repeat everyday for 5 years. After 5 years, you'll probably have many people that lost all of their money due to the fees they paid for each trade they made. A lot of people will have lost a little or won a little. Some people will have doubled or tripled their money, or even better. A very small number of people will have made \"\"millions\"\". Some of those small number of people that made millions will likely go on to write books and sell seminars on how to make money in the stock market.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "176414", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Actually the reason isn't because of the gold standard. The real reason is because we have seen a sharp increase in fruit imports over the past 5 decades. Huh? Agriculture is down to single digits as part of the GDP. What does that have to do with a gold standard and monetary policy? &gt;Productivity is up rather dramatically as compared to 40 years ago. Maybe you mean manufacturing? Productivity is up since say, the turn of the century but this is to be expected since we incorporated electricity, oil, automobiles and eventually computers. But as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. That means the growth in productivity. You can see this best here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg Think of productivity like GDP. It used to be 5 and was on its way to 6, but right as we went off the gold standard, productivity increases stagnated and by 2007 we're only at 5.5 instead of the expected 6. This uses a logarithmic function wherein 6 is 10x more than 5. So while productivity has not fallen in an absolute sense, growth in productivity which is more important than absolute GDP growth has fallen and is infact related to a decrease in productivity growth. &gt;The reason you're seeing the gains over the past several years shifting towards the rich is due to a combination of tax policy and a rise in cronyism caused by our campaign financing problems. Big businesses often have a lot of lobbying power to get laws passed that ultimately are felt by the rest of the economy. The reason it has shifted to the rich is because as the currency has debased the gains have gone towards the biggest companies, wealthiest individuals, assisted by government which works like an auction house to those with connections which is why lobbying ROI is huge. &gt;Fiat currency is a good thing for countries like the United States. We can safely finance and pay our debts for a few more years while wracking up debt without fear of hyperinflation. Because our massive debt is doing so well for us? In the beginning it looks nice because there is very little pain and is practically unnoticible, but as we see current events playing out in the US and to a greater extent Europe which isnt as tightly knit economically as the US, fiat currency has huge problems. Hyperinflation of commodities and deflation of assets are occuring before our eyes. House values are plummeting, medical/education/consumer goods are inflating. Not QUITE to the hyper part, but inflation is increasing and only when commodities such as oil see a deflation in demand as we see right now does inflation look under control. Shadow inflation is very much alive. If you have dollars in savings, the rates do not even outpace inflation, you are forced into riskier and risker investments to make a return. &gt;Now, there may be a lot to gripe about how the United States is currently spending its money, but it's established \"\"practical\"\" fact that government investment can spur growth, level out recessions, help people, etc. Established over what? the last 40 years? Thats hardly enough time to call practical fact when the gold standard existed for hundreds and thousands of years. Infact NO fiat currency that has ever existed has survived. That is the real fact, and the dollar and euro themselves are currently going through the end stages of this cancer. &gt;TL;DR The Gold Standard sucks, it has a lot of problems. Fiat Currency rocks for the USA because USA Fuck yeah! We are in a particular advantage where the real risks of fiat currency don't really apply to the USA **55 Million on food stamps with 20-30 million more on other forms of government assistance such as unemployment and welfare, unemployment increasing, GDP growth decreasing, median income decreasing, total employment stagnant (Same number of full time wage earners exist today as in 2000, despite 30+ million more American citizens), decreased consumer confidence, Average age of cars on the road went from 5 years in the 1960s to 12 years today (people dont buy new cars as frequently meaning less disposable income), decreased home ownership, increased retirement age, decreased young american employment.** **I am not sure why you think that the USA is in such a great position. The american dream is faultering if you're just starting out in life. Just ask any number of recent college grads who are increasingly living with parents, not getting married and can't find jobs.**\"" }, { "docid": "127743", "title": "", "text": "As many people here have pointed out, a CFD is a contract for difference. When you invest in stock at eToro, you buy a CFD reflecting a bid on the price movement of the underlying stock, however, you do not actually own the stock or hold any rights shareholders have. The counterparty to the CFD is eToro. When you close your position, eToro shall pay you the amount representing the difference between your buy and sell price for each stock. I suggest you read the following article about CFDs, it explains everything clearly and thoroughly: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/09/trade-a-cfd.asp#axzz2G9ZsmX3A As some of the responders have pointed out, and as is mentioned in the article, a broker can potentially misquote the prices of underlying assets in order to manipulate CFDs to their advantage. However, eToro is a highly reputable broker, with over 2 million active accounts, and we guarantee accurate stock quotes. Furthermore, eToro is regulated in Europe (Germany, UK, France, etc.) by institutions that exact strict regulations on the CFD trading sector, and we are obligated to comply with these regulations, which include accurate price quoting. And of course, CFD trading at eToro has tremendous benefits. Unlike a direct stock investment, eToro allows you to invest as much or as little as you like in your favorite stocks, even if the amount is less than the relevant stock price (i.e. fraction stocks). For example: if you invest $10 in Microsoft, and on the day of execution eToro’s average aggregated price was $30 after a spread of 0.1%, you will then have a CFD representing 0.33 stocks of Microsoft in your eToro account. In addition, with eToro you can invest in stock in the context of a social trading network, meaning that you can utilize the stock trading expertise of other trader to your advantage by following them, learning their strategies, and even copying their stock investments automatically. To put it briefly, you won’t be facing the stock market alone! Before you make a decision, I suggest that you try stock trading with an eToro demo account. A free demo account grants you access to all our instruments at real market rates, as well as access to our social network where you can view and participate in trader discussions about trading stocks with eToro, all without risking your hard earned money. Bottom line – it’s free, there are no strings attached, and you can get a much firmer idea of what trading stocks with eToro is like. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us through our site: www.etoro.com." }, { "docid": "172025", "title": "", "text": "I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value. The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars." }, { "docid": "368348", "title": "", "text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it." }, { "docid": "174404", "title": "", "text": "Ditto @MichaelBorgwardt Just to get concrete: I just checked one bank in India and they say they are paying 4% on savings accounts. I don't know what you're getting or if 4% is typical in India, but it's at least an example. So if the bank pays interest based on average daily balance, and you left the money in the bank for a week, you'd get 4%/52 = .077%. So on Rs 95,000 that would be Rs 73. I live in the US where typical interest on a savings account today is about 1%. So an equivalent amount of money -- I think that would be about $1,500 -- would get 1/52 of 1%, or 29 cents. Don't leave the lights turned on while you do the calculations -- you'll spend more on the electricity than you make on the interest. :-) ** Addendum ** This suddenly reminds me ... I read a news story a few years ago about a man who was expecting a tax refund check from the IRS of a few hundred dollars, and when the check arrived it was for several million. Well obviously it was a mistake. But he came up with the clever idea: Deposit the check in an interest-bearing account. Promptly contact the IRS, inform them of the mistake, and ask how and where to go about returning the money. Hope that it takes at least a few days for them to figure everything out. Then keep the interest accumulated on the several-million dollars for the time that he had the money. And as he contacted them immediately about the error, they can't say he was trying to hide anything. It was a nice try, but it didn't work. They demanded he send them the interest as well as the principle." }, { "docid": "101111", "title": "", "text": "Can you show me where? Because pretty sure when obama put a tax to help fund the ACA, the economy thrived, a million doctors were hired, hundreds of hospitals, and thousands upon thousands of walk in clinics we're built. And the stock market thrived more." }, { "docid": "240351", "title": "", "text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not." }, { "docid": "403864", "title": "", "text": "Like an S&amp;P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&amp;P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think." }, { "docid": "564957", "title": "", "text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong)." }, { "docid": "100188", "title": "", "text": "They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task." }, { "docid": "509565", "title": "", "text": "It is worth noting first that Real Estate is by no means passive income. The amount of effort and cost involved (maintenance, legal, advertising, insurance, finding the properties, ect.) can be staggering and require a good amount of specialized knowledge to do well. The amount you would have to pay a management company to do the work for you especially with only a few properties can wipe out much of the income while you keep the risk. However, keshlam's answer still applies pretty well in this case but with a lot more variability. One million dollars worth of property should get you there on average less if you do much of the work yourself. However, real estate because it is so local and done in ~100k chunks is a lot more variable than passive stocks and bonds, for instance, as you can get really lucky or really unlucky with location, the local economy, natural disasters, tenants... Taking out loans to get you to the million worth of property faster but can add a lot more risk to the process. Including the risk you wouldn't have any money on retirement. Investing in Real Estate can be a faster way to retirement than some, but it is more risky than many and definitely not passive." }, { "docid": "11075", "title": "", "text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk." }, { "docid": "376179", "title": "", "text": "Coolness - It's not only a matter of staying calm when being up or down. You must keep yourself from chasing a stock that appears to be running away. Or from betting all your money that something(like say a crash) will happen tomorrow because that would be great for you. Use your head not your heart. Empathy - You need to understand what other speculators, investors, institutions and algorithms are going to do when there is a new development or technical signal. And why. For publicly traded corporations, fundamentals and technical indicators only have the value that people(and their algorithms) choose to assign to them at that particular moment. And every stock has a different population trading it. There is no rule of thumb. Patience - To trade successfully, you must avoid trading at all costs. Heh. If you can't find any good trade to do, don't open positions in order to meet your targets, buy a new smartphone, or to fight boredom. Diligence - If your strategy relies on tight stops, don't make exceptions. If your strategy relies on position sizing, don't close when you are a few points down. Luck - In the end almost every trade can turn against you very badly. You must prepare for the worst and hope for the best. You can't buy luck, or get luckier, but you can attempt to stack probabilities: diversify, buy options to insure your positions, reduce holding time, avoid known volatility events, etc." }, { "docid": "487738", "title": "", "text": "? Share price reflects the residual value of the company to the shareholders and therefore the value they assume it can create for its customers. Now, if you have a better understanding of that value than the millions of investors that own and trade its share, that's a different story." }, { "docid": "419747", "title": "", "text": "This is not hypothetical, this is an accurate story. I am a long-term investor. I have a bunch of money that I'd like to invest and I plan on spreading it out over five or six mutual funds and ETFs, roughly according to the Canadian Couch Potato model portfolio (that is, passive mutual funds and ETFs rather than specific stocks). I am concerned that if I invest the full amount and the stock market crashes 30% next month, I will have paid more than I had to. As I am investing for the long term, I expect to more than regain my investment, but I still wouldn't be thrilled with paying 30% more than I had to. Instead, I am investing my money in three stages. I invested the first third earlier this month. I'll invest the next third in a few months, and the final third a few months after that. If the stock market climbs, as I expect is more likely the case, I will have lost out on some potential upside. However, if the stock market crashes next month, I will end up paying a lower average cost as two of my three purchases will occur after the crash. On average, as a long-term investor, I expect the stock market to go up. In the short term, I expect much more fluctuation. Statistically speaking, I'd do better to invest all the money at once as most of the time, the trend is upward. However, I am willing to trade some potential upside for a somewhat reduced risk of downside over the course of the next few months. If we were talking a price difference of 1% as mentioned in the question, I wouldn't care. I expect to see average annual returns far above this. But stock market crashes can cause the loss of 20 to 30% or more, and those are numbers I care about. I'd much rather buy in at 30% less than the current price, after all." }, { "docid": "149256", "title": "", "text": "Naïve? I imagine I'm a few decades older than you are. And I'm pretty sure you've never lost your job with a family to feed or you wouldn't be so cocksure that the loss of thousands of jobs was an unalloyed good thing. I also addressed his point perfectly well in my last sentence. To clarify it for you, yes, I believe that bad businesses will have to go, and since most of them today are bad, there will be a collapse and millions of people will suffer tremendously. It's inevitable but it's really hard not to feel for the people who are suffering now and the millions more who will suffer in the future. My only hope is that some sort of better system will come out of the ruins..." }, { "docid": "426591", "title": "", "text": "\"Former financial analyst here, happy to help you. First off, you are right to not be entirely trusting of advisors and attorneys. They are usually trustworthy, but not always. And when you are new to this, the untrustworthy ones have a habit of reaching you first - you're their target market. I'll give you a little breakdown of how to plan, and a starting investment. First, figure out your future expenses. A LOT of that money may go to medical bills or associated care - don't forget the costs of modifications and customizations to items so you can have a better quality of life. Cars can be retrofit to assist you with a wheelchair, you can build a chair lift into a staircase, things like that which will be important for mobility - all depending on the lingering medical conditions. Mobility and independence will be critically important for you. Your past expenses are the best predictor of future expenses, so filter out the one-time legal and medical costs and use those to predict. Second, for investing there is a simple route to get into the stock market, and hopefully you will hear it a lot: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). You'll hear \"\"The S&P 500 increased by 80 points today...\"\" on the news; the S&P is a combination of 500 different stocks and is used to gauge the market overall. You can buy an exchange traded fund as a stock, and it's an investment in all those components. There's an ETF for almost anything, but the most popular ones are for those big indexes. I would suggest putting a few hundred thousand into an S&P 500 indexed ETF (do it at maybe $10,000 per month, so you spread the money out and ensure you don't buy at a market peak), and then let it sit there for many years. You can buy stocks through online brokerages like Scottrade or ETrade, and they make it fairly easy - they even have local offices that you can visit for help. Stocks are the easiest way to invest. Once you've done this, you can also open a IRA (a type of retirement account with special tax benefits) and contribute several thousand dollars to it per year. I'll be happy to give more advice if/when you need it, but there are a number of good books for beginning investors that can explain it better than I. I would suggest that you avoid real estate, especially if you expect to move overseas, as it is significantly more complicated and has maintenance costs and taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "285606", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Since gold in this very simple hypothetical system has absolutely no use other than a store of value, it is debt. But gold does have other uses. It is a metal that's used for jewelry, it has decorative value. Exchanging something for gold is like a caveman giving you a stone ax if you do some cave paintings for him. If all the civilization disappeared, gold would still have a value, different from bank notes. Gold is a convenient standard commodity for exchange for several reasons: it's indestructible, it's compact, it's easily recognizable. All the gold ever mined in the world would fit inside a typical five-story apartment building. Yet it doesn't burn, doesn't spoil, can be stored forever, different from apples or oranges. &gt;these firms would be adjusting their capacity, and not sitting on trillions of dollars of currency that ought to be liquid. Here s where the difference between actual work that has been performed and a promise make a real difference. These companies are sitting on trillions of dollars of promises, not products. What they have is paper, shares, bonds, debentures, whatever. They are unable to transform those papers into products, because they lack the manufacturing capacity to do so. They do not have a million apples, they have a paper where the farmer said he would grow a million apples. Overall, the corporations in the US have invested heavily in acquisitions of other corporations, this trend has been going on for several decades now. These papers cannot be easily converted into anything useful. For the moment they are just there, with their nominal value that people agreed upon. It's not easy to turn that investment into production." }, { "docid": "585269", "title": "", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "260983", "title": "", "text": "10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions. But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky. A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though. To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked. Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it." } ]

[ { "docid": "298308", "title": "", "text": "Use the chrome extension called Xray - the complete article is below Why Goldman Sachs Seized a Client’s 217-Foot Yacht Wall Street banks’ latest gold rush is making loans to wealthy clients; collateral includes Warhol and rare wine collection The yacht ‘Natita’ is listed for $39.9 million. The yacht ‘Natita’ is listed for $39.9 million. PHOTO: DUTCHMEGAYACHTS By Liz Hoffman Aug. 10, 2017 5:30 a.m. ET 158 COMMENTS Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS 0.33% owns hundreds of billions of dollars of stocks, bonds and commodities. Add to its portfolio: a 217-foot luxury yacht called Natita. The story behind the boat begins with a 2014 loan to a prized Goldman client, billionaire Texas oilman William Kallop. It ends with Goldman suing its own client and the U.S. Marshals last month swooping down on a West Palm Beach marina to impound the yacht—which boasts a movie theater, Jacuzzi and helipad. Goldman’s nautical trophy is a strange but inevitable outcome of Wall Street’s latest gold rush: lending to wealthy clients, the loans backed by everything from Warhols to wine. These loans, which are growing quickly at firms such as Goldman, Morgan Stanley and UBS Group AG, are an exotic spin on the most basic thing banks do: lending money to people. They have the added benefit of building loyalty among prized, ultrawealthy clientele. RELATED Wall Street Needs You to Borrow Against Your Stock (July 27) Like any loans, though, they can go bad and leave banks holding assets that aren’t easy to value or sell. Goldman will likely auction Natita, which already has been on the market for almost two years with no takers. A Goldman spokesman declined to comment on the case. Mr. Kallop didn’t respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Kallop declined to comment. “If you do it right, it’s a great business and clients will absolutely love you for it,” said Bruce Holley, a partner at the Boston Consulting Group who advises private banks on wealth-management strategy. “But there are a lot of ways to mess up.” Banks pushed wealth lending in recent years against a backdrop of increasing deposits and tepid demand for traditional loans. Goldman’s private bank has quadrupled its overall lending balances since 2012 to $29 billion. Morgan Stanley wealth-loan balances are up 420% since 2012 to $74 billion. The largest chunk of wealth loans are mortgages and loans backed by stock portfolios. A smaller but growing segment is secured by valuables such as classic cars, hedge-fund stakes, and even rare violins. Wealth loans are especially profitable for banks because the revenue they generate is shared less generously with brokers than trading commissions and other fees. Banks say these loans are safe because they already know the borrowers, their assets, and their ability to repay. And unlike, say, credit cards, these loans have collateral and often a personal guarantee as well. Goldman said in a February filing that the value of collateral in its wealth loans “generally exceed[s]” the loan amount. Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank AG have lent against the art collection of hedge-fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen, who owns works by Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso, according to Connecticut state filings. Top Blackstone Group LP executives including founder Stephen Schwarzman have borrowed from UBS against their stakes in the private-equity firms’ funds, New York filings show. Goldman lent to natural-gas wildcatter Aubrey McClendon against his wine collection, according to an Oklahoma filing. Executives joked the collateral was “particularly liquid.” After Mr. McClendon’s death in 2015, the collection—heavy on rare Bordeaux—was auctioned for $8.4 million. Goldman made its money back. Although not as well-known as those borrowers, Mr. Kallop was the kind of client whom private banks court. In the 1970s, he joined a family-owned marine-services company called McAllister Towing &amp; Transportation. A legal dispute in 1993 resulted in a split of the company. The tugboat and ferry operations stayed with the family. Mr. Kallop took the offshore oil business, which he built over the next two decades into a portfolio of drilling rights, rig operators and construction arms. He sold the business for nearly $1 billion in 2009 to a consortium of Colombian and Korean investors. Mr. Kallop then dabbled in investing, taking a 7% stake in energy company Quicksilver Resources and buying a 300-year-old liquor distillery in Peru. He spent lavishly, acquiring three Gulfstream jets and at least eight residences, including a Peruvian mansion, two homes in the Dominican Republic and a working cattle ranch in Texas, according to property record, lawsuits and people who have worked for him. And he bought yachts—at least seven of them over the past eight years. In addition to Natita, which he bought in 2010 and named for his mother-in-law, Mr. Kallop’s fleet includes Bad Girl, moored in the Dominican Republic, and Honey Fitz, a 93-footer used by President John F. Kennedy that he bought at Sotheby’s Camelot auction in 1998 and restored. Another yacht, La Diva, which was once owned by Ivana Trump, was destroyed in a fire. A few years ago, Goldman came calling. The Wall Street firm’s private bank manages some $450 billion in assets for 11,500 ultrarich clients, and was developed in the 1980s to help business owners like Mr. Kallop manage their windfall after a sale. Mr. Kallop became a client. In 2014, he borrowed $21.2 million from the bank to buy a 12,000-square-foot Tahitian-inspired oceanfront mansion just down the beach from Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla., county records show. In 2014, Mr. Kallop borrowed $32 million from Goldman against the Natita and Bad Girl, court records show. The loan, the maritime equivalent of a home-equity loan, carried an interest rate of three percentage points above the London interbank offered rate. But then Mr. Kallop hit money troubles, according to former employees and acquaintances. He put off upgrades to the boats, which were showing signs of wear—bad enough for a March 2016 charter group to walk off Natita in Nassau, a former crew member said. Goldman ordered periodic valuations of the yacht after making the loan, according to the crew member. Mr. Kallop laid off crew members and put Natita up for sale in 2015 for €59.5 million ($67 million at that time), then dropped the price to $57.5 million last year, according to court documents. He sold a second Palm Beach house in April 2015 for $19 million. Goldman alleges he stopped paying back on the loan last November. Three crew members, including the captain, were recently awarded roughly $90,000 in back pay by a Florida court. A Texas judge last month awarded his former bodyguard more than $500,000 for unpaid services. Mr. Kallop also owes the Florida marina where Natita is docked hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, employees said. Eventually, Goldman filed suit in a Miami federal court to seize the boat in a maritime version of a foreclosure. Acting on a judge’s orders, U.S. Marshals impounded Natita at a West Palm Beach marina, where it remains. Goldman’s first move as owner-in-waiting: buying $67,000 worth of fuel to keep the yacht’s generator running, according to court filings. Today, the yacht is listed for $39.9 million, according to broker​Worth Avenue Yachts. The outstanding balance of the loan owed to Goldman is roughly $28 million. Write to Liz Hoffman at liz.hoffman@wsj.com" }, { "docid": "166844", "title": "", "text": "The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. ET Friday. So it changed its mind every single time? That's either a bug or it's front running. I think it's front running no matter how you look at it. If I ran the SEC, I'd put in place a rule that says all orders must stand for 2 seconds before they can be cancelled. That's enough time for humans to react in the market. This 25 ms for 500 stocks is nonsense. That's just front running to defraud real investors and make money on very small differences in price millions of times a day. It distorts the markets and does no good for anyone except the brokerage that is running the scam." }, { "docid": "304085", "title": "", "text": "Any time there is a share adjustment from spin-off, merger, stock split, or reverse slit; there is zero chance for the stockholders to hang on to fractional shares. They are turned into cash. For the employees in the 401K program or investors via a mutual fund or ETF this isn't a problem. Because the fraction of a share left over is compared to the thousands or millions of shares owned by the fund as a collective. For the individual investor in the company this can be a problem that they aren't happy about. In some cases the fractional share is a byproduct that will result from any of these events. In the case of a corporate merger or spin-off most investors will not have an integer number of shares, so that fraction leftover that gets converted to cash isn't a big deal. When they want to boost the price to a specific range to meet a regulatory requirement, they are getting desperate and don't care that some will be forced out. In other cases it is by design to force many shareholders out. They want to go private. They to 1-for-1000 split. If you had less than 1000 shares pre-split then you will end up with zero shares plus cash. They know exactly what number to use. The result after the split is that the number of investors is small enough they they can now fall under a different set of regulations. They have gone dark, they don't have to file as many reports, and they can keep control of the company. Once the Board of Directors or the majority stockholders votes on this, the small investors have no choice." }, { "docid": "188364", "title": "", "text": "\"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves). Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with \"\"promotions\"\" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all, then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so.\"" }, { "docid": "149256", "title": "", "text": "Naïve? I imagine I'm a few decades older than you are. And I'm pretty sure you've never lost your job with a family to feed or you wouldn't be so cocksure that the loss of thousands of jobs was an unalloyed good thing. I also addressed his point perfectly well in my last sentence. To clarify it for you, yes, I believe that bad businesses will have to go, and since most of them today are bad, there will be a collapse and millions of people will suffer tremendously. It's inevitable but it's really hard not to feel for the people who are suffering now and the millions more who will suffer in the future. My only hope is that some sort of better system will come out of the ruins..." }, { "docid": "127578", "title": "", "text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation." }, { "docid": "173715", "title": "", "text": "\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"" }, { "docid": "240351", "title": "", "text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not." }, { "docid": "504579", "title": "", "text": "\"I did a quick search, they have a $2B/5yr deal with google cloud. Downside is Google is a competitor potentially, especially in the ad market. Upside is SNAP revenue increased from $58M in 2015 to just over $404M in 2016. I think in today's market, everyone wants to hold the next \"\"Amazon\"\" or \"\"Google\"\" stocks at their conception. Sure would be nice if you had a few thousand in Amazon at their IPO. So I think pure speculation is why they were trading above IPO price for so long. It could be the next biggest thing, or it could fail in 5 years we never know these things lol\"" }, { "docid": "442830", "title": "", "text": "Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me." }, { "docid": "212110", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're talking about a single stock, you greatly underestimate the chances of it dropping, even long-term. Check out the 12 companies that made up the first Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1896. There is probably only one you've heard of: GE. Many of the others are long gone or have since been bought up by larger companies. And remember these were 12 companies that were deemed to be the most representative of the stock market around the turn of the 20th century. Now, if you're talking about funds that hold many stocks (up to thousands), then your question is a little different. Over the long-term (25+ years), we have never experienced a period where the overall market lost value. Of course, as you recognize, the psychology of investors is a very important factor. If the stock market loses half of its value in a year (as it has done a few times), people will be inundated with bad news and proclamations of \"\"this time it's different!\"\" and explanations of why the stock market will never recover. Perhaps this may be true some day, but it never has been thus far. So based on all the evidence we have, if you hold a well-diversified fund, the chances of it going down long-term (again, meaning 25+ years) are basically zero.\"" }, { "docid": "379314", "title": "", "text": "\"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \"\"business\"\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\"" }, { "docid": "562784", "title": "", "text": "Source? I have seen success stories constantly, and the company has donated tens of thousands of dollars of product to employees who lost homes in the recent disasters. And thats only a small part of how Amazon treats their employees. A simple google search would reveal even more, including details on the tuition assistance and employee assistance programs which Amazon spends millions to run." }, { "docid": "110733", "title": "", "text": "\"You should spend zero on your stock research company. If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars. They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something. Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock \"\"research\"\" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks. They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price. Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem. The research company knows that its recommendations will \"\"make good money\"\" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people. To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing \"\"dumb\"\" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period. And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck. I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck. Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value. Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal \"\"stock research\"\" enterprise.\"" }, { "docid": "157597", "title": "", "text": "Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here." }, { "docid": "432665", "title": "", "text": "Don't throw good money after bad. If you bought on the peak of an event like news/earnings hoping for more and ignored its value than you might be doomed. Determine the stocks value and see it as a buying opportunity if it's still sweet. If not buy more carefully. Those kinds of moves in that range you must have been involved in micro-small caps like biotechs. Thats where money goes to talk to itself and chew on its arm. You win big by finding an alien chip under your skin to reverse engineer or far more likely just wind up eating yourself. If your not holding inside info or at the higher levels of a pyramid for a pump/dump you really shouldn't let your greed take you there. I can expect and stomach w/o worry being wrong at my buy time as much as 10-15% and live with it for a year or more because I see I'm buying a quarter for a dime and will continue to buy into it without staking everything though). I bought in heavy when netflix (prior to split) was $50 or so hoping for a quick bounce and it sunk to like 20 something. No I didn't buy more, I felt like I just got my own .com bubble experience. I stopped looking at it,helpless to do anything other than eat a huge loss I adopted an out of sight out of mind thinking. I no longer wished to be in it, I felt like an ass for getting myself into it, it did NOT look good at the time and I risked a huge amount of capital for what I felt wrongly was a nice quick trade to make some thousands off. Checked it one day, must have wanted to hurt myself, and it was near $300 a share. My extreme loss had turned into something wonderful. A big tax bomb. Netflix eventually split and rose even more meteorically. I held on and only exited a while back and my worst mistake became my best success. Yet still, you trade like that, on unsound things, don't rely on getting the winning ticket because they are few and all others are losers. If your in for a penny you need to be in for the pound and help yourself immensely by sticking to sound stocks and currencies. You trade on news you may find yourself in Zimbabwe dollars with Enron stock. Bad footing, no matter the news or excitement is bad footing." }, { "docid": "273866", "title": "", "text": "All forms of liquid investing necessarily have the same expected value. If any one form were more profitable, money would flood in, equalizing it. Day trading is unusual in two key ways. First, although the expected value is the same, the risk profile is very different. For example, would you wager a dollar on the flip of a coin? You might. Why not, after all? Would you wager a million dollars? Probably not. The risk is too great. Similarly, day trading can easily lose you all of your investment, which is why you should be careful doing it. (In his memoirs Liar's Poker, Michael Lewis tells an anecdote about a rich bond trader who proposes a million-dollar, even-money bet with his rival, an amount both could just barely afford to lose. The rival, not wanting to play but not wanting to lose face by declining, accepted.. with the proviso that the stakes be raised to 10 million dollars! The trader backed down.) Also, the efficient market only guarantees the price will be efficient. It says nothing about transaction costs. A busy day-trader can easily incur thousands in commission and other fees." }, { "docid": "100188", "title": "", "text": "They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task." }, { "docid": "368348", "title": "", "text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it." } ]

[ { "docid": "359580", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is yes, it is possible to do what these classes claim, however, it is highly unlikely. For every person they can show you that got rich using whatever so called method they are teaching, there are hundreds of people that didn't that they aren't telling you about. What I would recommend is invest in a well diversified portfolio. If you have a higher tolerance for risk then you can make some of that portfolio out of higher risk/reward investments. Maybe you pick the next Apple or Google or Netflix or whatever but that portion of your portfolio should be money that you can afford to lose in case you pick duds." } ]

[ { "docid": "426591", "title": "", "text": "\"Former financial analyst here, happy to help you. First off, you are right to not be entirely trusting of advisors and attorneys. They are usually trustworthy, but not always. And when you are new to this, the untrustworthy ones have a habit of reaching you first - you're their target market. I'll give you a little breakdown of how to plan, and a starting investment. First, figure out your future expenses. A LOT of that money may go to medical bills or associated care - don't forget the costs of modifications and customizations to items so you can have a better quality of life. Cars can be retrofit to assist you with a wheelchair, you can build a chair lift into a staircase, things like that which will be important for mobility - all depending on the lingering medical conditions. Mobility and independence will be critically important for you. Your past expenses are the best predictor of future expenses, so filter out the one-time legal and medical costs and use those to predict. Second, for investing there is a simple route to get into the stock market, and hopefully you will hear it a lot: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). You'll hear \"\"The S&P 500 increased by 80 points today...\"\" on the news; the S&P is a combination of 500 different stocks and is used to gauge the market overall. You can buy an exchange traded fund as a stock, and it's an investment in all those components. There's an ETF for almost anything, but the most popular ones are for those big indexes. I would suggest putting a few hundred thousand into an S&P 500 indexed ETF (do it at maybe $10,000 per month, so you spread the money out and ensure you don't buy at a market peak), and then let it sit there for many years. You can buy stocks through online brokerages like Scottrade or ETrade, and they make it fairly easy - they even have local offices that you can visit for help. Stocks are the easiest way to invest. Once you've done this, you can also open a IRA (a type of retirement account with special tax benefits) and contribute several thousand dollars to it per year. I'll be happy to give more advice if/when you need it, but there are a number of good books for beginning investors that can explain it better than I. I would suggest that you avoid real estate, especially if you expect to move overseas, as it is significantly more complicated and has maintenance costs and taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "403864", "title": "", "text": "Like an S&amp;P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&amp;P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think." }, { "docid": "11075", "title": "", "text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk." }, { "docid": "533408", "title": "", "text": "\"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\"" }, { "docid": "149256", "title": "", "text": "Naïve? I imagine I'm a few decades older than you are. And I'm pretty sure you've never lost your job with a family to feed or you wouldn't be so cocksure that the loss of thousands of jobs was an unalloyed good thing. I also addressed his point perfectly well in my last sentence. To clarify it for you, yes, I believe that bad businesses will have to go, and since most of them today are bad, there will be a collapse and millions of people will suffer tremendously. It's inevitable but it's really hard not to feel for the people who are suffering now and the millions more who will suffer in the future. My only hope is that some sort of better system will come out of the ruins..." }, { "docid": "29530", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; It is amazing to me how \"\"middle class\"\" can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and not spend even a few thousand to get some real advice. i have seen to many ''middle class'' buy a $100k+ house and not even spend $1000 on a decent home inspection...\"" }, { "docid": "487738", "title": "", "text": "? Share price reflects the residual value of the company to the shareholders and therefore the value they assume it can create for its customers. Now, if you have a better understanding of that value than the millions of investors that own and trade its share, that's a different story." }, { "docid": "285147", "title": "", "text": "Robert Kiyosaki repeatedly stressed that starting your own business is risk free and the easiest way to get rich, yet he's never done it - and has actually failed in business 3 times. He won't release his real estate investment history or his stock market investments. After failing many times he had no money until he joined network marketing groups to sell these books, he has made his money from his courses and books and has probably lost money from actual investments - I say this because most of his property investments were bought when market prices were very high. He's also stated that he essentially speculates on stock prices, when his broker phones him with the idea that a stock is about to go up he will shift lots of money into those stocks. If you'd like to read more, this exposes everything about him: [http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides](http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides) [Wall street journal article about him and Donald Trump.](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116052181216688592.html?mod=money_page_left_hs) [Another video about 'get rich quick real estate gurus' ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx2KMUvqRIM&amp;feature=player_embedded) This is turning into a cult following with people spending thousands on credit cards to go to these courses and receive this poor advice, please watch this BBC documentary to see the way people are acting about this 'get rich quick real estate' scheme: [BBC Iplayer link](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017xgn6/Money_Who_Wants_to_be_a_Millionaire/)" }, { "docid": "564957", "title": "", "text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong)." }, { "docid": "292338", "title": "", "text": "If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt." }, { "docid": "261975", "title": "", "text": "\"I used to be in research department for big financial data company. Tell your son that there are three factors: Most people think that net sales vs. expectations is the only factor. It might not even be the biggest. It is simply how much money did company make. Note that this is not how many units they sold. For most companies they will have adjustable pricing and incentives in their sector. For example let's talk about a new company selling Superman Kid's Bikes (with a cape the flips out when you hit a certain speed). The company has it in Walmart at one price, Target at another, Toys R' Us even cheaper, Amazon (making more profit there), and other stores. They are doing \"\"OK\"\" come Dec. 1 but holiday season being half way over they slash price from $100 to $80 because they have tons of inventory. What are looking at her is how much money did they make. Note that marketing, advertising, legal (setting up contracts) are a bit fixed. In my opinion consumer sentiment is the #1 thing for a company that sells a product. Incredible consumer sentiment is like millions of dollars in free advertising. So let's say Dec. 15th comes and the reviews on the Superman Bike are through the roof. Every loves it, no major defects. Company can't even supply the retailers now because after slashing the price it became a great buy. A common investor might be pissed that some dummy at the company slashed the prices so they could have had a much better profit margin, but at the same time it wouldn't have led to an onslaught of sales and consumer sentiment. And the last area is product sell-off. This doesn't apply to all product but most. Some products will only have a technology shelf life, some will actually go bad or out of fashion, and even selling Superman bikes you want to get those to the store because the product is so big. So ignoring making a profit can a company sell off inventory at or around cost. If they can't, even if they made a profit, their risk factor goes up. So let's get back to Superman Bikes. This is the only product company ABC has. They had expected holiday sales at 100 million and profits at 40 million. They ended up at 120 million and 44 million. Let's say their stock was $20 before any information was gathered by the public (remember for most companies info is gathered daily now so this is rather simplistic). So you might expect that the stock would rise to maybe $24 - to which if you were an investor is a great profit. However this company has a cult consumer following who are waiting for the Captain America Bike (shoots discs) and the Hulk Bike (turns green when you go fast). Let's say consumer sentiment and projections base off that put next holiday sales at $250 million. So maybe the company is worth $40 a share now. But consumer sentiment is funny because not only does it effect future projections but it also effects perceived present value of company - which may have the stock trading at $60 a share (think earnings and companies like Google). Having a company people feel proud owning or thinking is cool is also a indicator or share worth. I gave you a really good example of a very successful company selling Superman Bikes... There are just as many companies that have the opposite happening. Imagine missing sales goals by a few million with bad consumer feedback and all of a sudden your company goes from $20 to $5 a share.\"" }, { "docid": "24856", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "450577", "title": "", "text": "Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question." }, { "docid": "384983", "title": "", "text": "\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"" }, { "docid": "274733", "title": "", "text": "The trick is real time. I like to wake up in the morning, turn on my computer and see at a glance the gain or loss data on each of my stock and bond at that moment. Companies like Ameritrde offer them, but you have to enroll and trade stock in them." }, { "docid": "110733", "title": "", "text": "\"You should spend zero on your stock research company. If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars. They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something. Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock \"\"research\"\" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks. They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price. Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem. The research company knows that its recommendations will \"\"make good money\"\" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people. To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing \"\"dumb\"\" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period. And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck. I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck. Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value. Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal \"\"stock research\"\" enterprise.\"" }, { "docid": "442830", "title": "", "text": "Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me." }, { "docid": "275943", "title": "", "text": "\"There are some useful answers here, but I don't think any of them are quite sufficient. Yes, there are some risks involved in CFD trading, but I will try and give you information so you can make your own decision. Firstly, Cyprus is part of the EU, which gives it a level of credibility. I'm not saying it's the safest or most well regulated market in the world, but that in itself would not particularly scare me away. The far more important issue here is the risk of using CFDs and of eToro themselves. A Contract for Difference is really just a specialization of an Equity Swap. It is in no way like owning a real stock. When you purchase shares of a company you own a real Asset and are usually entitled to dividends and voting rights. With a CFD, what you own is one side of a Swap contract. You have a legal agreement between yourself and eToro to \"\"swap\"\" the return earned on the underlying stock for whatever fees eToro decide to charge. As already mentioned, CFDs are not available to US citizens. Equity swaps have many benefits in financial markets. They can allow access to restricted markets by entering into swaps with banks that have the necessary licenses to trade in places like China. Many \"\"synthetic\"\" ETFs use them in Europe as a way to minimize tracking error as the return is guaranteed by the swap counterparty (for a charge). They also come with one signficant risk: counterparty credit risk. When trading with eToro, for as long as your position is open, you are at risk of eToro going bankrupt. If eToro failed, you do not actually own any stocks, you only own swap contracts which are going to be worthless if eToro ceased to exist. CFDs also have an ongoing cost to maintain the open position. This makes them less suitable for buy and hold strategies as those ongoing costs will eat into your returns. It's also not clear whether you would receive any dividends paid by the stock, which make up a significant proportion of returns for buy and hold investors. eToro's website is fairly non-committal: eToro intends to offer a financial compensation representing the dividends which will be allocated on stocks, to the extent such dividends shall be available to eToro. All of these points expose what CFDs are really for - speculating on the stock market, or as I like to call it: gambling. If you want to invest in stocks for the long term, CFDs are a bad idea - they have high ongoing costs and the counterparty risk becomes significant. Wait until you have enough money and then buy the real thing. Alternatively, consider mutual funds which will allow you to purchase partial shares and will ensure your investment is better diversified across a large number of stocks. If however, you want to gamble and only keep your position open for a short time, these issues may not be of concern to you. There's nothing wrong with gambling, it can be fun, many people gamble in casinos or on football matches - but bear in mind that's what CFDs are for. CFDs were in fact originally created for the UK market as a way to avoid paying capital gains tax when making short term speculative trades. However, if you are going to gamble, make sure you're not putting any more than 1% of your net worth at risk (0.1% may be a better target). There are a few other ways to take a position on stocks using less money than the share price: Fortunately, eToro do not allow leveraged purchase of stocks so you're reasonably safe on this point. They claim this is because of their 'responsible trading policy', although I find that somewhat questionable coming from a broker that offers 400:1 leverage on FX pairs. One final word on eToro's \"\"social trading\"\" feature. A few years ago I was in a casino playing Blackjack. I know nothing about Blackjack, but through sheer luck of the draw I managed to treble my money in a very small amount of time. Seeing this, a person behind me started \"\"following\"\" me by putting his chips down on my seat. Needless to say, I lost everything, but amazingly the person behind me got quite annoyed and started criticizing my strategy. The idea of following other people's trades just because they've been lucky in the past sounds entirely foolish to me. Remember the warning on every mutual fund: Past performance does not guarantee future returns\"" }, { "docid": "559111", "title": "", "text": "Here's a reality check. They likely cost on the order of a few million/yr, which is small potatoes compared to what Taibbi makes it sound like. They got caught, and are going to jail. Since Taibbi exggerates at every turn, and demonstrably so, I do not trust his reporting. The bid riggers were charged with corrupting *dozens* of bids from 1999 to 2006. Know how many bids were performed in that time? I challenge you to find out. I bet there was more than dozens issued over that 7 year period. In fact, since there appear to be 400B in new bonds issues a year and the one mentioned in the story was for 300M, if that is representative of the sizes then there are over 1,000 issued a year, for 7000 or so over that period. They corrupted *dozens*! Oh the humanity. Feel free to correct any of these numbers as you see fit. Reading the actual PDF from the charges, one finds that the fraud was no where near as egregious as the Taibbi story makes it out to be. [Here](http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f261600/261602.htm) is the indictment, and [here is the DOJ](http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/May/12-at-620.html) press release. [Here's](http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/121_88/cdr-financial-bid-rigging-trial-1039416-1.html) article reporting on the trial with no where near the sensationalism that Taibbi lives for, an article that actually reports *facts* from the case and makes no innunendo. [Here's](http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2012/three-former-financial-services-executives-convicted-for-roles-in-conspiracies-involving-investment-contracts-for-the-proceeds-of-municipal-bonds) FBI press release. Not a single one of these sources that actually had something to do with the investigation, trial, and conviction includes anything near what Taibbi writes. In fact, other than Taibbi's story and those reporting on it, it appears this is not all the big banks in cahoots to defraud poor bond markets, but a few bad apples that got caught and are getting appropriate punishment. Let me ask you - how much money did they take? The *total* market appears to be 400B in new sales. Some of the charges included something like changing a 5.04% instrument to a 5% instrument, for an item in a 300 million dollar range. If they reaped the entire difference (which is not likely since there were bid rigging which returns far less the the difference in the rigged bid) that comes to 120K/yr for one of dozens. Taibbi himself writes they may have made up to 87K/yr on that one. Wooo - massive theft!. If all were like that, then dozens is approximately 48 * 87k/yr = 4 million a year. The biggest number for stolen money in any of the actual court documents I have seen ranges in the 50-100K range. Please provide better evidence *from actual court documents* and not Taibbi style hearsay. Until then I provided you a reality check." } ]

[ { "docid": "60459", "title": "", "text": "\"Warren Buffett pointed out that if you set 1 million monkeys to flipping coins, after ten flips, one monkey in about 1,000 (1,024) actually, would have a \"\"perfect\"\" track record of 10 heads. If you can double your money every three to five years (basically, the outer limit of what is humanly possible), you can turn $1,000 into $1 million in 30-50 years. But your chances of doing this are maybe those of that one in 1,000 monkeys. There are people that believe that if Warren Buffett were starting out today, \"\"today's version\"\" could not beat the historical version. One of the \"\"believers\"\" is Warren Buffett himself (if you read between the lines of his writings). What the promoters do is to use the benefit of hindsight to show that if someone had done such-and-such trades on such-and-such days, they would have turned a few thousand into a million in a few short years. That's \"\"easy\"\" in hindsight, but then challenge them to do it in real time!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "423416", "title": "", "text": "Saving Fortune 500 companies hundreds of millions to billions a year and a small company a few thousand. Who's paying for the shortfall to the IRS? The reality is a small business probably make $0 profit because the owner pays himself out, or has enough employees that the (company) makes a profit saving a few grand doesn't do anything. You know what would help? The 1 trillion profit the Fortune 500 make a year, take half. Give energy companies 0% interest loans to pay off their nuclear plants and reduce energy costs for 320 million Americans by a large amount. Take the remainder and the following 3 years and refinance mortgages at 0% interest starting from the smallest to largest loans. 4 years high taxes on large corporations I just bailed out the middle class and helped the poor with 100% retuned to the IRS." }, { "docid": "66829", "title": "", "text": "You’re missing the point it’s also an investment. People buy them and never sell them. People also lose them. Reducing supply. The fbi seizes them. Pretty sure the ceo of overstock said they will long term hold. If it’s true they turned thousands into hundreds of millions." }, { "docid": "100188", "title": "", "text": "They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task." }, { "docid": "503981", "title": "", "text": "\"Before the prevalence of electronic trading, trading stocks was very costly, dropping from ~15c in the late 1970s to less than a nickel per share today. Exchange fees for liquidity takers are ~0.3c per share, currently. When orders were negotiated exclusively by humans, stocks used to be quoted in fractions rather than decimal, such as $50 1/2 instead of something more precise like $50.02. That necessary ease of negotiation for humans to rapidly trade extended to trade size as well. Traders preferred to handle orders in \"\"round lots\"\", 100 shares, for ease of calculation of the total cost of the trade, so 100 shares at $50 1/2 would have a total cost of $5,050. The time for a human to calculate an \"\"odd lot\"\" of 72 shares at $50.02 would take much longer so would cost more per share, and these costs were passed on to the client. These issues have been negated by electronic trading and simply no longer exist except for obsolete brokerages. There are cost advantages for extremely large trades, well above 100 shares per trade. Brokerage fees today run the gamut: they can be as insignificant as what Interactive Brokers charges to as high as a full service broker that could charge hundreds of USD for a few thousand USD trade. With full service brokerages, the charges are frequently mystifying and quoted at the time a trade is requested. With discount brokerages, there is usually a fee per trade and a fee per share or contract. Interactive Brokers will charge a fee per share or option only and will even refund parts of the liquidity rebates exchanges provide, as close as possible to having a seat on an exchange. Even if a trader does not meet Interactive Brokers' minimum trading requirement, the monthly fee is so low that it is possible that a buy and hold investor could benefit from the de minimis trade fees. It should be noted that liquidity providing hidden orders are typically not rebated but are at least discounted. The core costs of all trades are the exchange fees which are per share or contract. Over the long run, costs charged by brokers will be in excess of charges by exchanges, and Interactive Brokers' fee schedule shows that it can be reduced to a simple markup over exchange fees. Exchanges sometimes have a fee schedule with lower charges for larger trades, but these are out of reach of the average individual.\"" }, { "docid": "285147", "title": "", "text": "Robert Kiyosaki repeatedly stressed that starting your own business is risk free and the easiest way to get rich, yet he's never done it - and has actually failed in business 3 times. He won't release his real estate investment history or his stock market investments. After failing many times he had no money until he joined network marketing groups to sell these books, he has made his money from his courses and books and has probably lost money from actual investments - I say this because most of his property investments were bought when market prices were very high. He's also stated that he essentially speculates on stock prices, when his broker phones him with the idea that a stock is about to go up he will shift lots of money into those stocks. If you'd like to read more, this exposes everything about him: [http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides](http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides) [Wall street journal article about him and Donald Trump.](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116052181216688592.html?mod=money_page_left_hs) [Another video about 'get rich quick real estate gurus' ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx2KMUvqRIM&amp;feature=player_embedded) This is turning into a cult following with people spending thousands on credit cards to go to these courses and receive this poor advice, please watch this BBC documentary to see the way people are acting about this 'get rich quick real estate' scheme: [BBC Iplayer link](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017xgn6/Money_Who_Wants_to_be_a_Millionaire/)" }, { "docid": "166844", "title": "", "text": "The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. ET Friday. So it changed its mind every single time? That's either a bug or it's front running. I think it's front running no matter how you look at it. If I ran the SEC, I'd put in place a rule that says all orders must stand for 2 seconds before they can be cancelled. That's enough time for humans to react in the market. This 25 ms for 500 stocks is nonsense. That's just front running to defraud real investors and make money on very small differences in price millions of times a day. It distorts the markets and does no good for anyone except the brokerage that is running the scam." }, { "docid": "172025", "title": "", "text": "I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value. The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars." }, { "docid": "138300", "title": "", "text": "\"Hey just letting you know that I've sort of felt the same as you before. I'm not 29 yet, only a few years younger, and I too am in Alberta. Knowing that many trades can be quite lucrative here I too dipped my hand in them, namely the HVAC and Plumbing trades, and after a bit I felt that they weren't for me. And this was after using a year looking for any ins during the recession since nobody was hiring helpers/first years. During that whole year in the times I wasn't looking for a job I was researching and looking up videos of the trades and was thinking how INow after some career counseling, soul searching, all that jazz, I'm about to head back to school next week. If things go well by the time I graduate I will almost be 30 with my first (and probably only) degree. I wouldn't consider the years from the time I graduated high school to today, where I think I've figured out what I want to do, a waste, but instead I look at them as years where I grew as an adult and gaining real world experience in a few areas I've dabbled in. A future employer may look at them as wasted years, but it is up to me to spin them in a positive way as my \"\"story\"\". Just know that you aren't alone in this situation, and I'm sure there's plenty of people worldwide in their 20's and 30's who are still trying to figure out what they want to do. Keep your head up and good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "367745", "title": "", "text": "Thanks for the writeup, it was a really informative read. I've been aware for a while now that Reagan and Reaganomics were in a large way the 'start' of most of the current problems in the economic and political landscape, but you filled in a few gaps that were really useful for me. So I guess ultimately a lot of conservatives see it as a kind of necessary evil in order to bring about the success story that the current economy needs right now. Unfortunately, their strategy is totally wrong. That kind of makes sense with my observation that rather than supporting the cronyism and corruption, they turn a blind eye to it because they think it's necessary. My view is not so much that labour and finance capital returns need to be balanced (although that is probably a great thing to aim for), but that creation of wealth/capital needs to be intrinsically linked with the creation of real value. The modern banking crisis was a great example of the ability to generate wealth while in fact destroying real value." }, { "docid": "564957", "title": "", "text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong)." }, { "docid": "216494", "title": "", "text": "Exactly. A fundamental principle of economics is that purchases are only so valuable, and when the price increases beyond that value, they are no longer needed. If someone has calculated that these people will costs millions, while only returning thousands, there is clearly no point in hiring them. It is exactly like considering private jet in the millions, when thousands of dollars of commercial airfare would do. There is no real reason to own the jet either. It is still fun to dream about owning a private jet. You might remark about buying one if they were cheaper. But, realistically, it is not needed given the costs. It is also fun to dream about growing your business, and tell others that you would grow your business with cheaper people, but it's not needed given the costs." }, { "docid": "78224", "title": "", "text": "Stock price is based on supply and demand. Unless the stock you are looking to buy usually has very low volume trading 100 shares isn't likely to have any effect on price. There are many companies that have millions or tens of millions of shares trade daily. For stocks like that 100 shares is barely a trivial percentage of the daily volume. For thinly traded stocks you can look at the bid and ask size but even that isn't likely to get you an exact answer. Unless you are trading large volumes your trade will have no effect on the price of shares." }, { "docid": "519501", "title": "", "text": "I feel like when your assets are mostly stock, then your every minute is basically fluctuating by the hundreds of millions and on a ~~good~~ active trading day you could be up or down a few billions." }, { "docid": "285606", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Since gold in this very simple hypothetical system has absolutely no use other than a store of value, it is debt. But gold does have other uses. It is a metal that's used for jewelry, it has decorative value. Exchanging something for gold is like a caveman giving you a stone ax if you do some cave paintings for him. If all the civilization disappeared, gold would still have a value, different from bank notes. Gold is a convenient standard commodity for exchange for several reasons: it's indestructible, it's compact, it's easily recognizable. All the gold ever mined in the world would fit inside a typical five-story apartment building. Yet it doesn't burn, doesn't spoil, can be stored forever, different from apples or oranges. &gt;these firms would be adjusting their capacity, and not sitting on trillions of dollars of currency that ought to be liquid. Here s where the difference between actual work that has been performed and a promise make a real difference. These companies are sitting on trillions of dollars of promises, not products. What they have is paper, shares, bonds, debentures, whatever. They are unable to transform those papers into products, because they lack the manufacturing capacity to do so. They do not have a million apples, they have a paper where the farmer said he would grow a million apples. Overall, the corporations in the US have invested heavily in acquisitions of other corporations, this trend has been going on for several decades now. These papers cannot be easily converted into anything useful. For the moment they are just there, with their nominal value that people agreed upon. It's not easy to turn that investment into production." }, { "docid": "24856", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "273866", "title": "", "text": "All forms of liquid investing necessarily have the same expected value. If any one form were more profitable, money would flood in, equalizing it. Day trading is unusual in two key ways. First, although the expected value is the same, the risk profile is very different. For example, would you wager a dollar on the flip of a coin? You might. Why not, after all? Would you wager a million dollars? Probably not. The risk is too great. Similarly, day trading can easily lose you all of your investment, which is why you should be careful doing it. (In his memoirs Liar's Poker, Michael Lewis tells an anecdote about a rich bond trader who proposes a million-dollar, even-money bet with his rival, an amount both could just barely afford to lose. The rival, not wanting to play but not wanting to lose face by declining, accepted.. with the proviso that the stakes be raised to 10 million dollars! The trader backed down.) Also, the efficient market only guarantees the price will be efficient. It says nothing about transaction costs. A busy day-trader can easily incur thousands in commission and other fees." }, { "docid": "173836", "title": "", "text": "\"Volume is measured in the number of shares traded in a given day, week, month, etc. This means that it's not necessarily a directly-comparable measure between stocks, as there's a large difference between 1 million shares traded of a $1 stock ($1 million total) and 1 million shares traded of a $1000 stock ($1 billion total). Volume as a number on its own is lacking in context; it often makes more sense to look at it as an overall dollar amount (as in the parentheses above) or as a fraction of the total number of shares in the marketplace. When you see a price quoted for a particular ticker symbol, whether online, or on TV, or elsewhere, that price is typically the price of the last trade that executed for that security. A good proxy for the current fair price of an asset is what someone else paid for it in the recent past (as long as it wasn't too long ago!). So, when you see a quote labeled \"\"15.5K @ $60.00\"\", that means that the last trade on that security, which the service is using to quote the security's price, was for 15500 shares at a price of $60 per share. Your guess is correct. The term \"\"institutional investor\"\" often is meant to include many types of institutions that would control large sums of money. This includes large banks, insurance companies, pooled retirement funds, hedge funds, and so on.\"" }, { "docid": "211028", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/california-once-compared-to-greece-now-trading-better-than-aaa) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Seven years ago, California was &amp;quot;The next Greece.&amp;quot; Today, the state&amp;#039;s bonds are trading better than AAA. As the Golden State benefits from record-breaking stock prices, Silicon Valley&amp;#039;s boom and a resurgent real estate market, demand for tax-exempt debt in the state with the highest top income tax rate in the U.S. is &amp;quot;Insatiable,&amp;quot; said Nicholos Venditti, a portfolio manager for Thornburg Investment Management. &gt; An investor Tuesday bought about $1.1 million of state general obligation bonds maturing in six years at a yield of 1.33 percent, or 4.3 basis points below AAA rated bonds with the same maturity. &gt; If the market turns and spreads widen, investors holding California bonds may be &amp;quot;Hit disproportionately hard,&amp;quot; Venditti said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6swqdv/california_once_compared_to_greece_is_now_trading/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~188113 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bond**^#1 **California**^#2 **Venditti**^#3 **State**^#4 **investor**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "298308", "title": "", "text": "Use the chrome extension called Xray - the complete article is below Why Goldman Sachs Seized a Client’s 217-Foot Yacht Wall Street banks’ latest gold rush is making loans to wealthy clients; collateral includes Warhol and rare wine collection The yacht ‘Natita’ is listed for $39.9 million. The yacht ‘Natita’ is listed for $39.9 million. PHOTO: DUTCHMEGAYACHTS By Liz Hoffman Aug. 10, 2017 5:30 a.m. ET 158 COMMENTS Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS 0.33% owns hundreds of billions of dollars of stocks, bonds and commodities. Add to its portfolio: a 217-foot luxury yacht called Natita. The story behind the boat begins with a 2014 loan to a prized Goldman client, billionaire Texas oilman William Kallop. It ends with Goldman suing its own client and the U.S. Marshals last month swooping down on a West Palm Beach marina to impound the yacht—which boasts a movie theater, Jacuzzi and helipad. Goldman’s nautical trophy is a strange but inevitable outcome of Wall Street’s latest gold rush: lending to wealthy clients, the loans backed by everything from Warhols to wine. These loans, which are growing quickly at firms such as Goldman, Morgan Stanley and UBS Group AG, are an exotic spin on the most basic thing banks do: lending money to people. They have the added benefit of building loyalty among prized, ultrawealthy clientele. RELATED Wall Street Needs You to Borrow Against Your Stock (July 27) Like any loans, though, they can go bad and leave banks holding assets that aren’t easy to value or sell. Goldman will likely auction Natita, which already has been on the market for almost two years with no takers. A Goldman spokesman declined to comment on the case. Mr. Kallop didn’t respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Kallop declined to comment. “If you do it right, it’s a great business and clients will absolutely love you for it,” said Bruce Holley, a partner at the Boston Consulting Group who advises private banks on wealth-management strategy. “But there are a lot of ways to mess up.” Banks pushed wealth lending in recent years against a backdrop of increasing deposits and tepid demand for traditional loans. Goldman’s private bank has quadrupled its overall lending balances since 2012 to $29 billion. Morgan Stanley wealth-loan balances are up 420% since 2012 to $74 billion. The largest chunk of wealth loans are mortgages and loans backed by stock portfolios. A smaller but growing segment is secured by valuables such as classic cars, hedge-fund stakes, and even rare violins. Wealth loans are especially profitable for banks because the revenue they generate is shared less generously with brokers than trading commissions and other fees. Banks say these loans are safe because they already know the borrowers, their assets, and their ability to repay. And unlike, say, credit cards, these loans have collateral and often a personal guarantee as well. Goldman said in a February filing that the value of collateral in its wealth loans “generally exceed[s]” the loan amount. Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank AG have lent against the art collection of hedge-fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen, who owns works by Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso, according to Connecticut state filings. Top Blackstone Group LP executives including founder Stephen Schwarzman have borrowed from UBS against their stakes in the private-equity firms’ funds, New York filings show. Goldman lent to natural-gas wildcatter Aubrey McClendon against his wine collection, according to an Oklahoma filing. Executives joked the collateral was “particularly liquid.” After Mr. McClendon’s death in 2015, the collection—heavy on rare Bordeaux—was auctioned for $8.4 million. Goldman made its money back. Although not as well-known as those borrowers, Mr. Kallop was the kind of client whom private banks court. In the 1970s, he joined a family-owned marine-services company called McAllister Towing &amp; Transportation. A legal dispute in 1993 resulted in a split of the company. The tugboat and ferry operations stayed with the family. Mr. Kallop took the offshore oil business, which he built over the next two decades into a portfolio of drilling rights, rig operators and construction arms. He sold the business for nearly $1 billion in 2009 to a consortium of Colombian and Korean investors. Mr. Kallop then dabbled in investing, taking a 7% stake in energy company Quicksilver Resources and buying a 300-year-old liquor distillery in Peru. He spent lavishly, acquiring three Gulfstream jets and at least eight residences, including a Peruvian mansion, two homes in the Dominican Republic and a working cattle ranch in Texas, according to property record, lawsuits and people who have worked for him. And he bought yachts—at least seven of them over the past eight years. In addition to Natita, which he bought in 2010 and named for his mother-in-law, Mr. Kallop’s fleet includes Bad Girl, moored in the Dominican Republic, and Honey Fitz, a 93-footer used by President John F. Kennedy that he bought at Sotheby’s Camelot auction in 1998 and restored. Another yacht, La Diva, which was once owned by Ivana Trump, was destroyed in a fire. A few years ago, Goldman came calling. The Wall Street firm’s private bank manages some $450 billion in assets for 11,500 ultrarich clients, and was developed in the 1980s to help business owners like Mr. Kallop manage their windfall after a sale. Mr. Kallop became a client. In 2014, he borrowed $21.2 million from the bank to buy a 12,000-square-foot Tahitian-inspired oceanfront mansion just down the beach from Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla., county records show. In 2014, Mr. Kallop borrowed $32 million from Goldman against the Natita and Bad Girl, court records show. The loan, the maritime equivalent of a home-equity loan, carried an interest rate of three percentage points above the London interbank offered rate. But then Mr. Kallop hit money troubles, according to former employees and acquaintances. He put off upgrades to the boats, which were showing signs of wear—bad enough for a March 2016 charter group to walk off Natita in Nassau, a former crew member said. Goldman ordered periodic valuations of the yacht after making the loan, according to the crew member. Mr. Kallop laid off crew members and put Natita up for sale in 2015 for €59.5 million ($67 million at that time), then dropped the price to $57.5 million last year, according to court documents. He sold a second Palm Beach house in April 2015 for $19 million. Goldman alleges he stopped paying back on the loan last November. Three crew members, including the captain, were recently awarded roughly $90,000 in back pay by a Florida court. A Texas judge last month awarded his former bodyguard more than $500,000 for unpaid services. Mr. Kallop also owes the Florida marina where Natita is docked hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, employees said. Eventually, Goldman filed suit in a Miami federal court to seize the boat in a maritime version of a foreclosure. Acting on a judge’s orders, U.S. Marshals impounded Natita at a West Palm Beach marina, where it remains. Goldman’s first move as owner-in-waiting: buying $67,000 worth of fuel to keep the yacht’s generator running, according to court filings. Today, the yacht is listed for $39.9 million, according to broker​Worth Avenue Yachts. The outstanding balance of the loan owed to Goldman is roughly $28 million. Write to Liz Hoffman at liz.hoffman@wsj.com" } ]

[ { "docid": "523393", "title": "", "text": "\"I did once read a book titled \"\"How I made a million dollars on the stock market\"\". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck. (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, \"\"smart\"\" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal). Clearly not a matter of \"\"playing your cards right\"\", but of having an enormous amount of luck.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "66829", "title": "", "text": "You’re missing the point it’s also an investment. People buy them and never sell them. People also lose them. Reducing supply. The fbi seizes them. Pretty sure the ceo of overstock said they will long term hold. If it’s true they turned thousands into hundreds of millions." }, { "docid": "157597", "title": "", "text": "Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here." }, { "docid": "533408", "title": "", "text": "\"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\"" }, { "docid": "101111", "title": "", "text": "Can you show me where? Because pretty sure when obama put a tax to help fund the ACA, the economy thrived, a million doctors were hired, hundreds of hospitals, and thousands upon thousands of walk in clinics we're built. And the stock market thrived more." }, { "docid": "504579", "title": "", "text": "\"I did a quick search, they have a $2B/5yr deal with google cloud. Downside is Google is a competitor potentially, especially in the ad market. Upside is SNAP revenue increased from $58M in 2015 to just over $404M in 2016. I think in today's market, everyone wants to hold the next \"\"Amazon\"\" or \"\"Google\"\" stocks at their conception. Sure would be nice if you had a few thousand in Amazon at their IPO. So I think pure speculation is why they were trading above IPO price for so long. It could be the next biggest thing, or it could fail in 5 years we never know these things lol\"" }, { "docid": "24856", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "458494", "title": "", "text": "\"I find those \"\"government checks\"\" arguments to be more appealing in theory than in reality. Ultimately, it comes down to deciding who gets what... and who gets to be the decider. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it decides who gets what through the individual, decentralized choices of everyone. Again, it's not perfect by any means, but it is dispersed - and everyone makes decisions for themselves, not for other people. Government action decides who gets what through a highly indirect process of electing politicians, and decisions are made by a small group of people, who are under, practically speaking, very little oversight or control. A few people make decisions for everyone else. Government action is, despite all our desire and efforts to avoid this, necessarily subject to the same disparities in influence/control as the market ... It may come in different forms, and the consequences may manifest differently (often less readily apparent), but there is no avoiding the \"\"a few people have a lot more control than everyone else\"\" problem. Governments are more prone to corruption because they trade the intangible currency of \"\"power\"\" in addition to money. No matter how you go about doing so, it's always easier to counteract a private actor than a government (given roughly equivalent levels of influence, obviously). I understand the desire for intervention, but I think we have a scary tendency to place far too much weight on good intentions, and far too little weight on consequences. It's so easy to think things through in your head (I do often) and come up with a plan that could obviously work exactly as intended for everyone's benefit. In doing so, we forget that people aren't pawns to be guided through life for someone else's vision (or pursuit of utopia or anything else) . ... they have lives, desires, interests, plans of their own, and theirs are just as valid as yours or mine. The reality is that you and I are probably far more similar than either of us would guess. But there are still huge differences - what we value, what we want to do next year, whether we want that promotion or want to get laid off so we can finally start our dream business, whether we want money for family vacations or medical bills.... so many differences that I couldn't ever fairly and accurately represent your interests without you actually telling me what they are. That's just the 2 of us. There are 300 million people in the US - we can't comprehend even really knowing a thousand well enough to genuinely speak on their behalf. In theory, big plans make everything better. In practice, they run into the reality that humans truly aren't pawns, and controlling 300 million people and predicting their responses/actions is way more difficult than it seems. Big plans often end up with real people - people who are just as deserving of opportunities and rights as everyone else - getting really hurt because some guy he doesn't know (and who doesn't know him) had an idea and the power to enforce it on everyone. I'm not saying that all government interference is bad, of course, and I'm not saying it shouldn't happen. Government interventions that are straightforward wealth transfers are probably less harmful to people ... like a tax on the rich to give hefty tax refunds to the poor, is more direct and less prone to causing unintentional harm then things like wage manipulations.\"" }, { "docid": "564957", "title": "", "text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong)." }, { "docid": "585269", "title": "", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"" }, { "docid": "11075", "title": "", "text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk." }, { "docid": "212110", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're talking about a single stock, you greatly underestimate the chances of it dropping, even long-term. Check out the 12 companies that made up the first Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1896. There is probably only one you've heard of: GE. Many of the others are long gone or have since been bought up by larger companies. And remember these were 12 companies that were deemed to be the most representative of the stock market around the turn of the 20th century. Now, if you're talking about funds that hold many stocks (up to thousands), then your question is a little different. Over the long-term (25+ years), we have never experienced a period where the overall market lost value. Of course, as you recognize, the psychology of investors is a very important factor. If the stock market loses half of its value in a year (as it has done a few times), people will be inundated with bad news and proclamations of \"\"this time it's different!\"\" and explanations of why the stock market will never recover. Perhaps this may be true some day, but it never has been thus far. So based on all the evidence we have, if you hold a well-diversified fund, the chances of it going down long-term (again, meaning 25+ years) are basically zero.\"" }, { "docid": "176414", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Actually the reason isn't because of the gold standard. The real reason is because we have seen a sharp increase in fruit imports over the past 5 decades. Huh? Agriculture is down to single digits as part of the GDP. What does that have to do with a gold standard and monetary policy? &gt;Productivity is up rather dramatically as compared to 40 years ago. Maybe you mean manufacturing? Productivity is up since say, the turn of the century but this is to be expected since we incorporated electricity, oil, automobiles and eventually computers. But as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. That means the growth in productivity. You can see this best here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg Think of productivity like GDP. It used to be 5 and was on its way to 6, but right as we went off the gold standard, productivity increases stagnated and by 2007 we're only at 5.5 instead of the expected 6. This uses a logarithmic function wherein 6 is 10x more than 5. So while productivity has not fallen in an absolute sense, growth in productivity which is more important than absolute GDP growth has fallen and is infact related to a decrease in productivity growth. &gt;The reason you're seeing the gains over the past several years shifting towards the rich is due to a combination of tax policy and a rise in cronyism caused by our campaign financing problems. Big businesses often have a lot of lobbying power to get laws passed that ultimately are felt by the rest of the economy. The reason it has shifted to the rich is because as the currency has debased the gains have gone towards the biggest companies, wealthiest individuals, assisted by government which works like an auction house to those with connections which is why lobbying ROI is huge. &gt;Fiat currency is a good thing for countries like the United States. We can safely finance and pay our debts for a few more years while wracking up debt without fear of hyperinflation. Because our massive debt is doing so well for us? In the beginning it looks nice because there is very little pain and is practically unnoticible, but as we see current events playing out in the US and to a greater extent Europe which isnt as tightly knit economically as the US, fiat currency has huge problems. Hyperinflation of commodities and deflation of assets are occuring before our eyes. House values are plummeting, medical/education/consumer goods are inflating. Not QUITE to the hyper part, but inflation is increasing and only when commodities such as oil see a deflation in demand as we see right now does inflation look under control. Shadow inflation is very much alive. If you have dollars in savings, the rates do not even outpace inflation, you are forced into riskier and risker investments to make a return. &gt;Now, there may be a lot to gripe about how the United States is currently spending its money, but it's established \"\"practical\"\" fact that government investment can spur growth, level out recessions, help people, etc. Established over what? the last 40 years? Thats hardly enough time to call practical fact when the gold standard existed for hundreds and thousands of years. Infact NO fiat currency that has ever existed has survived. That is the real fact, and the dollar and euro themselves are currently going through the end stages of this cancer. &gt;TL;DR The Gold Standard sucks, it has a lot of problems. Fiat Currency rocks for the USA because USA Fuck yeah! We are in a particular advantage where the real risks of fiat currency don't really apply to the USA **55 Million on food stamps with 20-30 million more on other forms of government assistance such as unemployment and welfare, unemployment increasing, GDP growth decreasing, median income decreasing, total employment stagnant (Same number of full time wage earners exist today as in 2000, despite 30+ million more American citizens), decreased consumer confidence, Average age of cars on the road went from 5 years in the 1960s to 12 years today (people dont buy new cars as frequently meaning less disposable income), decreased home ownership, increased retirement age, decreased young american employment.** **I am not sure why you think that the USA is in such a great position. The american dream is faultering if you're just starting out in life. Just ask any number of recent college grads who are increasingly living with parents, not getting married and can't find jobs.**\"" }, { "docid": "127578", "title": "", "text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation." }, { "docid": "77802", "title": "", "text": "That’s how sellers sell their home fast. It provides extensive listing exposure because hundreds of thousands visit the military rental homes every day. In fact, it is one of the top 25 most visited real estate homes in the U.S. getting millions of visitors looking to buy or sell a military home every month." }, { "docid": "384983", "title": "", "text": "\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"" }, { "docid": "110584", "title": "", "text": "For the lazy, Wikipedia says: The term microcap stock (also micro-cap) refers to the stock of public companies in the United States which have a market capitalization of roughly $300 million or less. The shares of companies with a market capitalization of less than $50 million are typically referred to as nano-cap stocks. Many micro-cap and nano-cap stocks are traded over-the-counter with their prices quoted on the OTCBB or the Pink Sheets. A few of the larger, more established microcaps are listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market or American Stock Exchange (AMEX). Micro-cap and especially nano-cap stocks are notorious for their volatility. A high percentage of these companies fail to execute their business plans and go out of business. Fraud and market manipulation are not uncommon, and the transactions costs in trading can be quite high. Pricing is more likely to be inefficient, since fewer institutional investors and analysts operate in this space, due to the relatively small dollar amounts involved and the lack of liquidity." }, { "docid": "503981", "title": "", "text": "\"Before the prevalence of electronic trading, trading stocks was very costly, dropping from ~15c in the late 1970s to less than a nickel per share today. Exchange fees for liquidity takers are ~0.3c per share, currently. When orders were negotiated exclusively by humans, stocks used to be quoted in fractions rather than decimal, such as $50 1/2 instead of something more precise like $50.02. That necessary ease of negotiation for humans to rapidly trade extended to trade size as well. Traders preferred to handle orders in \"\"round lots\"\", 100 shares, for ease of calculation of the total cost of the trade, so 100 shares at $50 1/2 would have a total cost of $5,050. The time for a human to calculate an \"\"odd lot\"\" of 72 shares at $50.02 would take much longer so would cost more per share, and these costs were passed on to the client. These issues have been negated by electronic trading and simply no longer exist except for obsolete brokerages. There are cost advantages for extremely large trades, well above 100 shares per trade. Brokerage fees today run the gamut: they can be as insignificant as what Interactive Brokers charges to as high as a full service broker that could charge hundreds of USD for a few thousand USD trade. With full service brokerages, the charges are frequently mystifying and quoted at the time a trade is requested. With discount brokerages, there is usually a fee per trade and a fee per share or contract. Interactive Brokers will charge a fee per share or option only and will even refund parts of the liquidity rebates exchanges provide, as close as possible to having a seat on an exchange. Even if a trader does not meet Interactive Brokers' minimum trading requirement, the monthly fee is so low that it is possible that a buy and hold investor could benefit from the de minimis trade fees. It should be noted that liquidity providing hidden orders are typically not rebated but are at least discounted. The core costs of all trades are the exchange fees which are per share or contract. Over the long run, costs charged by brokers will be in excess of charges by exchanges, and Interactive Brokers' fee schedule shows that it can be reduced to a simple markup over exchange fees. Exchanges sometimes have a fee schedule with lower charges for larger trades, but these are out of reach of the average individual.\"" }, { "docid": "432665", "title": "", "text": "Don't throw good money after bad. If you bought on the peak of an event like news/earnings hoping for more and ignored its value than you might be doomed. Determine the stocks value and see it as a buying opportunity if it's still sweet. If not buy more carefully. Those kinds of moves in that range you must have been involved in micro-small caps like biotechs. Thats where money goes to talk to itself and chew on its arm. You win big by finding an alien chip under your skin to reverse engineer or far more likely just wind up eating yourself. If your not holding inside info or at the higher levels of a pyramid for a pump/dump you really shouldn't let your greed take you there. I can expect and stomach w/o worry being wrong at my buy time as much as 10-15% and live with it for a year or more because I see I'm buying a quarter for a dime and will continue to buy into it without staking everything though). I bought in heavy when netflix (prior to split) was $50 or so hoping for a quick bounce and it sunk to like 20 something. No I didn't buy more, I felt like I just got my own .com bubble experience. I stopped looking at it,helpless to do anything other than eat a huge loss I adopted an out of sight out of mind thinking. I no longer wished to be in it, I felt like an ass for getting myself into it, it did NOT look good at the time and I risked a huge amount of capital for what I felt wrongly was a nice quick trade to make some thousands off. Checked it one day, must have wanted to hurt myself, and it was near $300 a share. My extreme loss had turned into something wonderful. A big tax bomb. Netflix eventually split and rose even more meteorically. I held on and only exited a while back and my worst mistake became my best success. Yet still, you trade like that, on unsound things, don't rely on getting the winning ticket because they are few and all others are losers. If your in for a penny you need to be in for the pound and help yourself immensely by sticking to sound stocks and currencies. You trade on news you may find yourself in Zimbabwe dollars with Enron stock. Bad footing, no matter the news or excitement is bad footing." }, { "docid": "307518", "title": "", "text": "\"The stock market is not a zero-sum game. Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest \"\"at random\"\", you would on average make money. That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time). That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money. When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value. While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to \"\"investing at random\"\". It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option. If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21. You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free. But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money. If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right? (Plus transaction costs.) But what if it trades at $60? Or $100? Or $10000? You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million. It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade \"\"at random\"\", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations. That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them. That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty: you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line. Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "519619", "title": "", "text": "I made upwards of 3M from 200K by trading stocks, which I made from a business that I invested 20K in. HOWEVER, DO NOT use trading stocks as a source of income, you're gambling with your precious cash. There are safer alternatives." } ]

[ { "docid": "211028", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/california-once-compared-to-greece-now-trading-better-than-aaa) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Seven years ago, California was &amp;quot;The next Greece.&amp;quot; Today, the state&amp;#039;s bonds are trading better than AAA. As the Golden State benefits from record-breaking stock prices, Silicon Valley&amp;#039;s boom and a resurgent real estate market, demand for tax-exempt debt in the state with the highest top income tax rate in the U.S. is &amp;quot;Insatiable,&amp;quot; said Nicholos Venditti, a portfolio manager for Thornburg Investment Management. &gt; An investor Tuesday bought about $1.1 million of state general obligation bonds maturing in six years at a yield of 1.33 percent, or 4.3 basis points below AAA rated bonds with the same maturity. &gt; If the market turns and spreads widen, investors holding California bonds may be &amp;quot;Hit disproportionately hard,&amp;quot; Venditti said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6swqdv/california_once_compared_to_greece_is_now_trading/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~188113 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bond**^#1 **California**^#2 **Venditti**^#3 **State**^#4 **investor**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "12367", "title": "", "text": "I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss." }, { "docid": "240351", "title": "", "text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not." }, { "docid": "450577", "title": "", "text": "Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question." }, { "docid": "11075", "title": "", "text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk." }, { "docid": "285147", "title": "", "text": "Robert Kiyosaki repeatedly stressed that starting your own business is risk free and the easiest way to get rich, yet he's never done it - and has actually failed in business 3 times. He won't release his real estate investment history or his stock market investments. After failing many times he had no money until he joined network marketing groups to sell these books, he has made his money from his courses and books and has probably lost money from actual investments - I say this because most of his property investments were bought when market prices were very high. He's also stated that he essentially speculates on stock prices, when his broker phones him with the idea that a stock is about to go up he will shift lots of money into those stocks. If you'd like to read more, this exposes everything about him: [http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides](http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides) [Wall street journal article about him and Donald Trump.](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116052181216688592.html?mod=money_page_left_hs) [Another video about 'get rich quick real estate gurus' ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx2KMUvqRIM&amp;feature=player_embedded) This is turning into a cult following with people spending thousands on credit cards to go to these courses and receive this poor advice, please watch this BBC documentary to see the way people are acting about this 'get rich quick real estate' scheme: [BBC Iplayer link](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017xgn6/Money_Who_Wants_to_be_a_Millionaire/)" }, { "docid": "127743", "title": "", "text": "As many people here have pointed out, a CFD is a contract for difference. When you invest in stock at eToro, you buy a CFD reflecting a bid on the price movement of the underlying stock, however, you do not actually own the stock or hold any rights shareholders have. The counterparty to the CFD is eToro. When you close your position, eToro shall pay you the amount representing the difference between your buy and sell price for each stock. I suggest you read the following article about CFDs, it explains everything clearly and thoroughly: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/09/trade-a-cfd.asp#axzz2G9ZsmX3A As some of the responders have pointed out, and as is mentioned in the article, a broker can potentially misquote the prices of underlying assets in order to manipulate CFDs to their advantage. However, eToro is a highly reputable broker, with over 2 million active accounts, and we guarantee accurate stock quotes. Furthermore, eToro is regulated in Europe (Germany, UK, France, etc.) by institutions that exact strict regulations on the CFD trading sector, and we are obligated to comply with these regulations, which include accurate price quoting. And of course, CFD trading at eToro has tremendous benefits. Unlike a direct stock investment, eToro allows you to invest as much or as little as you like in your favorite stocks, even if the amount is less than the relevant stock price (i.e. fraction stocks). For example: if you invest $10 in Microsoft, and on the day of execution eToro’s average aggregated price was $30 after a spread of 0.1%, you will then have a CFD representing 0.33 stocks of Microsoft in your eToro account. In addition, with eToro you can invest in stock in the context of a social trading network, meaning that you can utilize the stock trading expertise of other trader to your advantage by following them, learning their strategies, and even copying their stock investments automatically. To put it briefly, you won’t be facing the stock market alone! Before you make a decision, I suggest that you try stock trading with an eToro demo account. A free demo account grants you access to all our instruments at real market rates, as well as access to our social network where you can view and participate in trader discussions about trading stocks with eToro, all without risking your hard earned money. Bottom line – it’s free, there are no strings attached, and you can get a much firmer idea of what trading stocks with eToro is like. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us through our site: www.etoro.com." }, { "docid": "166844", "title": "", "text": "The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. ET Friday. So it changed its mind every single time? That's either a bug or it's front running. I think it's front running no matter how you look at it. If I ran the SEC, I'd put in place a rule that says all orders must stand for 2 seconds before they can be cancelled. That's enough time for humans to react in the market. This 25 ms for 500 stocks is nonsense. That's just front running to defraud real investors and make money on very small differences in price millions of times a day. It distorts the markets and does no good for anyone except the brokerage that is running the scam." }, { "docid": "519501", "title": "", "text": "I feel like when your assets are mostly stock, then your every minute is basically fluctuating by the hundreds of millions and on a ~~good~~ active trading day you could be up or down a few billions." }, { "docid": "54257", "title": "", "text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\"" }, { "docid": "26939", "title": "", "text": "Don't start by investing in a few individual companies. This is risky. Want an example? I'm thinking of a big company, say $120 billion or so, a household name, and good consistent dividends to boot. They were doing fairly well, and were generally busy trying to convince people that they were looking to the future with new environmentally friendly technologies. Then... they went and spilled a bunch of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, it wasn't a pretty picture if BP was one of five companies in your portfolio that day. Things would look a lot better if they were one of 500 or 5000 companies, though. So. First, aim for diversification via mutual funds or ETFs. (I personally think you should probably start with the mutual funds: you avoid trading fees, for one thing. It's also easier to fit medium-sized dollar amounts into funds than into ETFs, even if you do get fee-free ETF trading. ETFs can get you better expense ratios, but the less money you have invested the less important that is.) Once you have a decent-sized portfolio - tens of thousands of dollars or so - then you can begin to consider holding stocks of individual companies. Take note of fees, including trading fees / commissions. If you buy $2000 worth of stock and pay a $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money." }, { "docid": "503981", "title": "", "text": "\"Before the prevalence of electronic trading, trading stocks was very costly, dropping from ~15c in the late 1970s to less than a nickel per share today. Exchange fees for liquidity takers are ~0.3c per share, currently. When orders were negotiated exclusively by humans, stocks used to be quoted in fractions rather than decimal, such as $50 1/2 instead of something more precise like $50.02. That necessary ease of negotiation for humans to rapidly trade extended to trade size as well. Traders preferred to handle orders in \"\"round lots\"\", 100 shares, for ease of calculation of the total cost of the trade, so 100 shares at $50 1/2 would have a total cost of $5,050. The time for a human to calculate an \"\"odd lot\"\" of 72 shares at $50.02 would take much longer so would cost more per share, and these costs were passed on to the client. These issues have been negated by electronic trading and simply no longer exist except for obsolete brokerages. There are cost advantages for extremely large trades, well above 100 shares per trade. Brokerage fees today run the gamut: they can be as insignificant as what Interactive Brokers charges to as high as a full service broker that could charge hundreds of USD for a few thousand USD trade. With full service brokerages, the charges are frequently mystifying and quoted at the time a trade is requested. With discount brokerages, there is usually a fee per trade and a fee per share or contract. Interactive Brokers will charge a fee per share or option only and will even refund parts of the liquidity rebates exchanges provide, as close as possible to having a seat on an exchange. Even if a trader does not meet Interactive Brokers' minimum trading requirement, the monthly fee is so low that it is possible that a buy and hold investor could benefit from the de minimis trade fees. It should be noted that liquidity providing hidden orders are typically not rebated but are at least discounted. The core costs of all trades are the exchange fees which are per share or contract. Over the long run, costs charged by brokers will be in excess of charges by exchanges, and Interactive Brokers' fee schedule shows that it can be reduced to a simple markup over exchange fees. Exchanges sometimes have a fee schedule with lower charges for larger trades, but these are out of reach of the average individual.\"" }, { "docid": "7046", "title": "", "text": "\"diamonds are intrinsically worthless this is simply wrong. (1) Diamonds that are sold for anything less than, oh, let's say $5000 at original retail - are indeed utterly, totally, completely worthless. It is simply \"\"one of the great scams\"\". Their real \"\"price\"\" is maybe \"\"five bucks\"\". End of story. There is no secondary market. Literally - \"\"end of story\"\". If you buy a \"\"diamond\"\" lol for \"\"$2000\"\" to impress your loved one, you can not then \"\"sell it\"\" for any amount of money. It is: worthless. Once again: simple, undeniable fact. the diamond you bought for 2 grand cannot be resold. Ir's worthless. (OK, maybe you can get 100 bucks for it, something like that. Or, you can scam someone clueless, and get 200 bucks.) (2) However actual \"\"investment\"\" stones do in fact have a value - if somewhat fragile. Example, a few years ago I sold a stone for 30 thousand. That was a \"\"real\"\" price and it was quite liquid - I was within days able to find a buyer. (A dealer - he would have then sold it on for 35 or whatever.) I have never dealt in stones over six figures, but I'm fairly certain those are \"\"real\"\" valuable objects: just like paintings by name artists. (However: yes, the line between \"\"laughable diamonds\"\" and actual investment stones, is indeed moving ever upwards.) (Note - the \"\"elephant in the room\"\" with diamonds is that GE's industrial process for simply making utterly flawless diamonds, starting with carbon, is getting better every decade.) (A second overwheleming point that nobody has mentioned: diamonds get beat-up. Regarding \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\", a used one is exactly as useless as a used car. It's crap. Just as with $200,000 picassos, this concept does not apply to \"\"actual investment stones\"\".) Note that many of the comments/arguments on this page are very confused because: people are not distinguishing between the (ROFL) \"\"engagement ring scam market\"\" and the rarefied \"\"investment gem market\"\". The two things are utterly different. Yes, \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\" are an utter scam, and are simply: \"\"worthless\"\". The fundamental, basic, overwhelming scam in today's business/social universe is: \"\"engagement diamonds\"\". Yes, the price is only due to marketing/monopolies etc. Elephant in the room A: GE's technology can - end of story - manufacture diamonds. (Starting with \"\"pencil leads\"\".) End of story. It's all over. Elephant in the room B: folks forget that diamonds get beat-up, they are just like used cars. Regarding \"\"engagement-ring diamonds\"\", nobody has ever, or will ever, bought a used one. Simple, utterly undeniable fact: regarding \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\". they have: zero value. You cannot resell them. End of story. If you buy a house, you can resell it. If you buy a car, you can resell it (at a spectacular loss). If you buy a picasso, you can resell it (almost always making a huge profit). If you buy an \"\"engagement ring diamond\"\", it is worth: nothing. Zero. Nada. strictly regarding investment stones, which is a distinctly utterly different market. This market has no connection, in any way, at all, even vaguely, it is utterly unrelated, to \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\". You can in fact buy and sell these items - very much like say \"\"art\"\" or \"\"mid century antiques\"\", and make money. This market just has utterly no connection to the whole \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\" scam system. Say you buy wine at the supermarket, for 5 to 100 bucks a bottle. If you think that the \"\"wine\"\" thus bought, has a secondary market, or you can invest in it or something: you have lost your mind. In total contrast: Yes, although totally flakey, there is indeed an \"\"investment wine market\"\" which is real and reasonable. I for example have made some money in that. (I have a great anecdote even - I had one cellar of wine in burgundy, which could have been sold for, say, 30 grand - but we drank it :) ) Again, the (somewhat bizarre) actual market in investment wine, just has to \"\"buying wine in the supermarket\"\". To further the analogy: wine prices in the supermarket / your (ROFL) wine dealer, from 5 to 100 bucks, are just: utterly laughable. Utterly. Laughable. Much as folks sit around, and decide on \"\"label designs\"\", they sit around, and decide on \"\"price points\"\". There is, utterly, no difference between $5 and $100 grape juice rofl \"\"wine\"\". The price difference is simply a marketing decision: at best, you can think of it as a Velbin good. ... exactly the same applies to \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "304085", "title": "", "text": "Any time there is a share adjustment from spin-off, merger, stock split, or reverse slit; there is zero chance for the stockholders to hang on to fractional shares. They are turned into cash. For the employees in the 401K program or investors via a mutual fund or ETF this isn't a problem. Because the fraction of a share left over is compared to the thousands or millions of shares owned by the fund as a collective. For the individual investor in the company this can be a problem that they aren't happy about. In some cases the fractional share is a byproduct that will result from any of these events. In the case of a corporate merger or spin-off most investors will not have an integer number of shares, so that fraction leftover that gets converted to cash isn't a big deal. When they want to boost the price to a specific range to meet a regulatory requirement, they are getting desperate and don't care that some will be forced out. In other cases it is by design to force many shareholders out. They want to go private. They to 1-for-1000 split. If you had less than 1000 shares pre-split then you will end up with zero shares plus cash. They know exactly what number to use. The result after the split is that the number of investors is small enough they they can now fall under a different set of regulations. They have gone dark, they don't have to file as many reports, and they can keep control of the company. Once the Board of Directors or the majority stockholders votes on this, the small investors have no choice." }, { "docid": "562784", "title": "", "text": "Source? I have seen success stories constantly, and the company has donated tens of thousands of dollars of product to employees who lost homes in the recent disasters. And thats only a small part of how Amazon treats their employees. A simple google search would reveal even more, including details on the tuition assistance and employee assistance programs which Amazon spends millions to run." }, { "docid": "116647", "title": "", "text": "\"The game is not zero sum. When a friend and I chop down a tree, and build a house from it, the house has value, far greater than the value of a standing tree. Our labor has turned into something of value. In theory, a company starts from an idea, and offers either a good or service to create value. There are scams that make it seem like a Vegas casino. There are times a stock will trade for well above what it should. When I buy the S&P index at a fair price for 1000 (through an etf or fund) and years later it's 1400, the gain isn't out of someone else's pocket, else the amount of wealth in the world would be fixed and that's not the case. Over time, investors lag the market return for multiple reasons, trading costs, bad timing, etc. Statements such as \"\"90% lose money\"\" are hyperbole meant to separate you from your money. A self fulfilling prophesy. The question of lagging the market is another story - I have no data to support my observation, but I'd imagine that well over 90% lag the broad market. A detailed explanation is too long for this forum, but simply put, there are trading costs. If I invest in an S&P ETF that costs .1% per year, I'll see a return of say 9.9% over decades if the market return is 10%. Over 40 years, this is 4364% compounded, vs the index 4526% compounded, a difference of less than 4% in final wealth. There are load funds that charge more than this just to buy in (5% anyone?). Lagging by a small fraction is a far cry from 'losing money.' There is an annual report by a company named Dalbar that tracks investor performance. For the 20 year period ending 12/31/10 the S&P returned 9.14% and Dalbar calculates the average investor had an average return of 3.83%. Pretty bad, but not zero. Since you don't cite a particular article or source, there may be more to the story. Day traders are likely to lose. As are a series of other types of traders in other markets, Forex for one. While your question may be interesting, its premise of \"\"many experts say....\"\" without naming even one leaves room for doubt. Note - I've updated the link for the 2015 report. And 4 years later, I see that when searching on that 90% statistic, the articles are about day traders. That actually makes sense to me.\"" }, { "docid": "56405", "title": "", "text": "\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \"\"real\"\" earnings \"\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\"\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\"" }, { "docid": "487738", "title": "", "text": "? Share price reflects the residual value of the company to the shareholders and therefore the value they assume it can create for its customers. Now, if you have a better understanding of that value than the millions of investors that own and trade its share, that's a different story." }, { "docid": "173715", "title": "", "text": "\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "301866", "title": "", "text": "\"It's possible to make money in the market - even millions if you \"\"play your cards right\"\". Taking the course being offered can be educational but highly unlikely to increase your chances of making millions. Experience and knowledge of the game will make you money. The stock market is a game.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "216494", "title": "", "text": "Exactly. A fundamental principle of economics is that purchases are only so valuable, and when the price increases beyond that value, they are no longer needed. If someone has calculated that these people will costs millions, while only returning thousands, there is clearly no point in hiring them. It is exactly like considering private jet in the millions, when thousands of dollars of commercial airfare would do. There is no real reason to own the jet either. It is still fun to dream about owning a private jet. You might remark about buying one if they were cheaper. But, realistically, it is not needed given the costs. It is also fun to dream about growing your business, and tell others that you would grow your business with cheaper people, but it's not needed given the costs." }, { "docid": "110733", "title": "", "text": "\"You should spend zero on your stock research company. If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars. They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something. Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock \"\"research\"\" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks. They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price. Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem. The research company knows that its recommendations will \"\"make good money\"\" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people. To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing \"\"dumb\"\" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period. And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck. I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck. Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value. Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal \"\"stock research\"\" enterprise.\"" }, { "docid": "503981", "title": "", "text": "\"Before the prevalence of electronic trading, trading stocks was very costly, dropping from ~15c in the late 1970s to less than a nickel per share today. Exchange fees for liquidity takers are ~0.3c per share, currently. When orders were negotiated exclusively by humans, stocks used to be quoted in fractions rather than decimal, such as $50 1/2 instead of something more precise like $50.02. That necessary ease of negotiation for humans to rapidly trade extended to trade size as well. Traders preferred to handle orders in \"\"round lots\"\", 100 shares, for ease of calculation of the total cost of the trade, so 100 shares at $50 1/2 would have a total cost of $5,050. The time for a human to calculate an \"\"odd lot\"\" of 72 shares at $50.02 would take much longer so would cost more per share, and these costs were passed on to the client. These issues have been negated by electronic trading and simply no longer exist except for obsolete brokerages. There are cost advantages for extremely large trades, well above 100 shares per trade. Brokerage fees today run the gamut: they can be as insignificant as what Interactive Brokers charges to as high as a full service broker that could charge hundreds of USD for a few thousand USD trade. With full service brokerages, the charges are frequently mystifying and quoted at the time a trade is requested. With discount brokerages, there is usually a fee per trade and a fee per share or contract. Interactive Brokers will charge a fee per share or option only and will even refund parts of the liquidity rebates exchanges provide, as close as possible to having a seat on an exchange. Even if a trader does not meet Interactive Brokers' minimum trading requirement, the monthly fee is so low that it is possible that a buy and hold investor could benefit from the de minimis trade fees. It should be noted that liquidity providing hidden orders are typically not rebated but are at least discounted. The core costs of all trades are the exchange fees which are per share or contract. Over the long run, costs charged by brokers will be in excess of charges by exchanges, and Interactive Brokers' fee schedule shows that it can be reduced to a simple markup over exchange fees. Exchanges sometimes have a fee schedule with lower charges for larger trades, but these are out of reach of the average individual.\"" }, { "docid": "110584", "title": "", "text": "For the lazy, Wikipedia says: The term microcap stock (also micro-cap) refers to the stock of public companies in the United States which have a market capitalization of roughly $300 million or less. The shares of companies with a market capitalization of less than $50 million are typically referred to as nano-cap stocks. Many micro-cap and nano-cap stocks are traded over-the-counter with their prices quoted on the OTCBB or the Pink Sheets. A few of the larger, more established microcaps are listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market or American Stock Exchange (AMEX). Micro-cap and especially nano-cap stocks are notorious for their volatility. A high percentage of these companies fail to execute their business plans and go out of business. Fraud and market manipulation are not uncommon, and the transactions costs in trading can be quite high. Pricing is more likely to be inefficient, since fewer institutional investors and analysts operate in this space, due to the relatively small dollar amounts involved and the lack of liquidity." }, { "docid": "155376", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;They lie right to your face. \"\"Borrow tens of thousands of dollars to give to us, it will totally work out...for us.\"\" I don't believe they verbalize those last two words. They pretty much end it with a period after the \"\"work out\"\" part. And then of course, they produce that BS statistic that college grads make a \"\"million dollars more over their career\"\". I mean really? Which grads are those? You mean the ones who graduated circa 45-50 (or more) years ago (when very few people had college degrees)? And in exactly what inflation-adjusted time-frame was that \"\"million dollars\"\"? Was it 1960 dollars? 1980 dollars? 2000 dollars? Because a million bucks, while still not pocket change even in 2012, was worth a LOT more the further you go back.\"" }, { "docid": "304085", "title": "", "text": "Any time there is a share adjustment from spin-off, merger, stock split, or reverse slit; there is zero chance for the stockholders to hang on to fractional shares. They are turned into cash. For the employees in the 401K program or investors via a mutual fund or ETF this isn't a problem. Because the fraction of a share left over is compared to the thousands or millions of shares owned by the fund as a collective. For the individual investor in the company this can be a problem that they aren't happy about. In some cases the fractional share is a byproduct that will result from any of these events. In the case of a corporate merger or spin-off most investors will not have an integer number of shares, so that fraction leftover that gets converted to cash isn't a big deal. When they want to boost the price to a specific range to meet a regulatory requirement, they are getting desperate and don't care that some will be forced out. In other cases it is by design to force many shareholders out. They want to go private. They to 1-for-1000 split. If you had less than 1000 shares pre-split then you will end up with zero shares plus cash. They know exactly what number to use. The result after the split is that the number of investors is small enough they they can now fall under a different set of regulations. They have gone dark, they don't have to file as many reports, and they can keep control of the company. Once the Board of Directors or the majority stockholders votes on this, the small investors have no choice." }, { "docid": "292338", "title": "", "text": "If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt." }, { "docid": "176414", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Actually the reason isn't because of the gold standard. The real reason is because we have seen a sharp increase in fruit imports over the past 5 decades. Huh? Agriculture is down to single digits as part of the GDP. What does that have to do with a gold standard and monetary policy? &gt;Productivity is up rather dramatically as compared to 40 years ago. Maybe you mean manufacturing? Productivity is up since say, the turn of the century but this is to be expected since we incorporated electricity, oil, automobiles and eventually computers. But as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. That means the growth in productivity. You can see this best here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg Think of productivity like GDP. It used to be 5 and was on its way to 6, but right as we went off the gold standard, productivity increases stagnated and by 2007 we're only at 5.5 instead of the expected 6. This uses a logarithmic function wherein 6 is 10x more than 5. So while productivity has not fallen in an absolute sense, growth in productivity which is more important than absolute GDP growth has fallen and is infact related to a decrease in productivity growth. &gt;The reason you're seeing the gains over the past several years shifting towards the rich is due to a combination of tax policy and a rise in cronyism caused by our campaign financing problems. Big businesses often have a lot of lobbying power to get laws passed that ultimately are felt by the rest of the economy. The reason it has shifted to the rich is because as the currency has debased the gains have gone towards the biggest companies, wealthiest individuals, assisted by government which works like an auction house to those with connections which is why lobbying ROI is huge. &gt;Fiat currency is a good thing for countries like the United States. We can safely finance and pay our debts for a few more years while wracking up debt without fear of hyperinflation. Because our massive debt is doing so well for us? In the beginning it looks nice because there is very little pain and is practically unnoticible, but as we see current events playing out in the US and to a greater extent Europe which isnt as tightly knit economically as the US, fiat currency has huge problems. Hyperinflation of commodities and deflation of assets are occuring before our eyes. House values are plummeting, medical/education/consumer goods are inflating. Not QUITE to the hyper part, but inflation is increasing and only when commodities such as oil see a deflation in demand as we see right now does inflation look under control. Shadow inflation is very much alive. If you have dollars in savings, the rates do not even outpace inflation, you are forced into riskier and risker investments to make a return. &gt;Now, there may be a lot to gripe about how the United States is currently spending its money, but it's established \"\"practical\"\" fact that government investment can spur growth, level out recessions, help people, etc. Established over what? the last 40 years? Thats hardly enough time to call practical fact when the gold standard existed for hundreds and thousands of years. Infact NO fiat currency that has ever existed has survived. That is the real fact, and the dollar and euro themselves are currently going through the end stages of this cancer. &gt;TL;DR The Gold Standard sucks, it has a lot of problems. Fiat Currency rocks for the USA because USA Fuck yeah! We are in a particular advantage where the real risks of fiat currency don't really apply to the USA **55 Million on food stamps with 20-30 million more on other forms of government assistance such as unemployment and welfare, unemployment increasing, GDP growth decreasing, median income decreasing, total employment stagnant (Same number of full time wage earners exist today as in 2000, despite 30+ million more American citizens), decreased consumer confidence, Average age of cars on the road went from 5 years in the 1960s to 12 years today (people dont buy new cars as frequently meaning less disposable income), decreased home ownership, increased retirement age, decreased young american employment.** **I am not sure why you think that the USA is in such a great position. The american dream is faultering if you're just starting out in life. Just ask any number of recent college grads who are increasingly living with parents, not getting married and can't find jobs.**\"" }, { "docid": "519501", "title": "", "text": "I feel like when your assets are mostly stock, then your every minute is basically fluctuating by the hundreds of millions and on a ~~good~~ active trading day you could be up or down a few billions." }, { "docid": "298308", "title": "", "text": "Use the chrome extension called Xray - the complete article is below Why Goldman Sachs Seized a Client’s 217-Foot Yacht Wall Street banks’ latest gold rush is making loans to wealthy clients; collateral includes Warhol and rare wine collection The yacht ‘Natita’ is listed for $39.9 million. The yacht ‘Natita’ is listed for $39.9 million. PHOTO: DUTCHMEGAYACHTS By Liz Hoffman Aug. 10, 2017 5:30 a.m. ET 158 COMMENTS Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS 0.33% owns hundreds of billions of dollars of stocks, bonds and commodities. Add to its portfolio: a 217-foot luxury yacht called Natita. The story behind the boat begins with a 2014 loan to a prized Goldman client, billionaire Texas oilman William Kallop. It ends with Goldman suing its own client and the U.S. Marshals last month swooping down on a West Palm Beach marina to impound the yacht—which boasts a movie theater, Jacuzzi and helipad. Goldman’s nautical trophy is a strange but inevitable outcome of Wall Street’s latest gold rush: lending to wealthy clients, the loans backed by everything from Warhols to wine. These loans, which are growing quickly at firms such as Goldman, Morgan Stanley and UBS Group AG, are an exotic spin on the most basic thing banks do: lending money to people. They have the added benefit of building loyalty among prized, ultrawealthy clientele. RELATED Wall Street Needs You to Borrow Against Your Stock (July 27) Like any loans, though, they can go bad and leave banks holding assets that aren’t easy to value or sell. Goldman will likely auction Natita, which already has been on the market for almost two years with no takers. A Goldman spokesman declined to comment on the case. Mr. Kallop didn’t respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Kallop declined to comment. “If you do it right, it’s a great business and clients will absolutely love you for it,” said Bruce Holley, a partner at the Boston Consulting Group who advises private banks on wealth-management strategy. “But there are a lot of ways to mess up.” Banks pushed wealth lending in recent years against a backdrop of increasing deposits and tepid demand for traditional loans. Goldman’s private bank has quadrupled its overall lending balances since 2012 to $29 billion. Morgan Stanley wealth-loan balances are up 420% since 2012 to $74 billion. The largest chunk of wealth loans are mortgages and loans backed by stock portfolios. A smaller but growing segment is secured by valuables such as classic cars, hedge-fund stakes, and even rare violins. Wealth loans are especially profitable for banks because the revenue they generate is shared less generously with brokers than trading commissions and other fees. Banks say these loans are safe because they already know the borrowers, their assets, and their ability to repay. And unlike, say, credit cards, these loans have collateral and often a personal guarantee as well. Goldman said in a February filing that the value of collateral in its wealth loans “generally exceed[s]” the loan amount. Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank AG have lent against the art collection of hedge-fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen, who owns works by Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso, according to Connecticut state filings. Top Blackstone Group LP executives including founder Stephen Schwarzman have borrowed from UBS against their stakes in the private-equity firms’ funds, New York filings show. Goldman lent to natural-gas wildcatter Aubrey McClendon against his wine collection, according to an Oklahoma filing. Executives joked the collateral was “particularly liquid.” After Mr. McClendon’s death in 2015, the collection—heavy on rare Bordeaux—was auctioned for $8.4 million. Goldman made its money back. Although not as well-known as those borrowers, Mr. Kallop was the kind of client whom private banks court. In the 1970s, he joined a family-owned marine-services company called McAllister Towing &amp; Transportation. A legal dispute in 1993 resulted in a split of the company. The tugboat and ferry operations stayed with the family. Mr. Kallop took the offshore oil business, which he built over the next two decades into a portfolio of drilling rights, rig operators and construction arms. He sold the business for nearly $1 billion in 2009 to a consortium of Colombian and Korean investors. Mr. Kallop then dabbled in investing, taking a 7% stake in energy company Quicksilver Resources and buying a 300-year-old liquor distillery in Peru. He spent lavishly, acquiring three Gulfstream jets and at least eight residences, including a Peruvian mansion, two homes in the Dominican Republic and a working cattle ranch in Texas, according to property record, lawsuits and people who have worked for him. And he bought yachts—at least seven of them over the past eight years. In addition to Natita, which he bought in 2010 and named for his mother-in-law, Mr. Kallop’s fleet includes Bad Girl, moored in the Dominican Republic, and Honey Fitz, a 93-footer used by President John F. Kennedy that he bought at Sotheby’s Camelot auction in 1998 and restored. Another yacht, La Diva, which was once owned by Ivana Trump, was destroyed in a fire. A few years ago, Goldman came calling. The Wall Street firm’s private bank manages some $450 billion in assets for 11,500 ultrarich clients, and was developed in the 1980s to help business owners like Mr. Kallop manage their windfall after a sale. Mr. Kallop became a client. In 2014, he borrowed $21.2 million from the bank to buy a 12,000-square-foot Tahitian-inspired oceanfront mansion just down the beach from Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla., county records show. In 2014, Mr. Kallop borrowed $32 million from Goldman against the Natita and Bad Girl, court records show. The loan, the maritime equivalent of a home-equity loan, carried an interest rate of three percentage points above the London interbank offered rate. But then Mr. Kallop hit money troubles, according to former employees and acquaintances. He put off upgrades to the boats, which were showing signs of wear—bad enough for a March 2016 charter group to walk off Natita in Nassau, a former crew member said. Goldman ordered periodic valuations of the yacht after making the loan, according to the crew member. Mr. Kallop laid off crew members and put Natita up for sale in 2015 for €59.5 million ($67 million at that time), then dropped the price to $57.5 million last year, according to court documents. He sold a second Palm Beach house in April 2015 for $19 million. Goldman alleges he stopped paying back on the loan last November. Three crew members, including the captain, were recently awarded roughly $90,000 in back pay by a Florida court. A Texas judge last month awarded his former bodyguard more than $500,000 for unpaid services. Mr. Kallop also owes the Florida marina where Natita is docked hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, employees said. Eventually, Goldman filed suit in a Miami federal court to seize the boat in a maritime version of a foreclosure. Acting on a judge’s orders, U.S. Marshals impounded Natita at a West Palm Beach marina, where it remains. Goldman’s first move as owner-in-waiting: buying $67,000 worth of fuel to keep the yacht’s generator running, according to court filings. Today, the yacht is listed for $39.9 million, according to broker​Worth Avenue Yachts. The outstanding balance of the loan owed to Goldman is roughly $28 million. Write to Liz Hoffman at liz.hoffman@wsj.com" }, { "docid": "582313", "title": "", "text": "Imagine that I own 10% of a company, and yesterday my portion was valued at $1 Million, therefore the company is valued at $10 Million. Today the company accepts an offer to sell 1% of the company for $500 Thousand: now my portion is worth $5 Million, and company is worth $50 Million. The latest stock price sets the value of the company. If next week the news is all bad and the new investor sells their shares to somebody else for pennies on the dollar, the value of the company will drop accordingly." }, { "docid": "24856", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "211028", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/california-once-compared-to-greece-now-trading-better-than-aaa) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Seven years ago, California was &amp;quot;The next Greece.&amp;quot; Today, the state&amp;#039;s bonds are trading better than AAA. As the Golden State benefits from record-breaking stock prices, Silicon Valley&amp;#039;s boom and a resurgent real estate market, demand for tax-exempt debt in the state with the highest top income tax rate in the U.S. is &amp;quot;Insatiable,&amp;quot; said Nicholos Venditti, a portfolio manager for Thornburg Investment Management. &gt; An investor Tuesday bought about $1.1 million of state general obligation bonds maturing in six years at a yield of 1.33 percent, or 4.3 basis points below AAA rated bonds with the same maturity. &gt; If the market turns and spreads widen, investors holding California bonds may be &amp;quot;Hit disproportionately hard,&amp;quot; Venditti said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6swqdv/california_once_compared_to_greece_is_now_trading/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~188113 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bond**^#1 **California**^#2 **Venditti**^#3 **State**^#4 **investor**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "11075", "title": "", "text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk." }, { "docid": "210678", "title": "", "text": "If you want to convert more than a few thousand dollars, one somewhat complex method is to have two investment accounts at a discount broker that operations both in Canada and the USA, then buy securities for USD on a US exchange, have your broker move them to the Canadian account, then sell them on a Canadian exchange for CAD. This will, of course, incur trading fees, but they should be lower than most currency conversion fees if you convert more than a few thousand dollars, because trading fees typically have a very small percentage component. Using a currency ETF as the security to buy/sell can eliminate the market risk. In any case, it may take up to a week for the trades and transfer to settle." }, { "docid": "57516", "title": "", "text": "\"The fallacy in your question is in this statement: \"\"The formulas must exist, because prices can be followed real time.\"\" What you see are snapshots of the current status of the stock, what was the last price a stock was traded at, what is the volume, is the price going up or down. People who buy and hold their stock look at the status every few days or even every few months. Day traders look at the status every second of the trading day. The math/formula comes in when people try to predict where the stock is going based on the squiggles in the line. These squiggles move based on how other people react to the squiggles. The big movements occur when big pieces of news make large movements in the price. Company X announces the release of the key product will be delayed by a year; the founder is stepping down; the government just doubled the order for a new weapon system; the insiders are selling all the shares they can. There are no formulas to determine the correct price, only formulas that try to predict where the price may go.\"" }, { "docid": "564957", "title": "", "text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong)." }, { "docid": "56405", "title": "", "text": "\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \"\"real\"\" earnings \"\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\"\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\"" }, { "docid": "355167", "title": "", "text": "&gt; It's a huge joke. People are putting their stock in it, but there was a front page story just yesterday about another crypto currency that went from $300 to $0.10 with a single transaction. Hi, long time crypto nerd here... Just wanted to say that transaction was on one exchange and the price pretty much went back to normal in a few seconds. Due to the lack of experience in trading some people just dump like that on a whim, its not the norm, but it does happen. In any case, that was some +1,000 units worth which again is super rare. They likely bought a long time ago and forgot them... again, fairly uncommon." } ]

[ { "docid": "14967", "title": "", "text": "you'll need 25k to start or 2k in multiple accounts, that way you have access to margin, and don't have to worry about Pattern day trading limits. Be right more than you are wrong. Go up look for 3x potential up vs down risk. Compound daily. you can't double a penny every day every day for a month it becomes to difficult. but you can do 1%/day or maybe better. 2k compounded 1% every day becomes 75k at the end of a year (but you'll likely have to take weekends off, or look for other markets)" } ]

[ { "docid": "66626", "title": "", "text": "\"I recommend a Roth IRA. At your age you could turn 25K into a million and never pay taxes on these earnings. Of course there are yearly limits (5.5k) on the amount your can contribute to a Roth IRA account. If you haven't filed your taxes this year yet ... you can contribute 5.5K for last year and 5.5K for this year. Open two accounts at a discount brokerage firm. Trades should be about $10 or less per. Account one ... Roth IRA. Account two a brokerage account for the excess funds that can't be placed in the Roth IRA. Each year it will be easy transfer money into the Roth from this account. Be aware that you can't transfer stocks from brokerage acct to Roth IRA ... only cash. You can sell some stocks in brokerage and turn that into cash to transfer. This means settling up with the IRS on any gains/losses on that sale. Given your situation you'd likely have new cash to bring to table for the Roth IRA anyway. Invest in stocks and hold them for the long term. Do a google search for \"\"motley fool stock advisor\"\" and join. This is a premium service that picks two stocks to invest in each month. Invest small amounts (say $750) in each stock that they say you should buy. They will also tell you when to sell. They also give insights into why they selected the stock and why they are selling (aka learning experience). They pick quality companies. So if the economy is down you will still own a quality company that will make it through the storm. Avoid the temptation to load up on one stock. Follow the small amount rule mentioned above per stock. Good luck, and get in the market.\"" }, { "docid": "150496", "title": "", "text": "EDIT: I think it's a fairly straightforward cause &amp; effect. You tax the transactions, it lowers the incentive to do frequent trading. So yes, I do think it would limit it effectively. I'm under no illusion that speculating will end. But I think we need to dial it back a bit so that investment is the primary driver in the market, not gambling. I'm not anti speed, but the markets serve a real purpose: They allow for liquidity &amp; for useful capital allocation. And liquidity is nothing if all the machines are set to sell, sell, sell. This is what caused some of the crashes. Also, we had liquidity prior to all this High Frequency trading. I'm unsure that the added liquidity makes up for the cons of turning an investment engine into a gambling engine. You dont' even have to believe me. There are a few big time investors that say they are out of the market because it is no longer governed by reason." }, { "docid": "509565", "title": "", "text": "It is worth noting first that Real Estate is by no means passive income. The amount of effort and cost involved (maintenance, legal, advertising, insurance, finding the properties, ect.) can be staggering and require a good amount of specialized knowledge to do well. The amount you would have to pay a management company to do the work for you especially with only a few properties can wipe out much of the income while you keep the risk. However, keshlam's answer still applies pretty well in this case but with a lot more variability. One million dollars worth of property should get you there on average less if you do much of the work yourself. However, real estate because it is so local and done in ~100k chunks is a lot more variable than passive stocks and bonds, for instance, as you can get really lucky or really unlucky with location, the local economy, natural disasters, tenants... Taking out loans to get you to the million worth of property faster but can add a lot more risk to the process. Including the risk you wouldn't have any money on retirement. Investing in Real Estate can be a faster way to retirement than some, but it is more risky than many and definitely not passive." }, { "docid": "304085", "title": "", "text": "Any time there is a share adjustment from spin-off, merger, stock split, or reverse slit; there is zero chance for the stockholders to hang on to fractional shares. They are turned into cash. For the employees in the 401K program or investors via a mutual fund or ETF this isn't a problem. Because the fraction of a share left over is compared to the thousands or millions of shares owned by the fund as a collective. For the individual investor in the company this can be a problem that they aren't happy about. In some cases the fractional share is a byproduct that will result from any of these events. In the case of a corporate merger or spin-off most investors will not have an integer number of shares, so that fraction leftover that gets converted to cash isn't a big deal. When they want to boost the price to a specific range to meet a regulatory requirement, they are getting desperate and don't care that some will be forced out. In other cases it is by design to force many shareholders out. They want to go private. They to 1-for-1000 split. If you had less than 1000 shares pre-split then you will end up with zero shares plus cash. They know exactly what number to use. The result after the split is that the number of investors is small enough they they can now fall under a different set of regulations. They have gone dark, they don't have to file as many reports, and they can keep control of the company. Once the Board of Directors or the majority stockholders votes on this, the small investors have no choice." }, { "docid": "261975", "title": "", "text": "\"I used to be in research department for big financial data company. Tell your son that there are three factors: Most people think that net sales vs. expectations is the only factor. It might not even be the biggest. It is simply how much money did company make. Note that this is not how many units they sold. For most companies they will have adjustable pricing and incentives in their sector. For example let's talk about a new company selling Superman Kid's Bikes (with a cape the flips out when you hit a certain speed). The company has it in Walmart at one price, Target at another, Toys R' Us even cheaper, Amazon (making more profit there), and other stores. They are doing \"\"OK\"\" come Dec. 1 but holiday season being half way over they slash price from $100 to $80 because they have tons of inventory. What are looking at her is how much money did they make. Note that marketing, advertising, legal (setting up contracts) are a bit fixed. In my opinion consumer sentiment is the #1 thing for a company that sells a product. Incredible consumer sentiment is like millions of dollars in free advertising. So let's say Dec. 15th comes and the reviews on the Superman Bike are through the roof. Every loves it, no major defects. Company can't even supply the retailers now because after slashing the price it became a great buy. A common investor might be pissed that some dummy at the company slashed the prices so they could have had a much better profit margin, but at the same time it wouldn't have led to an onslaught of sales and consumer sentiment. And the last area is product sell-off. This doesn't apply to all product but most. Some products will only have a technology shelf life, some will actually go bad or out of fashion, and even selling Superman bikes you want to get those to the store because the product is so big. So ignoring making a profit can a company sell off inventory at or around cost. If they can't, even if they made a profit, their risk factor goes up. So let's get back to Superman Bikes. This is the only product company ABC has. They had expected holiday sales at 100 million and profits at 40 million. They ended up at 120 million and 44 million. Let's say their stock was $20 before any information was gathered by the public (remember for most companies info is gathered daily now so this is rather simplistic). So you might expect that the stock would rise to maybe $24 - to which if you were an investor is a great profit. However this company has a cult consumer following who are waiting for the Captain America Bike (shoots discs) and the Hulk Bike (turns green when you go fast). Let's say consumer sentiment and projections base off that put next holiday sales at $250 million. So maybe the company is worth $40 a share now. But consumer sentiment is funny because not only does it effect future projections but it also effects perceived present value of company - which may have the stock trading at $60 a share (think earnings and companies like Google). Having a company people feel proud owning or thinking is cool is also a indicator or share worth. I gave you a really good example of a very successful company selling Superman Bikes... There are just as many companies that have the opposite happening. Imagine missing sales goals by a few million with bad consumer feedback and all of a sudden your company goes from $20 to $5 a share.\"" }, { "docid": "97180", "title": "", "text": "Using any simulator will never be exactly the same as real trading. One reason is that a simulator will always execute your trades at the exact price you want, but that may not always happen in real life. For example, if you place a limit order to buy 1000 shares of a stock at 10.50, and the price drops down to exactly 10.50, then the simulator will execute your trade and you will have 1000 shares at 10.50. But in real life, the price of the stock may drop to 10.50, but other people may have buy orders ahead of you. If the price of the stock drops to 10.50 but then starts going up again, you may not get all the shares that you wanted (or you may not even get any shares at all) due to the fact that people were ahead of you. In real trading there is also slippage, which you don't see in a simulator. For example, if you have a stop order to sell 1000 shares of a stock if it drops to 7.50, then the simulator will sell all 1000 shares at 7.50 if the price drops to 7.50. But in real trading, if the price drops to 7.50, then you may not be able to sell all 1000 shares at 7.50 if there's not enough liquidity or the market is moving very fast. You may end up selling 100 shares at 7.50, 100 shares at 7.49, 100 shares at 7.48, 50 shares at 7.47, 50 shares at 7.46, 200 shares at 7.45, and 400 shares at 7.44. Another thing is that you don't experience the emotional aspect of trading with a simulator. If you buy a stock in a simulator and it goes down, it's not real money, so you may be more willing to hold it and wait for it to come back up. But if you are trading real money and the stock goes down, you may not be so willing to hold if it goes down. You may be more apt to sell the stock for a small loss before the loss gets too big." }, { "docid": "223278", "title": "", "text": "Everyone that owns a share of stock in a company is part owner. Some just own more than others. According to Apple's latest proxy statement he owns 5.5 million shares of the 914 million shares outstanding. So he owns approximately 0.6% of the company. If he owned more than 50% of the company's outstanding stock he would effectively control the board of directors by being able to pick whoever he wanted. Then he would control the company. Very few publicly traded companies are that way. Most have sold off parts of the company to the public in order to raise cash for the company and make their investment more liquid." }, { "docid": "24856", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "29530", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; It is amazing to me how \"\"middle class\"\" can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and not spend even a few thousand to get some real advice. i have seen to many ''middle class'' buy a $100k+ house and not even spend $1000 on a decent home inspection...\"" }, { "docid": "379314", "title": "", "text": "\"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \"\"business\"\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\"" }, { "docid": "173836", "title": "", "text": "\"Volume is measured in the number of shares traded in a given day, week, month, etc. This means that it's not necessarily a directly-comparable measure between stocks, as there's a large difference between 1 million shares traded of a $1 stock ($1 million total) and 1 million shares traded of a $1000 stock ($1 billion total). Volume as a number on its own is lacking in context; it often makes more sense to look at it as an overall dollar amount (as in the parentheses above) or as a fraction of the total number of shares in the marketplace. When you see a price quoted for a particular ticker symbol, whether online, or on TV, or elsewhere, that price is typically the price of the last trade that executed for that security. A good proxy for the current fair price of an asset is what someone else paid for it in the recent past (as long as it wasn't too long ago!). So, when you see a quote labeled \"\"15.5K @ $60.00\"\", that means that the last trade on that security, which the service is using to quote the security's price, was for 15500 shares at a price of $60 per share. Your guess is correct. The term \"\"institutional investor\"\" often is meant to include many types of institutions that would control large sums of money. This includes large banks, insurance companies, pooled retirement funds, hedge funds, and so on.\"" }, { "docid": "166844", "title": "", "text": "The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. ET Friday. So it changed its mind every single time? That's either a bug or it's front running. I think it's front running no matter how you look at it. If I ran the SEC, I'd put in place a rule that says all orders must stand for 2 seconds before they can be cancelled. That's enough time for humans to react in the market. This 25 ms for 500 stocks is nonsense. That's just front running to defraud real investors and make money on very small differences in price millions of times a day. It distorts the markets and does no good for anyone except the brokerage that is running the scam." }, { "docid": "273866", "title": "", "text": "All forms of liquid investing necessarily have the same expected value. If any one form were more profitable, money would flood in, equalizing it. Day trading is unusual in two key ways. First, although the expected value is the same, the risk profile is very different. For example, would you wager a dollar on the flip of a coin? You might. Why not, after all? Would you wager a million dollars? Probably not. The risk is too great. Similarly, day trading can easily lose you all of your investment, which is why you should be careful doing it. (In his memoirs Liar's Poker, Michael Lewis tells an anecdote about a rich bond trader who proposes a million-dollar, even-money bet with his rival, an amount both could just barely afford to lose. The rival, not wanting to play but not wanting to lose face by declining, accepted.. with the proviso that the stakes be raised to 10 million dollars! The trader backed down.) Also, the efficient market only guarantees the price will be efficient. It says nothing about transaction costs. A busy day-trader can easily incur thousands in commission and other fees." }, { "docid": "285606", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Since gold in this very simple hypothetical system has absolutely no use other than a store of value, it is debt. But gold does have other uses. It is a metal that's used for jewelry, it has decorative value. Exchanging something for gold is like a caveman giving you a stone ax if you do some cave paintings for him. If all the civilization disappeared, gold would still have a value, different from bank notes. Gold is a convenient standard commodity for exchange for several reasons: it's indestructible, it's compact, it's easily recognizable. All the gold ever mined in the world would fit inside a typical five-story apartment building. Yet it doesn't burn, doesn't spoil, can be stored forever, different from apples or oranges. &gt;these firms would be adjusting their capacity, and not sitting on trillions of dollars of currency that ought to be liquid. Here s where the difference between actual work that has been performed and a promise make a real difference. These companies are sitting on trillions of dollars of promises, not products. What they have is paper, shares, bonds, debentures, whatever. They are unable to transform those papers into products, because they lack the manufacturing capacity to do so. They do not have a million apples, they have a paper where the farmer said he would grow a million apples. Overall, the corporations in the US have invested heavily in acquisitions of other corporations, this trend has been going on for several decades now. These papers cannot be easily converted into anything useful. For the moment they are just there, with their nominal value that people agreed upon. It's not easy to turn that investment into production." }, { "docid": "432665", "title": "", "text": "Don't throw good money after bad. If you bought on the peak of an event like news/earnings hoping for more and ignored its value than you might be doomed. Determine the stocks value and see it as a buying opportunity if it's still sweet. If not buy more carefully. Those kinds of moves in that range you must have been involved in micro-small caps like biotechs. Thats where money goes to talk to itself and chew on its arm. You win big by finding an alien chip under your skin to reverse engineer or far more likely just wind up eating yourself. If your not holding inside info or at the higher levels of a pyramid for a pump/dump you really shouldn't let your greed take you there. I can expect and stomach w/o worry being wrong at my buy time as much as 10-15% and live with it for a year or more because I see I'm buying a quarter for a dime and will continue to buy into it without staking everything though). I bought in heavy when netflix (prior to split) was $50 or so hoping for a quick bounce and it sunk to like 20 something. No I didn't buy more, I felt like I just got my own .com bubble experience. I stopped looking at it,helpless to do anything other than eat a huge loss I adopted an out of sight out of mind thinking. I no longer wished to be in it, I felt like an ass for getting myself into it, it did NOT look good at the time and I risked a huge amount of capital for what I felt wrongly was a nice quick trade to make some thousands off. Checked it one day, must have wanted to hurt myself, and it was near $300 a share. My extreme loss had turned into something wonderful. A big tax bomb. Netflix eventually split and rose even more meteorically. I held on and only exited a while back and my worst mistake became my best success. Yet still, you trade like that, on unsound things, don't rely on getting the winning ticket because they are few and all others are losers. If your in for a penny you need to be in for the pound and help yourself immensely by sticking to sound stocks and currencies. You trade on news you may find yourself in Zimbabwe dollars with Enron stock. Bad footing, no matter the news or excitement is bad footing." }, { "docid": "355167", "title": "", "text": "&gt; It's a huge joke. People are putting their stock in it, but there was a front page story just yesterday about another crypto currency that went from $300 to $0.10 with a single transaction. Hi, long time crypto nerd here... Just wanted to say that transaction was on one exchange and the price pretty much went back to normal in a few seconds. Due to the lack of experience in trading some people just dump like that on a whim, its not the norm, but it does happen. In any case, that was some +1,000 units worth which again is super rare. They likely bought a long time ago and forgot them... again, fairly uncommon." }, { "docid": "285147", "title": "", "text": "Robert Kiyosaki repeatedly stressed that starting your own business is risk free and the easiest way to get rich, yet he's never done it - and has actually failed in business 3 times. He won't release his real estate investment history or his stock market investments. After failing many times he had no money until he joined network marketing groups to sell these books, he has made his money from his courses and books and has probably lost money from actual investments - I say this because most of his property investments were bought when market prices were very high. He's also stated that he essentially speculates on stock prices, when his broker phones him with the idea that a stock is about to go up he will shift lots of money into those stocks. If you'd like to read more, this exposes everything about him: [http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides](http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html#bothsides) [Wall street journal article about him and Donald Trump.](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116052181216688592.html?mod=money_page_left_hs) [Another video about 'get rich quick real estate gurus' ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx2KMUvqRIM&amp;feature=player_embedded) This is turning into a cult following with people spending thousands on credit cards to go to these courses and receive this poor advice, please watch this BBC documentary to see the way people are acting about this 'get rich quick real estate' scheme: [BBC Iplayer link](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017xgn6/Money_Who_Wants_to_be_a_Millionaire/)" }, { "docid": "419747", "title": "", "text": "This is not hypothetical, this is an accurate story. I am a long-term investor. I have a bunch of money that I'd like to invest and I plan on spreading it out over five or six mutual funds and ETFs, roughly according to the Canadian Couch Potato model portfolio (that is, passive mutual funds and ETFs rather than specific stocks). I am concerned that if I invest the full amount and the stock market crashes 30% next month, I will have paid more than I had to. As I am investing for the long term, I expect to more than regain my investment, but I still wouldn't be thrilled with paying 30% more than I had to. Instead, I am investing my money in three stages. I invested the first third earlier this month. I'll invest the next third in a few months, and the final third a few months after that. If the stock market climbs, as I expect is more likely the case, I will have lost out on some potential upside. However, if the stock market crashes next month, I will end up paying a lower average cost as two of my three purchases will occur after the crash. On average, as a long-term investor, I expect the stock market to go up. In the short term, I expect much more fluctuation. Statistically speaking, I'd do better to invest all the money at once as most of the time, the trend is upward. However, I am willing to trade some potential upside for a somewhat reduced risk of downside over the course of the next few months. If we were talking a price difference of 1% as mentioned in the question, I wouldn't care. I expect to see average annual returns far above this. But stock market crashes can cause the loss of 20 to 30% or more, and those are numbers I care about. I'd much rather buy in at 30% less than the current price, after all." }, { "docid": "173715", "title": "", "text": "\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "184646", "title": "", "text": "No. Medical bills for yourself or your human companions may be: Canada Revenue Seeing-eye dogs and the like also get special treatment Nice Doggie There are pet medical insurance policies; but as they are often priced like human policies, they might exclude your animal if it has a pre-existing condition. Good Luck Scott" } ]

[ { "docid": "406418", "title": "", "text": "\"The piece is a little misguided at best and poor journalism at worst. The problem lies in the difference between what's deductible for individuals and what's deductible for corporations. The short version of the story is that corporations can deduct a hell of a lot more things than individuals can. Individual deductions are spelled out in the Internal Revenue Code. Stuff like medical expenses (above 7.5% of your AGI), certain educational things, etc. For corporations, the basic rule is that they can deduct any \"\"ordinary and necessary\"\" business expenses. That includes operating, travel, interest, employee, etc. I wish that the article had cited specific sections of the Code if this was some kind of loophole or something, but alas, it appears that they didn't. That leads me to believe that these companies are deducting the portion not paid to the government as a business expense. ~~For what it's worth, I don't believe that a company can deduct those expenses for tax purposes unless it's to \"\"protect their business interests.\"\" My assumption (I don't have the time or desire to search case law right now) is that settlements with the US Government are considered to fall under that definition.~~ **EDIT** - See my comment [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/11dbzu/federal_regulators_have_lauded_a_series_of/c6ll7ez) for the relevant Treasury Regulation dealing with this.\"" }, { "docid": "6103", "title": "", "text": "\"You're asking explicitly about $250K+ wage earners. Well, believe it or not, but this is the most discriminated group of people in the US tax code. This is what is called \"\"the upper middle class\"\". People who still have to work for a living, but treated as if they're rich (I don't consider people who must work to keep up their life style as rich). Many of the deductions cannot be taken by them. Lets go over the list Keith made: You mentioned losses - you cannot deduct gambling losses (in excess of gambling income), and you cannot deduct passive (rental real estate, for example) losses. While for rental real estate there's a small amount of losses you could deduct, it phases out well below the $250K line (can be deducted against passive income, or when disposed of the property). 529 plans are not deductible (in fact, its a gift subject to the gift tax). Bottom line, being a high earner with wages only means you pay the most tax. You either find a way to become self employed and have a lot of business deductions on your schedule C/1120S, or switch to capital gains. You can marry an unemployed partner, it will make your life slightly easier.\"" }, { "docid": "196374", "title": "", "text": "\"First to clear a few things up. It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service. And for tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status. It is income. The question is then, is it \"\"Business\"\" income, or \"\"Hobby\"\" related income? Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually? If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business. Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable. The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so. Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate. As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss). If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit). If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant.\"" }, { "docid": "79979", "title": "", "text": "Having lived in both places, I have to say you can find a higher income in the US for the same job and can live in a small town versus having to live in a big city in Canada to find decent salaries. For similar sized cities, the cost of housing is significantly lower in the US than Canada. That is your biggest factor in cost of living. If you are thinking of NYC or San Francisco, there are no comparable size cities in Canada and you would probably be better off in Canada. My tax preparer was amazed at how much I paid in Capital Gains taxes when I left Canada. Maybe it is different now but I doubt it. The biggest free lunch in the US is a generous capital gains exemption when you sell your primary residence without any lifetime cap or cap on the number of times you can do it. There are rules on how long you have to live in it before selling. For investment real estate, all expenses are deductible in addition to fictional depreciation so with a mortgage you can have positive cash flow and pay no income tax. You can keep doing tax deferred exchanges into bigger and bigger rentals. When you are close to retirement, you can exchange into your ultimate beach home, rent it out a few years, then convert to a primary residence." }, { "docid": "519473", "title": "", "text": "\"The difference between the provincial/territorial low and high corporate income tax rates is clear if you read through the page you linked: Lower rate The lower rate applies to the income eligible for the federal small business deduction. One component of the small business deduction is the business limit. Some provinces or territories choose to use the federal business limit. Others establish their own business limit. Higher rate The higher rate applies to all other income.   [emphasis mine] Essentially, you pay the lower rate only if your income qualifies for the federal small business deduction (SBD). If you then followed the small business deduction link in the same page, you'd find the SBD page describing \"\"active business income\"\" from a business carried on in Canada as qualifying for the small business deduction. If your corporation is an investment vehicle realizing passive investment income, generally that isn't considered \"\"active business income.\"\" Determining if your business qualifies for the SBD isn't trivial — it depends on the nature of your business and the kind and amount of income it generates. Talk to a qualified corporate tax accountant. If you're looking at doing IT contracting, also pay close attention to the definition of \"\"personal services business\"\", which wouldn't qualify for the SBD. Your accountant should be able to advise you how best to conduct your business in order to qualify for the SBD. Don't have a good accountant? Get one. I wouldn't operate as an incorporated IT contractor without one. I'll also note that the federal rate you would pay would also differ based on whether or not you qualified for the SBD. (15% if you didn't qualify, vs. 11% if you qualify.) The combined corporate income tax rate for a Canadian-controlled private corporation in Ontario that does qualify for the small business deduction would be 11% + 4.5% = 15.5% (in 2013). Additional reading:\"" }, { "docid": "193251", "title": "", "text": "For tax purposes, what matters is your province of residence at December 31st. Quebec Tax abatement therefore applies if you were living in Quebec, regardless of your employer, assuming you are an employee. As for effective tax, your question misses some data and does not quite make sense as effective tax is the result of dividing your total taxes paid after deductions and tax credits by your total income. As such, one cannot tell you your effective tax rate without knowing taxes paid after deductions and tax credits and total income." }, { "docid": "138437", "title": "", "text": "\"Perhaps the real question you are asking is \"\"How can the tax code be fixed to make it simple for everyone (including me), and what would it take to effect those changes\"\"? There are really two causes for the complexity of the tax code. Many of those who enter Government hold a desire for power, and Government uses the tax code as one lever of power to distribute largess to their supporters, and to nudge everyone to behaviors which they favor. The current system enables incumbents to spend taxpayer money to reward those they favor, and thus they accumulate power and security. Those who enter Government also love to spend money (especially other people's money), and their rapacious behavior recognizes no boundaries. They will spend money without control until the taxpayers yank them to a brutal stop. They enact complex rules which are used to ease the (tax) burden for some, which buys their support (with taxpayer money), and they spend money to benefit those which they favor. The system of lobbyists and contributors exists to entice Government to treat them and the causes they support favorably. This system enables incumbents to spend taxed money to reward those they favor, and to tax those they disfavor. Thus their greed is satisfied, and their power is increased. The freedom you seek is not available, although you can minimize the effort required for compliance. You can take the standard deduction, and use nothing but the W-2 provided by your employer, and unless you are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, you will find that the tax software will do most of the work for you. Do you want to approach the Nirvana of minimal effort to appease your tax collectors? Avoid starting your own business, charitable donations, investment income, 1099 income, and you will need minimal paperwork. Avoid earning enough to risk the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax). Refuse to take the mortgage interest deduction, tax credits for electric vehicles, tax credits for high-efficiency appliances and air conditioners, tax credits for residential solar panel installations. Do not own investments which pay interest, or own stocks where you need to track the \"\"basis\"\" (purchase price) of the stocks, nor buy and then sell valuable items that might gain value (where you would need to track the purchase price, the \"\"basis\"\"). Avoid owning and leasing a rental home for income, deducting businesses expenses and mileage for business purposes, contributions to a retirement plan (outside an employer plan) -- all complicate your tax filing. The solution you truly desire is either a \"\"Flat Tax\"\" or the \"\"Fair Tax\"\". These solutions would effect either a single tax rate (with no deductions or adjustments to income, yeah right), or a national retail sales tax, which would tax the money spent in the economy regardless of the source of the money (legal, gifts, crime) and there would be no need to report income, or classify it. The largest objection to either is that the tax code might become less \"\"progressive\"\" (increasing tax rate with increasing income). Good Luck!\"" }, { "docid": "55007", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming my math is correct and that I'm not missing something about Roth investments, it appears to me that either option will work out exactly the same if you will be in the same tax bracket in retirement. This is true only if your average tax rate in retirement is the same as your current marginal rate. I'm surprised none of the answers mention this since it is the crux of your question! If you can deduct an IRA against your income taxes, it is almost always better option than the Roth equivalent. Marginal rates should not be compared to average rates or you will form all sorts of inaccurate conclusions. \"\"If you are in a lower tax rate in retirement traditional is better\"\" really means, \"\"if your average tax rate in retirement is lower than your current marginal rate, traditional is better\"\" - which for the overwhelming majority of Americans is the case. Consider the following. Let's say your intend to contribute $1000 in one year (making $2k) and withdraw it the next that is your only income in that year. Your tax brackets look like: This is quite simplified but for this purpose will illustrate precisely why comparisons like you are making are very misleading. In this case you can put $1000 in and pay no income tax at all (because you deduct it). You then withdraw $1000 the next year. The first $500 you withdraw you pay no taxes on and the next $500 has a tax rate of 15%, for a total tax of of $75. However - this is a tax against your entire withdrawal of $1000, so your average tax rate (this is important! average is different than marginal) is only 7.5% and you are left with $925. In this case you can only contribute $850 to the IRA because you are taxed against the money at your marginal rate (15%). When you withdraw it, you don't pay any taxes and are left with the entire $850 $850. This is less than the above, because you are taxed the whole amount at your previous marginal rate. If however your tax rate in retirement was 30% for everything above $500, only then are the two scenarios equal. Your marginal tax rate in retirement has to be very high relative to your current tax rate for the Roth to ever catch up and be better. If you are able to deduct an IRA contribution, it will almost always be the best option. The average federal income tax rate on middle class families has not changed dramatically enough over the past 50 years to be above normal marginal tax rates - even at the 15% federal tax bracket, your marginal rate is still higher than the highest average tax rate for the past 50 years by at least 3% and normally significantly so. The reason I make this point about middle class marginal rates is that the majority of \"\"taxes might be higher in retirement!\"\" is very unlikely to be the case in a meaningful way given the past 50 years. However if you are in the top tax rate you are paying historic low tax rates (by a factor of nearly 3), but also observe you can't do either IRA since you must make $400k/year. The difference for middle class is no where near as noticeable. Keep in mind if you can't deduct, there is no reason to not contribute to the Roth. There are other factors contributing to the traditional/Roth decision. This answer only addresses the specifics in your question.\"" }, { "docid": "291614", "title": "", "text": "how much taxes would I pay on my income from the rent they would pay me? The same as on any other income. California doesn't have any special taxes for rental/passive income. Bothe CA and the Federal tax laws do have special treatment, but it is for losses from rental. Income is considered unearned regular income and is taxed at regular brackets. Would I be able to deduct the cost of the mortgage from the rental income? The cost of mortgage, yes. I.e.: the interest you pay. Similarly you can deduct any other expense needed to maintain the property. This is assuming you're renting it out at FMV. If not, would I pay the ordinary income tax on that income? In particular, would I pay CA income tax on it, even though the property would be in WA? Yes. Don't know how WA taxes rental income, but since you are a California tax resident - you will definitely be taxed by California on this, as part of your worldwide income." }, { "docid": "532888", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer: Yes. For Federal income tax purposes, you are taxed on your total income, adding up positives and negatives. If business A made, say, $100,000 while business B lost $20,000, then your total income is $80,000, and that's what you'll be taxed on. As @littleadv says, of course any business losses you claim must qualify as business losses under IRS rules. And yes, there are special rules about losses that the IRS considers \"\"passive\"\". If you have wage income in addition to business income, business losses don't offset wage income for social security and medicare tax purposes. You can't get a refund of the social security tax deducted from your paycheck. I don't know if this is relevant to you, but: If you have businesses in different states, each is taxed by that state. For example I have two tiny side businesses, one in Michigan and one in Ohio. Last year the Michigan business made money while the Ohio business lost money. So my federal income was Michigan minus Ohio. My Ohio income was negative so I owed no Ohio income tax. But I couldn't subtract my Ohio losses from my Michigan income for Michigan income tax purposes. Thus, having, say, $10,000 income in Michigan and $10,000 in Ohio would result in lower taxes than $30,000 income in Michigan and a $10,000 loss in Ohio, even though the total income in both cases is the same. And this would be true even if the tax rates in both states were identical.\"" }, { "docid": "61022", "title": "", "text": "\"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for \"\"backdoor\"\" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire \"\"backdoor\"\" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the \"\"backdoor\"\" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets.\"" }, { "docid": "59843", "title": "", "text": "If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck." }, { "docid": "59124", "title": "", "text": "\"HSAs as they exist today allow a person to contribute tax deductible money (like a traditional IRA) to a savings account. The funds in the savings account can be spent tax free for qualified expenses. If the money is invested it also grows tax free. This means a discount on your cash health expenses of the amount you would have paid in taxes, which given your relative's income isn't likely to be very much. As HSAs exist today they must be paired to a qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). Many plans have a deductible that meets or exceeds the level set by the regulations but many plans waive the deductible for things like X-Rays; waiving the deductible causes most \"\"high deductible\"\" plans to not qualify for HSA accounts. There are other qualified HSA expenses like Long Term Care (LTC) insurance premiums that can also be spent tax and penalty free from HSA funds. At age 60 with low income an HSA serves little purpose because the tax savings is so marginal and an HDHP is required. That does not however mean that the scope of HSA availability should not be expanded. Just because this is not a silver bullet for everyone does not mean it is of no use to anyone.\"" }, { "docid": "367562", "title": "", "text": "I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc." }, { "docid": "585823", "title": "", "text": "When discussing buying a home I often hear people say they like having a mortgage because they get the benefit of writing off the interest. I assume this is the United States. You need to also consider that many people can take the standard deduction of about $12k for married couples filing jointly, so even if they itemize the interest, it would only make sense to 'write it off' if you are able to itemize deductions greater than the standard deduction: Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/31/irs-announces-2014-tax-brackets-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/ So some people will input the mortgage interest and other related deductions into the computer only to find out that their itemized deductions don't add up. Where it benefits people sometimes is if they have medical bills which are greater than 10% of their income in addition to the mortgage interest. So it benefits them to itemize. There are other major sources of itemization but medical bills are very common. Other common items are auto registration taxes or interest from student loans. It is going to be situation dependent, but if you are within a few years of paying off the mortgage it would make sense to make micropayments to accelerate the payoff date. If you have 30 years to go, it would make more sense to generate an emergency fund, pay off a car, or save up for other things in life than worry about paying off a mortgage. Take the benefit of deducting the mortgage interest if you can, but I imagine that many people would be surprised to hear that it's not always black and white." }, { "docid": "275543", "title": "", "text": "This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal." }, { "docid": "51497", "title": "", "text": "Those choices aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, most discussion of the mortgage interest deduction ignores the fact that for a standard itemizer, much, if not all of this deduction can be lost. For 2011, the std deduction for a single is $5,800. It's not just mortgage interest that's deductible, state income tax, realestate tax, and charitable contributions are among the other deductions. If this house is worth $350K, the property tax is about $5K, and since it's not optional, I'd be inclined to assume that it's the deduction that offsets the std deduction. Most states have an income tax, which tops off the rest. You are welcome to toss this aside as sophistry, but I view it as these other deductions as 'lost' first. I'm married, and our property tax is more than our standard deduction, so when doing the math, the mortgage is fully deductible, as are our contributions. In your case, the numbers may play out differently. No state tax? Great, so it's the property tax and deductions you'd add up first and decide on the value the mortgage deduction brings. Last, I don't have my mortgage for the deduction, I just believe that long term my other investments will exceed, after tax, the cost of that mortgage." }, { "docid": "484149", "title": "", "text": "mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account. In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions. In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets. As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well. (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)" }, { "docid": "41793", "title": "", "text": "\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "278824", "title": "", "text": "\"In the US service animals are treated like durable medical equipment from a tax POV, and some expenses can be deducted. Likewise, expenses associated with working animals are business or hobby expenses than can be deducted to a certain extent. But pets, no. Legally they are \"\"chattels\"\" -- property that can move. Generally speaking, you can't deduct the cost of maintaining your belongings.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "318716", "title": "", "text": "First of all, in the U.S., no Federal gift tax has to be paid by the recipient of the gift; it is the donor who has to pay gift tax, if any is due. Nor does the recipient have to pay Federal income tax on the gift; it is not considered taxable income. I do not believe that any states view matters differently for the purposes of state gift and income taxes, but I am always ready to be disabused of any such fondly-held notions. If your parents were required to pay any gift tax, that would have been at the time the gift was originally given and only if they gifted more than the maximum allowable exemption per person for that year. Currently the exemption is $14K from each donor per recipient per year. Additional gifts were made by your parents to you during your minority when your parents paid any income tax due on the distributions in your account, but these amounts would unlikely to have been larger than the exemption for that year. In any case, gift tax is none of your concern. If you have been declaring the income from distributions from the mutual funds all these years, then the only tax due on the distributions from the funds in 2013 is the Federal income tax for the 2013 tax year (plus a special assessment of Medicare tax on investment income if your income is large; unlikely based on your question and follow-up comment). If you sold all or part of your shares in the funds in 2013, then you would need to calculate the basis of your investments in the fund in order to figure out if you have capital gains or losses. Ditto if you are thinking of cashing out in 2014 and wish to estimate how much income tax is due. But if you want to just hang on to the funds, then there is no immediate need to figure out the basis right away, though taking care of the matter and keeping in top of things for the future will be helpful. As a final note, there is no tax due on the appreciation of the fund's shares. The increased value of your account because the fund's share price rose is not a taxable event (nor are decreases in the account deductible). These are called unrealized capital gains (or losses) and you do not pay tax on them (or deduct them as losses) until you realize the gains by disposing of the property." }, { "docid": "440774", "title": "", "text": "Yes, that is correct. Note, when there is a tax treaty between Canada and the other country -- [which is pretty much anywhere you have active business](http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/in_force--eng.asp) -- the tax credits are equal to the income received, making it tax free. Here is a better explanation: &gt; The greatest advantage of having a foreign affiliate in the international business setting is to repatriate foreign profits back to Canada tax free under certain conditions, for example, if a foreign affiliate carries on an active business in a designated treaty country (i.e. a country with which Canada has a tax treaty). The after-tax profit is included in a pool called “exempt surplus”. If the repatriation of profit in the form of dividend was paid out of the “exempt surplus” pool to a Canadian corporate shareholder, such dividend is included in its income and the same amount is allowed to be deducted in computing its taxable income. In other words, the dividend is not subject to Canadian tax if received by a Canadian corporate shareholder. [Source, p3](http://www.canadataxplan.com/test/canadataxplan/files/Book%20-%20English_summary_12-22-2008.pdf) Edit... here from the NRC site: &gt; Treaty Countries: **Active business income earned in a treaty country is classified as “exempt surplus.”** The exempt surplus of an FA also includes inter-affiliate dividends received out of the exempt surplus of other foreign affiliates, the exempt portion (25%) of all capital gains, and certain taxable capital gains. **Dividends paid out of the exempt surplus of an FA can be received free of additional taxes in Canada**, since the profits out of which they are paid are considered to have borne a rate of tax in the treaty country comparable to that of Canada. [Source](http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/taxation/8880) see the section on Subsidiary Income. This is the reason BK is moving to Canada. [Also here is a very interesting deck on corporate tax minimization in latin america by the Canadian mining industry.](http://miningtaxcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TOR01-5160395-v1-RMLF_Cartagena_Slides.pdf)" }, { "docid": "24706", "title": "", "text": "In Canada, the majority of your taxes are remitted by the employer on your behalf after the employer deducts the calculated amount from your pay. Then when you file your income tax return you pay (or get reimbursed) the difference stemming from your particular social situation. Note that this is optional. The employer has to pay its own part of some deductions, but the employee can opt out from getting the standard amount of income tax deducted at source. It is his responsibility alone to pay for his taxes. So in this context, it's entirely possible to advertise an approximate net salary. Most of the accounting over here is done by way of accounting software, and those that support payroll go through a testing and acceptance phase for each revision to the tax tables, so the amount calculated is usually pretty exact (I got reimbursed 120$ last year)." }, { "docid": "406418", "title": "", "text": "\"The piece is a little misguided at best and poor journalism at worst. The problem lies in the difference between what's deductible for individuals and what's deductible for corporations. The short version of the story is that corporations can deduct a hell of a lot more things than individuals can. Individual deductions are spelled out in the Internal Revenue Code. Stuff like medical expenses (above 7.5% of your AGI), certain educational things, etc. For corporations, the basic rule is that they can deduct any \"\"ordinary and necessary\"\" business expenses. That includes operating, travel, interest, employee, etc. I wish that the article had cited specific sections of the Code if this was some kind of loophole or something, but alas, it appears that they didn't. That leads me to believe that these companies are deducting the portion not paid to the government as a business expense. ~~For what it's worth, I don't believe that a company can deduct those expenses for tax purposes unless it's to \"\"protect their business interests.\"\" My assumption (I don't have the time or desire to search case law right now) is that settlements with the US Government are considered to fall under that definition.~~ **EDIT** - See my comment [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/11dbzu/federal_regulators_have_lauded_a_series_of/c6ll7ez) for the relevant Treasury Regulation dealing with this.\"" }, { "docid": "51086", "title": "", "text": "\"The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. \"\"traditional\"\" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the \"\"catch\"\"*. *However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation.\"" }, { "docid": "162286", "title": "", "text": "\"By living in Sweden and having a Swedish personal identification number (personnummer), you are required to declare your entire worldwide income for tax purposes with the Swedish tax authorities, Skatteverket. It would seem to not make any difference if some of that income is kept outside of Sweden. A company that has no permanent base of operations within Sweden should not deduct any preliminary taxes for an employee that lives in Sweden. Rather, the employee should apply for \"\"special A tax\"\" (\"\"SA\"\" tax status), and pay the taxes that, had the company had a permanent base of operations in Sweden, the company would have paid. The information available on the tax authority's web site in English seems limited, but the relevant page in Swedish in your situation is very likely Lön från utländska arbetsgivare utan fast driftställe i Sverige. There is a summary at Paying taxes – for individuals. Particularly do note the summary section: When staying for at least six months, you are considered as resident in Sweden for tax purposes, and are liable for taxation in Sweden on all of your worldwide income. You must also file a Swedish income tax return. Your tax return must be filed no later than May 2nd of the year after the fiscal year. as well as that: If you stay in Sweden for a continuous period of at least six months you are considered to be resident in Sweden. /.../ As a resident you are liable for taxation in Sweden on all of your worldwide income. In some cases a tax treaty with with your ordinary country of residence may limit the Swedish taxation. /.../ For a more detailed answer, including which exact forms you need to fill out and what data is needed, I strongly recommend that you either contact Skatteverket (they are usually quite nice to deal with, and they tend to realize that everyone benefits from getting the tax paperwork and payments right from the beginning), or find an attorney specializing in Swedish tax law. They even point out themselves that (my emphasis): the practical applications of these rules are relatively complicated and for more information you can contact the Tax Information (“Skatteupplysningen”) at 0771 567 567.\"" }, { "docid": "138437", "title": "", "text": "\"Perhaps the real question you are asking is \"\"How can the tax code be fixed to make it simple for everyone (including me), and what would it take to effect those changes\"\"? There are really two causes for the complexity of the tax code. Many of those who enter Government hold a desire for power, and Government uses the tax code as one lever of power to distribute largess to their supporters, and to nudge everyone to behaviors which they favor. The current system enables incumbents to spend taxpayer money to reward those they favor, and thus they accumulate power and security. Those who enter Government also love to spend money (especially other people's money), and their rapacious behavior recognizes no boundaries. They will spend money without control until the taxpayers yank them to a brutal stop. They enact complex rules which are used to ease the (tax) burden for some, which buys their support (with taxpayer money), and they spend money to benefit those which they favor. The system of lobbyists and contributors exists to entice Government to treat them and the causes they support favorably. This system enables incumbents to spend taxed money to reward those they favor, and to tax those they disfavor. Thus their greed is satisfied, and their power is increased. The freedom you seek is not available, although you can minimize the effort required for compliance. You can take the standard deduction, and use nothing but the W-2 provided by your employer, and unless you are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, you will find that the tax software will do most of the work for you. Do you want to approach the Nirvana of minimal effort to appease your tax collectors? Avoid starting your own business, charitable donations, investment income, 1099 income, and you will need minimal paperwork. Avoid earning enough to risk the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax). Refuse to take the mortgage interest deduction, tax credits for electric vehicles, tax credits for high-efficiency appliances and air conditioners, tax credits for residential solar panel installations. Do not own investments which pay interest, or own stocks where you need to track the \"\"basis\"\" (purchase price) of the stocks, nor buy and then sell valuable items that might gain value (where you would need to track the purchase price, the \"\"basis\"\"). Avoid owning and leasing a rental home for income, deducting businesses expenses and mileage for business purposes, contributions to a retirement plan (outside an employer plan) -- all complicate your tax filing. The solution you truly desire is either a \"\"Flat Tax\"\" or the \"\"Fair Tax\"\". These solutions would effect either a single tax rate (with no deductions or adjustments to income, yeah right), or a national retail sales tax, which would tax the money spent in the economy regardless of the source of the money (legal, gifts, crime) and there would be no need to report income, or classify it. The largest objection to either is that the tax code might become less \"\"progressive\"\" (increasing tax rate with increasing income). Good Luck!\"" }, { "docid": "192516", "title": "", "text": "\"I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called \"\"depreciation\"\". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the \"\"value\"\" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary).\"" }, { "docid": "59124", "title": "", "text": "\"HSAs as they exist today allow a person to contribute tax deductible money (like a traditional IRA) to a savings account. The funds in the savings account can be spent tax free for qualified expenses. If the money is invested it also grows tax free. This means a discount on your cash health expenses of the amount you would have paid in taxes, which given your relative's income isn't likely to be very much. As HSAs exist today they must be paired to a qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). Many plans have a deductible that meets or exceeds the level set by the regulations but many plans waive the deductible for things like X-Rays; waiving the deductible causes most \"\"high deductible\"\" plans to not qualify for HSA accounts. There are other qualified HSA expenses like Long Term Care (LTC) insurance premiums that can also be spent tax and penalty free from HSA funds. At age 60 with low income an HSA serves little purpose because the tax savings is so marginal and an HDHP is required. That does not however mean that the scope of HSA availability should not be expanded. Just because this is not a silver bullet for everyone does not mean it is of no use to anyone.\"" }, { "docid": "393629", "title": "", "text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't." }, { "docid": "510716", "title": "", "text": "To expand a little on what littleadv said, you can only deduct what something cost you. Even if you had done volunteer work for a charity as a sole prop you could only deduct your actual costs. If you paid an employee to do charity work or to learn something related to the business that would be deductible as a normal business expense. Some common sense would show that if you could deduct something that didn't cost you anything (your time) you could deduct away all of your income and avoid paying taxes altogether. Back to your more nuanced question could 2 businesses you own bill each other for services? Yes, but you will still have to pay taxes for money earned under each of them. You will also need to be careful that the IRS does not construe the transactions as being done solely to lower your tax bill." }, { "docid": "262960", "title": "", "text": "You can always reduce the income by the direct expenses required to earn it, and figure out whether it is ultimately a net profit or loss. The net profit is taxable income. The loss may be tax deductible if the underlying thing is tax deductible. For the book, the $50 revenue required a $100 expense, so that's a $50 net loss. You don't owe any income tax since it's a loss. You could take the loss as a tax deduction if you have a business trading books, or if buying the book would be tax deductible for some reason. Note that in the latter case you can only deduct the $50 not the $100. For the airline ticket, it is to compensate you for the losses you took as a result if the delayed flight. So you tally up the $22 meal you had in the airport waiting for news, the $110 on the motel room you rented or forfeited, any other way you can peg a cash value to any losses you took. Total them up, again, a net loss is only deductible if the travel is already deductible. Note that if the actual expenses (book, flight) were tax deductible for some reason, the cash-back reduces the amount of your tax deduction, so it has the same effect as the sale/gift being taxable income." }, { "docid": "79979", "title": "", "text": "Having lived in both places, I have to say you can find a higher income in the US for the same job and can live in a small town versus having to live in a big city in Canada to find decent salaries. For similar sized cities, the cost of housing is significantly lower in the US than Canada. That is your biggest factor in cost of living. If you are thinking of NYC or San Francisco, there are no comparable size cities in Canada and you would probably be better off in Canada. My tax preparer was amazed at how much I paid in Capital Gains taxes when I left Canada. Maybe it is different now but I doubt it. The biggest free lunch in the US is a generous capital gains exemption when you sell your primary residence without any lifetime cap or cap on the number of times you can do it. There are rules on how long you have to live in it before selling. For investment real estate, all expenses are deductible in addition to fictional depreciation so with a mortgage you can have positive cash flow and pay no income tax. You can keep doing tax deferred exchanges into bigger and bigger rentals. When you are close to retirement, you can exchange into your ultimate beach home, rent it out a few years, then convert to a primary residence." }, { "docid": "18850", "title": "", "text": "The IRS Guidance pertaining to the subject. In general the best I can say is your business expense may be deductible. But it depends on the circumstances and what it is you want to deduct. Travel Taxpayers who travel away from home on business may deduct related expenses, including the cost of reaching their destination, the cost of lodging and meals and other ordinary and necessary expenses. Taxpayers are considered “traveling away from home” if their duties require them to be away from home substantially longer than an ordinary day’s work and they need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of their work. The actual cost of meals and incidental expenses may be deducted or the taxpayer may use a standard meal allowance and reduced record keeping requirements. Regardless of the method used, meal deductions are generally limited to 50 percent as stated earlier. Only actual costs for lodging may be claimed as an expense and receipts must be kept for documentation. Expenses must be reasonable and appropriate; deductions for extravagant expenses are not allowable. More information is available in Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses. Entertainment Expenses for entertaining clients, customers or employees may be deducted if they are both ordinary and necessary and meet one of the following tests: Directly-related test: The main purpose of the entertainment activity is the conduct of business, business was actually conducted during the activity and the taxpayer had more than a general expectation of getting income or some other specific business benefit at some future time. Associated test: The entertainment was associated with the active conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business and occurred directly before or after a substantial business discussion. Publication 463 provides more extensive explanation of these tests as well as other limitations and requirements for deducting entertainment expenses. Gifts Taxpayers may deduct some or all of the cost of gifts given in the course of their trade or business. In general, the deduction is limited to $25 for gifts given directly or indirectly to any one person during the tax year. More discussion of the rules and limitations can be found in Publication 463. If your LLC reimburses you for expenses outside of this guidance it should be treated as Income for tax purposes. Edit for Meal Expenses: Amount of standard meal allowance. The standard meal allowance is the federal M&IE rate. For travel in 2010, the rate for most small localities in the United States is $46 a day. Source IRS P463 Alternately you could reimburse at a per diem rate" }, { "docid": "303078", "title": "", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"" }, { "docid": "131959", "title": "", "text": "\"Alternative Minimum Tax is based not just on your income, but moreso on the deductions you use. In short, if you have above the minimum AMT threshold of income (54k per your link), and pay a tiny amount of tax, you will pay AMT. AMT is used as an overall protection for the government to say \"\"okay, you can use these deductions from your taxable income, but if you're making a lot of money, you should pay something, no matter what your deductions are\"\". This extra AMT can be used to reduce your tax payment in a future year, if you pay regular tax again. For example - if you have 60k in income, but have 60k in specific deductions from your income, you will pay zero regular tax [because your taxable income will be zero]. AMT would require you to pay some tax on your income above the minimum 54k threshold, which might work out to a few thousand bucks. Next year, if you have 60k in income, but only 15k in deductions, then you would pay some regular tax, and would be able to offset that regular tax by claiming a credit from your AMT already paid. AMT is really a pre-payment of tax paid in years when you have a lot of deductions. Unless you have a lot of deductions every single year, in which case you might not be able to get all of your AMT refunded in the end. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of AMT in the US, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax. If you think AMT is unfair (and maybe in some cases you might pay it when you think it's \"\"unfair\"\"), look at the root causes of paying AMT listed in that Wikipedia article: I am not trying to convince you that AMT is fair, just that it applies only when someone already has a very low tax rate due to deductions. If you have straight salary income, it would only apply in rare scenarios.\"" }, { "docid": "133911", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452069/state-local-tax-deductions-federal-taxes-trump-tax-reform-state-income-tax-real-estate-tax-california) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The plan would eliminate the deductibility of state and local income taxes for federal tax purposes. &gt; Like the mortgage-interest deduction, which the Trump plan unfortunately keeps, the deduction for state and local taxes was intended to be a benefit to the middle class, i.e., the salt-of-the-earth voters who simultaneously are strongly in favor of an active welfare state and strongly disinclined to pay for it. &gt; Offsetting state income taxes encourages states to jack up their levies: Because some costs are passed on to the federal treasury, Sacramento can get $1 in state income-tax revenue at a real cost to California taxpayers of less than $1. That&amp;#039;s back-door tax-code welfare for big-spending Democrats. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73pca8/a_conservative_tax_hike/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~220318 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **state**^#1 **taxes**^#2 **federal**^#3 **tax**^#4 **income**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "477940", "title": "", "text": "Consider the individual who pays $1,000,000 in taxes. His/her income must be substantial. That is what one should aim for. Investments for the most part, do not lower ones taxes. In one of John Grisham's novels, tax shelters are being discussed. Sorry, I do not remember which book. The discussion goes something like this: There are a few investments which can lower your taxes. Purchase a house. Mortgage interest on your principle residence is deductible (if you itemize deductions). If you don't itemize, focus on increasing income to the point where itemizing benefits you. In general, businesses have more deductions than individuals. Own a small business. You (or your accountant) will discover many deductions. Hint: the company should lease a car/truck, many meals are now deductible. This is not the reason to own a business." }, { "docid": "55666", "title": "", "text": "I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not." } ]

[ { "docid": "399875", "title": "", "text": "\"The easiest way to find a buyer should be to ask the company to connect you to some of their other shareholders. I imagine they are much more likely to take those shares off you than a random investor on the street. Otherwise, well, talk to people. At a golf club, maybe? :) Valuation is not going to be very straightforward. Basically you'll get whatever someone is willing to pay. That's what FMV means when there's no real \"\"market\"\". Realistically, the price is mainly going to be based on divididend history and the company's assets, discounted for risk and liquidity (you're currently feeling the reason for the latter discount).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "276375", "title": "", "text": "The thing about amway products is that they are products people already use and buy from other stores. I mean protein bars and energy drinks and body care products.That's not the right way to have a profitable business; buying a bunch of inventory in your garage and then trying to sell it. The money is in getting people sponsored and teaching them to switch their shopping habits to go through their own store as amway pays you a bonus based upon the amount of product you and your business consume or sell in retail. The more volume, the higher percentage you get in bonus. Now this can develop into a business asset that is very low maintenance and pays you well. It takes maybe 15 hours a week to host meetings after you make enough money to quit your day job. Compared to owning real estate? Compared to owning a grocery store business? Those things have a ton of overhead and major headaches to handle. But I do agree the majority of the industry is very amateur and they will teach you to do stupid stuff like put inventory in your garage. That doesn't make amway a pyramid scheme though. Amway is the largest privately held debt free organization in the world. No public stock and they made over 11 billion dollars in 2012." }, { "docid": "433806", "title": "", "text": "\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\"" }, { "docid": "314026", "title": "", "text": "\"In 2014 the IRS announced that it published guidance in Notice 2014-21. In that notice, the answer to the first question describes the general tax treatment of virtual currency: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. As it's property like any other, capital gains if and when you sell are taxed. But there's nothing illegal or nefarious about it, and while you might get some odd questions if a large deposit ends up in your bank account, as long as you answer them there really isn't a problem. If you don't have documentation of how much you paid for it, if it's a trivial amount compared to what it's worth now you can just declare $0 as your basis. I would suggest you try to have documentation that you've held it at least one year so that it's a long-term capital gain, but you can just mark the purchase date as \"\"Various\"\" on your tax form. I've done this (for a much smaller amount of bitcoins, alas) and haven't run into any trouble. While there are some good reasons to sell slowly, as others are saying, I want to play devil's advocate for a minute and give you a reason to sell quickly: A decision to hold is equivalent to a decision to buy. That is, if a million dollars randomly ended up in your bank account for no reason, you probably wouldn't choose to go put it all into bitcoin, and then slowly sell it. Yet that's more-or-less an equivalent financial situation to holding on to the bitcoin and slowly selling it. While there are certainly tax advantages to selling over the course of many years, bitcoin is one of the most volatile commodities out there, and one has no idea what will happen over the next few weeks, let alone the next few years. It may go to tens of thousands of dollars a coin, or it may go to basically zero. If I had a million dollars in my pocket, bitcoin isn't how I'd choose to store it all. Just something to think about; obviously you need to make the best choice for you for yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "191066", "title": "", "text": "Hopefully, before you invested in this stock, you evaluated the company. You looked at the financial information about the company and where the company was headed, and evaluated whether the stock was undervalued or overvalued. Hopefully, you determined that the stock was undervalued at the time you bought it. The thing to do now is to reevaluate the stock. Do you think the stock is overvalued or undervalued right now? If you didn't own it, would you buy it today? Instead of looking at the past performance of the stock, you want to try to determine which direction the stock will go from today. If you wouldn't buy it today at it's current price, then you should sell. If you have no idea how to do this evaluation, neither do I. For me, with the investing knowledge I have right now, investing in an individual stock would be way too risky. If you don't know how to evaluate a stock and determine if it is a good buy or not, then you should stay away from individual stocks and instead invest in stock mutual funds, which lower the risk by diversifying over lots of stocks." }, { "docid": "384627", "title": "", "text": "There is a highly related question which is much easier to answer: what normally value-increasing news about a company would cause that company to fall in value in the public stock market? By answering that, we can answer your question by proxy. The answer to that question being: anything that makes investors believe that the company won't be able to maintain the level of profit. For example, let's say a company announces a 300% profit growth compared to the previous year. This should push the stock upwards; maybe not by 300%, but certainly by quite a bit. Let's also say that this company is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling some highly useful gadget that lots of people want to buy. Now suppose that the company managed such an profit increase by one of: In scenario 1 (firing the engineering department), it is highly unlikely that the company will be able to come up with, manufacture and sell a Next Generation Gadget. Hence, while profit is up now, it is highly likely to go down in the months and years coming up. Because stock market investors are more interested in future profits than in past profits, this should push the value of the company down. In scenario 2 (selling off the machinery), the company may very well be able to come up with a Next Generation Gadget, and if they can manufacture it, they might very well be able to sell it. However, no matter how you slice it, the short-term costs for manufacturing either their current generation Gadget, or the Next Generation Gadget, are bound to go up because the company will either need to rent machinery, or buy new machinery. Neither is good for future profits, so the value of the company again should go down in response. In scenario 3 (their product getting a large boost), the company still has all the things that allowed them to come up with, produce and sell Gadgets. They also have every opportunity to come up with, manufacture and sell Next Generation Gadgets, which implies that future profits, while far from guaranteed, are likely. In this case, the probability remains high that the company can actually maintain a higher level of profit. Hence, the value of the company should rise. Now apply this to a slightly more realistic scenario, and you can see why the value of a company can fall even if the company announces, for example, record profits. Hence, you are looking for news which indicate a present and sustained raised ability to turn a profit. This is the type of news that should drive any stock up in price, all else being equal. Obviously, buyer beware, your mileage may vary, all else is never equal, nothing ever hits the average, you are fighting people who do this type of analysis for a living and have every tool known available to them, etc etc. But that's the general idea." }, { "docid": "261975", "title": "", "text": "\"I used to be in research department for big financial data company. Tell your son that there are three factors: Most people think that net sales vs. expectations is the only factor. It might not even be the biggest. It is simply how much money did company make. Note that this is not how many units they sold. For most companies they will have adjustable pricing and incentives in their sector. For example let's talk about a new company selling Superman Kid's Bikes (with a cape the flips out when you hit a certain speed). The company has it in Walmart at one price, Target at another, Toys R' Us even cheaper, Amazon (making more profit there), and other stores. They are doing \"\"OK\"\" come Dec. 1 but holiday season being half way over they slash price from $100 to $80 because they have tons of inventory. What are looking at her is how much money did they make. Note that marketing, advertising, legal (setting up contracts) are a bit fixed. In my opinion consumer sentiment is the #1 thing for a company that sells a product. Incredible consumer sentiment is like millions of dollars in free advertising. So let's say Dec. 15th comes and the reviews on the Superman Bike are through the roof. Every loves it, no major defects. Company can't even supply the retailers now because after slashing the price it became a great buy. A common investor might be pissed that some dummy at the company slashed the prices so they could have had a much better profit margin, but at the same time it wouldn't have led to an onslaught of sales and consumer sentiment. And the last area is product sell-off. This doesn't apply to all product but most. Some products will only have a technology shelf life, some will actually go bad or out of fashion, and even selling Superman bikes you want to get those to the store because the product is so big. So ignoring making a profit can a company sell off inventory at or around cost. If they can't, even if they made a profit, their risk factor goes up. So let's get back to Superman Bikes. This is the only product company ABC has. They had expected holiday sales at 100 million and profits at 40 million. They ended up at 120 million and 44 million. Let's say their stock was $20 before any information was gathered by the public (remember for most companies info is gathered daily now so this is rather simplistic). So you might expect that the stock would rise to maybe $24 - to which if you were an investor is a great profit. However this company has a cult consumer following who are waiting for the Captain America Bike (shoots discs) and the Hulk Bike (turns green when you go fast). Let's say consumer sentiment and projections base off that put next holiday sales at $250 million. So maybe the company is worth $40 a share now. But consumer sentiment is funny because not only does it effect future projections but it also effects perceived present value of company - which may have the stock trading at $60 a share (think earnings and companies like Google). Having a company people feel proud owning or thinking is cool is also a indicator or share worth. I gave you a really good example of a very successful company selling Superman Bikes... There are just as many companies that have the opposite happening. Imagine missing sales goals by a few million with bad consumer feedback and all of a sudden your company goes from $20 to $5 a share.\"" }, { "docid": "87331", "title": "", "text": "As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now." }, { "docid": "260983", "title": "", "text": "10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions. But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky. A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though. To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked. Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it." }, { "docid": "69308", "title": "", "text": "Like @chirs, I'm of the opinion that you might want to buy more. I've done this a couple of times, price dropped a bunch, and I said, heck, I bought some last week, and this week I can get twice as much stock for about the same price. Brought down my average cost per share, and when the company was taken private, I actually didn't lose money - unlike some other people I know, who only bought at one price, watched the drop, and held on awaiting a recovery (which didn't happen in time before the big money swooped in on it). But to do this, you need to keep cash reserves (that, like @afforess says, you can afford to lose all of) on hand, awaiting buying opportunities. This, too, is a cost - an opportunity cost." }, { "docid": "487015", "title": "", "text": "...which is funny because the Fed established a direct line to Beijing to allow them to buy and sell treasuries without any of that pesky governmental interference (remember, the Fed is a privately held corporation). This is all just window dressing for mass consumption. China has been drawing down their treasuries for quite some time now. HOWEVER.... given how poor the 99% of America is, I doubt that the US would survive getting its direct access to China's plastic teat cut off cold turkey." }, { "docid": "103536", "title": "", "text": "\"Um no. Easy google. \"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\" &gt;This is how it works with stocks; supply is the amount of shares that people want to sell, and demand is the amount of shares that people want to purchase. If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. So sure, if a company is performing well, people will want to buy the stock. Causing it to go up. But even if a company was performing well and no one wanted to buy the stock. There would be only sellers and the price would go down.\"" }, { "docid": "250354", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, this sub is generally pretty darn good. Among us are investment bankers, private equity analysts, valuation analysts, portfolio managers, traders, brokers, bachelors, masters, and doctorate students, etc. We're helpful, though sometimes snarky, and have an exceedingly low tolerance for bullshit. I love it here. And while your logic is sound, we can actually explore private equity directly, as while private and public equity are related, they are different enough to study separately, in my opinion. Private equity deals with private companies. By definition, these investments are illiquid (they cannot be easily sold like public stocks), and unmarketable (there is no ready market to trade these investments, like stock). They are generally held for longer time periods. At its earliest stage, private equity is synonymous with \"\"initial investment\"\" or \"\"seed funding.\"\" This includes (if we are maybe slightly liberal with our definition), the initial investment an entrepreneur makes into his business. At this stage, friends and family, angel investors and venture capital are present. At different points of a company lifecycle, different financiers become interested/applicable (mezzanine investors, etc.). The investment made into a company allocates a certain percentage of the ownership of the company to the investor in exchange for cash (usually). This cash is used to cover expenses and take on capital projects. The goal of these investments is to directly make the company (and its value, and thus the investor's value) grow. At some points in time, a new investor will show up and either invest directly in the company (same as before) or buy another investor's holding in the company (in which case, cash goes to *that specific investor* and *not* the company). At every stage of investment leading up to IPO, the deals are negotiated between the parties. The results of a given negotiation determines the value of that company's equity. For example, if I pay you $100 for 50% of your company, the company's implied worth is $200. If two days later, Joe comes and offers to buy 33% of the company for $100, the Company is worth $300. (Special note: these percentages are assumed to be the allocation of equity **after** the deal. In this last case, the ownership of your company would be 33% you, 33% me, and 33% Joe. This illustrates something called *dilution,* which is very important to investors as it effects their eventual potential payoff later down the road, along with some other things). At this point, do you have any questions?\"" }, { "docid": "165998", "title": "", "text": "No of course not, they are privately held, have no relationship with publicly held financial institutions, do not mine and sell your information to publicly held corporations, do not play revolving door of board members, the board members own no stocks, fired and retired board members will never get on another board, they never lobby congress on behalf of extracting more money from the public, and never engage in insider trading for sure.  Nothing at all to do with Wall Street." }, { "docid": "154841", "title": "", "text": "The short answer, probably not much. Unless you have a controlling interest in the company. If at least 50%+1 of the shareholder votes are in favor of the dilution then it can be done. There are some SEC rules that should protect against corporate looting and theft like what the Severin side is trying to make it appear as happened. However it would appear that Severin did something stupid. He signed away all of his voting right to someone who would use them to make his rights basically worthless. Had he kept his head in the game he could probably have saved himself. But he didn't. If your average startup started issuing lots of stock and devaluing existing shares significantly then I would expect it would be harder to find investors willing to watch as their investment dwindled. But if you are issuing a limited amount stock to get leverage to grow bigger then it is worth it. In the .com bubble there were quite a few companies that just issued stock to buy other companies. Eventually most of these companies got delisted because they diluted them selves to much when they were overvalued. Any company not just a startup can dilute its shares. Many if not most major companies issue stock to raise capital. This capital is then generally used to build the business further and increase the value of all shares. Most of the time this dilution is very minor (<.1%) and has little if any impact on the stock. There are rules that have to be followed as listed companies are regulated by the SEC. There are less regulations with private corporations. It looks like the dilution was combined with the buyout of the Florida company which probably contributed to the legality of the dilution. With options they are generally issued at a set price. This may be higher or lower than the reported sell price of the stock when the option is issued. The idea is over time the stock will increase in value so that those people who hold on to their options can buy the stock for the price listed on the option. I worked at an ISP start up in the 90's that made it pretty well. I left before the options were issued but I had friends still there that were issued an option at $16 a share the value of the stock at the time of the issue of the option was about 12. Well the company diluted the shares and used them to acquire more ISP's unfortunately this was about the time that DSL And cable internet took off so the dial up market tanked. The value eventually fell to .10 they did a reverse split and when they did the called in all options. The options did not have a positive cash value at any time. Had RMI ever made it big then the options could have been worth millions. There are some people from MS and Yahoo that were in early that made millions off of their options. This became a popular way for startups to attract great talent paying peanuts. They invested their time in the business hoping to strike gold. A lot of IT people got burned so this is less popular among top talent as the primary compensation anymore." }, { "docid": "336018", "title": "", "text": "\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"" }, { "docid": "457917", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; I will need to see sources, but actually they are claiming that it is on every stock, bond or derivative. Let me know when you find a source for this claim. &gt; That is clearly not the same as \"\"I didn't ask to be born\"\" True, however only if you are taking action to change the condition that you are railing against. Just saying \"\"I didn't ask for to be born into this\"\" just rings hollow in my ears. Voting is definitely more productive. Running for office to push the ideas would do even more. Heading out to open land to make your society in your image would definitely prove your point, as long as it works. &gt; I love how you assume that it takes a government to have a stable civilization. I don't assume, we only have some 10,000 years of recorded history to provide some backup for the statement. And not saying that this form of government is perfect, we just have plenty of evidence that no government is less so. &gt; The only infrastructure I truly need to trade stock now is my computer (made by a private business), my electricity (provided to me by another private business), and my internet connection. That is not true. Lets go beyond the invention of internet. It exists, and it provides us with the ability to trade stock, so lets pretend that it always existed so, and ignore the billions of investment in infrastructure and R&amp;D it took to get her (on commercial as well as governments part). So, the inference that you made is all you need to trade is your computer, electricity, and the internet... all provided by commercial entities. No need for government. Yes, and no. How long do you think that electricity would keep pumping if there was no one to regulate how much each district gets to pull? If there was no one to enforce pricing and payment? After all, if the electricity company cuts power to a house, and they just run out to the junction box and hot wire their own connection - who stops them? If there is no government, that how do we keep people paying? And when the electricity company decides that they are going to artificially jack up prices (Enron style), who keep them based in reality? Do we just wait for a violent uprising? &gt; However, \"\"statistics\"\" can't help us in this case. True. Do you have any examples of innovation in highly unregulated markets? I still haven't seen or heard of what the \"\"ideal\"\" market would look like, just lots of rhetoric about the problems with this one. &gt; There are a lot of examples like the f-35 fighter jet that cost American Taxpayers nearly $1.5 trillion. That would be a corporation that won the right to build the next evolution of the fighter jet by under bidding the cost, and having all kinds of cost overruns. Not to mention scope creep from the customer - i.e. Yes, we want it to do everything we asked for in the RFP, but we also want it to cook coffee doing Mach 5. Keep in mind, that the F-35 was a partership between government and commercial, so not a very good example about how \"\"government is bad at stuff\"\" because commercial is also involved (granted also not a good example of how government is good at stuff - there is definitely lots of examples of pork in government). And as for the $6.5 trillion, if I remember correctly it wasn't that it disappeared, it was that it wasn't recorded correctly. Much of that money is not actual money, it was double, triple, quadruple counted because the accounting error wasn't caught early. And there were thousands of people involved in this situation. But again, an example of how government isn't good at everything. Course, I could always point to a topic near and dear to your heart, and talk about how a [single person caused a $16B selloff](http://www.cnbc.com/id/36999483). To put that in perspective, that is $16B caused by one person - much bigger than $25,000 per person. Or how a [single tweet erased $130B](http://business.time.com/2013/04/24/how-does-one-fake-tweet-cause-a-stock-market-crash/) in a days time. The markets are not exactly perfect either. Of course you could always say it is an example about how government is imperfect at regulating either - and we would both be right. The ungoverned civil society is not a new topic, or approach. I just don't think I have seen any examples of one that succeeded. Mankind always seem to coalesce into some form of structure when presented with ungoverned chaos. What that structure looks like is not always good, and not always bad. I think how ours has formed is pretty good, although I do agree it could be better.\"" }, { "docid": "591694", "title": "", "text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"" }, { "docid": "177648", "title": "", "text": "Your first scenario, involving shareholders in a private corp being limited by a contractual agreement, is common in practice. Frequent clauses include methods of valuing the shares if someone wants to sell, first right of refusal [you have to attempt to sell to the other shareholders, before you can sell to a 3rd party], and many others. These clauses are governed by contract law [ie: some clauses may be illegal in contract law, and therefore couldn't be applied here]. A Universal Shareholders' Agreement is just the same as the above, but applied to more people. You would never get an already public company to convert to a universal shareholders' agreement - because even 1 share voting 'no' would block it [due to corporate law limiting the power of a corporation from abusing minority shareholder value]. In practice, these agreements universally exist at the start of incorporation, or at least at the first moment shares become available. An example is the Canadian mega-construction company PCL*, which is employee-owned. When the original owner transferred the corporation to his employees, there was a USA in place which still today governs how the corporation operates. In theory you could have a 'public company' where most shares are already owned by the founders, and 100% of remaining shares are owned by a specific group of individuals, in which case you may be able to get a USA signed. But it wouldn't really happen in practice. *[Note that while PCL is broadly owned by a large group of employees, it is not a 'public company' because any random schmuck can't simply buy a share on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I assume most exchanges would prevent corporations from being listed if they had ownership restrictions like this]." }, { "docid": "223309", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, there are legal problems with what he did. To prevent fraud, the US government regulates who can give public investment advice and how they can do it. If you're getting paid to advise an individual, you have to pass certain examinations and maintain ongoing government certification. If you hold a position in a stock you're touting, you legally have to disclose it using particular language. And if you're a corporate insider or hold a significant position in a company, you're restricted on what you can say about the company and when you can say it. Mr. Jackson, aka 50 Cent, held a significant position in the company he tweeted about. My guess is the guys in the suits came to visit Mr. Cent, because if you go to the article the OP links to, at the bottom they mention Mr. Cent's tweet has been deleted and replaced with \"\"go talk to your investment advisor\"\".\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "599524", "title": "", "text": "SecondMarket attempts to add liquidity to privately held companies. You may be able to find a buyer there, but this is still incredibly illiquid due to accredited investor regulations constricting businesses from catering to the 99%. As around 1% of the United States population qualifies as an accredited investor." } ]

[ { "docid": "170318", "title": "", "text": "It depends on your investment profile but basically, dividends increase your taxable income. Anyone making an income will effectively get 'lower returns' on their investments due to this effect. If you had the choice between identical shares that either give a dividend or don't, you'll find that stock that pays a dividend has a lower price, and increases in value more slowly than stock that doesn't. (all other things being equal) There's a whole bunch of economic theory behind this but in short, the current stock price is a measure of how much the company is worth combined with an estimation of how much it will be worth in the future (NPV of all future dividends is the basic model). When the company makes profit, it can keep those profits, and invest in new projects or distribute a portion of those profits to shareholders (aka dividends). Distributing the value to shareholders reduces the value of the company somewhat, but the shareholders get the money now. If the company doesn't give dividends, it has a higher value which will be reflected in a higher stock price. So basically, all other things being equal (which they rarely are, but I digress) the price and growth difference reflects the fact that dividends are paying out now. (In other words, if you wanted non-dividend shares you could get them by buying dividend shares and re-investing the dividend as new shares every time there was a payout, and you could get dividend-share like properties by selling a percentage of non-dividend shares periodically). Dividend income is taxable as part of your income right away, however taxes on capital gains only happen when you sell the asset in question, and also has a lower tax rate. If you buy and hold Berkshire Hatheway, you will not have to pay taxes on the gains you get until you decide to sell the shares, and even then the tax rate will be lower. If you are investing for retirement, this is great, since your income from other sources will be lower, so you can afford to be taxed then. In many jurisdictions, income from capital gains is subject to a different tax rate than the rest of your income, for example in the US for most people with money to invest it's either 15% or 20%, which will be lower than normal income tax would be (since most people with money to invest would be making enough to be in a higher bracket). Say, for example, your income now is within the 25% bracket. Any dividend you get will be taxed at that rate, so let's say that the dividend is about 2% and the growth of the stock is about 4%. So, your effective growth rate after taxation is 5.5% -- you lose 0.5% from the 25% tax on the dividend. If, instead, you had stock with the same growth but no dividend it would grow at a rate of 6%. If you never withdrew the money, after 20 years, $1 in the dividend stock would be worth ~$2.92 (1.055^20), whereas $1 in the non-dividend stock would be worth ~$3.21 (1.06^20). You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment. So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter. Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale). There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life." }, { "docid": "496921", "title": "", "text": "\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"" }, { "docid": "451898", "title": "", "text": "\"Discussing individual stocks is discouraged here, so I'll make my answer somewhat generic. Keep in mind, some companies go public in a way that takes the shares that are held by the investment VCs (venture capitalists) and cashes them out of their positions, i.e. most if not all shares are made public. In that case, the day after IPO, the original investors have their money, and, short of the risk of being sued for fraud, could not care less what the stock does. Other companies float a small portion up front, and retain the rest. This is a way of creating a market and valuing the company, but not floating so many shares the market has trouble absorbing it. This stock has a \"\"Shares Outstanding\"\" of 2.74B but has only floated 757.21M. The nearly 2 billion shares held by the original investors certainly impact their wallets with how this IPO went. See the key statistics for the details.\"" }, { "docid": "38159", "title": "", "text": "\"Taxing wealth is an easy idea, but I don't think it can ever work. Wealth is too easily hidden, transformed, or revalued. Taxing actual cash flows works because two parties have to declare it. Taxing wealth would cause huge conflicts as to how wealth is measured. That said, I'm a big fan of the idea that the estate tax should be massively increased, and would only involve a single evaluation per taxpayer, rather than every year. Taxing more measurable forms of wealth, like stocks, would cause wealth to flow from stocks into property, which would then be valued as low as possible, causing a general market crash and another great depression. I'm most curious about a Georgian tax scheme, which is where taxes are levied on un-improved property. Per wikipedia: \"\"Georgism, based on the belief that people should own the value they produce themselves, but that the economic value derived from land (including natural resources) should belong equally to all members of society.\"\" So most taxes in society would be generated by those who owned property as a speculation and didn't invest in it. Incentives would be to make all property held privately be as economically productive as possible.\"" }, { "docid": "106104", "title": "", "text": "\"If you sold the stock for a profit, you will owe tax on that profit. Whether it is taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains depends on how long you held the stock before selling it. Presumably you're going to invest this money into mutual funds or something of that sort. Those may pay dividends which can be reinvested, and will grow in value (you hope) just as the individual stock shares would (you hope). Assuming the advice you've been given is at all reasonable, there's no need for buyer's remorse here; you're just changing your investing style to a different point on the risk-versus-return curve. (If you have to ask this question, I tend to agree that you should do more homework before playing with shares in individual companieS ... unless you're getting thess shares at employee discount, in which case you should still seriously consider selling them fairly quickly and reinvesting the money in a more structured manner. In a very real sense your job is itself an \"\"investment\"\" in your employer; if they ever get into trouble you don't want that to hit both your income and investments.)\"" }, { "docid": "349147", "title": "", "text": "\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"" }, { "docid": "314026", "title": "", "text": "\"In 2014 the IRS announced that it published guidance in Notice 2014-21. In that notice, the answer to the first question describes the general tax treatment of virtual currency: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. As it's property like any other, capital gains if and when you sell are taxed. But there's nothing illegal or nefarious about it, and while you might get some odd questions if a large deposit ends up in your bank account, as long as you answer them there really isn't a problem. If you don't have documentation of how much you paid for it, if it's a trivial amount compared to what it's worth now you can just declare $0 as your basis. I would suggest you try to have documentation that you've held it at least one year so that it's a long-term capital gain, but you can just mark the purchase date as \"\"Various\"\" on your tax form. I've done this (for a much smaller amount of bitcoins, alas) and haven't run into any trouble. While there are some good reasons to sell slowly, as others are saying, I want to play devil's advocate for a minute and give you a reason to sell quickly: A decision to hold is equivalent to a decision to buy. That is, if a million dollars randomly ended up in your bank account for no reason, you probably wouldn't choose to go put it all into bitcoin, and then slowly sell it. Yet that's more-or-less an equivalent financial situation to holding on to the bitcoin and slowly selling it. While there are certainly tax advantages to selling over the course of many years, bitcoin is one of the most volatile commodities out there, and one has no idea what will happen over the next few weeks, let alone the next few years. It may go to tens of thousands of dollars a coin, or it may go to basically zero. If I had a million dollars in my pocket, bitcoin isn't how I'd choose to store it all. Just something to think about; obviously you need to make the best choice for you for yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "480967", "title": "", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "110733", "title": "", "text": "\"You should spend zero on your stock research company. If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars. They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something. Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock \"\"research\"\" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks. They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price. Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem. The research company knows that its recommendations will \"\"make good money\"\" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people. To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing \"\"dumb\"\" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period. And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck. I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck. Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value. Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal \"\"stock research\"\" enterprise.\"" }, { "docid": "591694", "title": "", "text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"" }, { "docid": "72979", "title": "", "text": "The total value of the stock market more or less tracks the total value of the companies listed in the stock market, which is more or less the total value of the US economy (since very few industries are nationalized or dominated by privately held companies). The US economy has consistently grown over time, thanks to the wonders of industrialization, the discovery of new markets, new natural resources, etc. Thus, the stock market has continued to grow as well. Will it forever? No. The United States will not exist for ever. But there's no obvious reason it won't continue to grow, at least for a while, though of course if I could accurately predict that I would be far richer than I am. Why do other countries not have the same result? China is its own ball of wax since it's a sort-of-market-sort-of-command economy. Japan has major issues economically right now and doesn't really have the natural or people resources; it also had a huge market bubble a while back that it's never recovered from. And many European countries are doing fine. German's DAX30 index was at around 2500 in 2004 and is now at nearly 13000. That's pretty fast growth. If you go back further (there was a crash ending in around 2004), you can see around the fall of the Berlin wall it was still around 2000; even going that far back, that's about an 8% annual bump. The FTSE was also around 2000 back then, around 8000 now, which is around 5% annual growth. Many of these indexes were more seriously hurt than the US markets in the two major crashes of this millenium; while the US markets fell a lot in 2008, they didn't fall nearly as much as many smaller markets in 2002, so had less to recover from. Both DAX and FTSE suffered similar falls in 2002 to 2008, and so even though during good periods they've grown quite quickly, they haven't overall done as well as they could have given the crashes." }, { "docid": "537916", "title": "", "text": "\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"" }, { "docid": "223309", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, there are legal problems with what he did. To prevent fraud, the US government regulates who can give public investment advice and how they can do it. If you're getting paid to advise an individual, you have to pass certain examinations and maintain ongoing government certification. If you hold a position in a stock you're touting, you legally have to disclose it using particular language. And if you're a corporate insider or hold a significant position in a company, you're restricted on what you can say about the company and when you can say it. Mr. Jackson, aka 50 Cent, held a significant position in the company he tweeted about. My guess is the guys in the suits came to visit Mr. Cent, because if you go to the article the OP links to, at the bottom they mention Mr. Cent's tweet has been deleted and replaced with \"\"go talk to your investment advisor\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "102237", "title": "", "text": "An instant 15% profit sounds good to me, so you can't go wrong selling as soon as you are able. Here are a couple other considerations: Tax implications: When you sell the stock, you have to pay taxes on the profit (including that 15% discount). The tax rate you pay is based on how long you wait to sell it. If you wait a certain amount of time (usually 2 years, but it will depend on your specific tax codes) before you sell, you could be subject to lower tax rates on that profit. See here for a more detailed description. This might only apply if you're in the US. Since you work for the company, you may be privy to a bit more information about how the company is run and how likely it is to grow. As such, if you feel like the company is headed in the right direction, you may want to hold on the the stock for a while. I am generally wary of being significantly invested in the company you work for. If the company goes south, then the stock price will obviously drop, but you'll also be at risk to be laid off. As such you're exposed much more risk than investing in other companies. This is a good argument to sell the stock and take the 15% profit.* * - I realize your question wasn't really about whether to sell the stock, but more for when, but I felt this was relevant nonetheless." }, { "docid": "513620", "title": "", "text": "There are two reasons to do a reverse split. Those partial shares will then be turned into cash and returned to the investors. For large institutional investors such as mutual funds or pension funds it results in only a small amount of cash because the fund has merged all the investors shares together. If the company is trying to meet the minimum price level of the exchange they have little choice. If they don't do the reverse split they will be delisted. If the goal is to reduce the number of investors they are using one of the methods of going private: A publicly held company may deregister its equity securities when they are held by less than 300 shareholders of record or less than 500 shareholders of record, where the company does not have significant assets. Depending on the facts and circumstances, the company may no longer be required to file periodic reports with the SEC once the number of shareholders of record drops below the above thresholds. A number of kinds of transactions can result in a company going private, including:" }, { "docid": "404529", "title": "", "text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\"" }, { "docid": "276375", "title": "", "text": "The thing about amway products is that they are products people already use and buy from other stores. I mean protein bars and energy drinks and body care products.That's not the right way to have a profitable business; buying a bunch of inventory in your garage and then trying to sell it. The money is in getting people sponsored and teaching them to switch their shopping habits to go through their own store as amway pays you a bonus based upon the amount of product you and your business consume or sell in retail. The more volume, the higher percentage you get in bonus. Now this can develop into a business asset that is very low maintenance and pays you well. It takes maybe 15 hours a week to host meetings after you make enough money to quit your day job. Compared to owning real estate? Compared to owning a grocery store business? Those things have a ton of overhead and major headaches to handle. But I do agree the majority of the industry is very amateur and they will teach you to do stupid stuff like put inventory in your garage. That doesn't make amway a pyramid scheme though. Amway is the largest privately held debt free organization in the world. No public stock and they made over 11 billion dollars in 2012." }, { "docid": "121765", "title": "", "text": "The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation. Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on. Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation. So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company. If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend. However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth. Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position. Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around. Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases. Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories. That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong. But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend." }, { "docid": "260983", "title": "", "text": "10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions. But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky. A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though. To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked. Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it." } ]

[ { "docid": "525200", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't do this. There is a chance that your check could get lost/misdirected/misapplied, etc. Then you would need to deal with the huge bureaucracy to try to get it fixed while interest and penalties pile up. What you can do is have the IRS withdraw the money themselves by providing the rounting number and account number of your bank. This should work whether is it a traditional brick and mortar bank or an online bank." } ]

[ { "docid": "344780", "title": "", "text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"" }, { "docid": "190844", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately you can't use your HSA to pay for expenses in year A. Qualified medical expenses for an HSA must occur after the date the HSA account was established. (Established typically means the date the account was opened in your name.) The other answers already mostly answered your other questions, but I want to really hit home some particular points that many people may not realize: The most important thing to do when you are eligible to have an HSA account, is to open an HSA account ASAP. This is true even if you don't put any money in it and you leave it empty for years. The reason is that once the account is established, all qualified medical expenses that occur after that date are eligible for distributions, even if you wait years before you fund your HSA account. The second most important thing to do is to keep track of all out of pocket medical expenses you incur after you open the HSA account. All you need is a simple spreadsheet and a place to store your receipts. Once you have the account and are tracking expenses, now you can put money into your HSA and take it out whenever you'd like. (With limits- you can't put in more than the contribution limit for a single tax year, and you can't take out more than your eligible expenses to date.) Helpful Tip: Many people don't fund their HSA because they can't afford to set aside extra money to do so. Fortunately, you don't have to. For example, suppose you have some dental work and it costs you $500. Once you get the bill, before you pay it, put the $500 into your HSA account. The next day, take the $500 back out and pay your dental bill with it. Most HSA accounts will give you a debit card to make this even easier to pay the bill. By putting the money into your HSA for 1 day you just received a $500 tax deduction. Alternatively you can always pay out of pocket like you normally would, track your receipts, and wait until the end of the year (or up until April 15 of the next year). I like this option because I can pay all of my medical bills with a credit card and get cash back. Then at the end of the year, I add up the expenses, deposit that much into my HSA, and if I'd rather put that money somewhere else I just pull it out the next day. If you decide you don't need the money right away that's even better since you can leave it in the HSA account and invest it. Like a Roth account, you don't pay tax on the growth you achieve inside of an HSA. Another Tip: if your employer offers the service of automatically making deposits into your HSA by reducing your paycheck, you should definitely try to do that if you can afford it, rather than manually making contributions as I described in the previous tip. When your employer makes the contributions for you, your wages are reduced by that amount on your W2, so you end up saving an additional 7% in FICA taxes." }, { "docid": "93523", "title": "", "text": "The simple answer is that you have to read the terms and conditions when you sign up for a checking account at the bank. The process of fraud investigation varies from bank to bank. Ultimately most banks will refund the money if you are not deemed negligent. Some banks offer quick reimbursement during fraud claims, but many will not refund the money until the investigation is complete (which can take several weeks). Checking accounts are terrible security problems. If you're looking for ways to avoid a hassle, stop writing checks and using ATM/Debit cards. If you must send checks to pay bills, use the bill-pay system that is now common with most banks (they use a service to send checks on your behalf and don't even charge you for postage unless you ask for expedited processing)." }, { "docid": "559761", "title": "", "text": "Economically it doesn't make much difference, but I like to control the account because I can adjust the amount I put aide each month based on the new tax rates that come out each spring. This allow me finer control. I also know that the bills have been paid, I had one lender years ago that failed to pay the property tax bill, I had to end the money in to the county, and then pend months fighting the lender to get the money back. Now I avoid escrow accounts. The money being collected by the mortgage servicing company for property taxes and property insurance goes into a separate account. The company insists on handling the funds to make sure that these bills are paid on time, thus protecting their investment. The failure to pay the taxes leaves the property subject to forfeiture via tax lien. The failure to pay property insurance leaves the house unprotected if there is a fire or other incident. You can avoid the use of an escrow account if you have enough equity in the account. Some lenders ask for you to provide proof of payment each year if you are going to pay it yourself. At the end of each year the servicing company will provide you with an accounting for interest on the loan, and the amount of money spent on taxes and insurance. Also expect that they will make adjustments to the monthly withholding based on estimated increases for taxes and insurance. Depending on your financial situation the interest, taxes may be included on Schedule A. If you have a rental property the interest, taxes and insurance are considered expenses that you can write off. The biggest issue with escrow accounts is that the company can have a buffer built in to protect them from unexpected increases. Many people view the calculation of the buffer a confusing and feel that they are overpaying. If you want to avoid the escrow account you should make sure that each month you put the money into a separate account so that when the property tax bill is due you can pay it on time. When savings accounts earned significant interest it was possible to make a little money in the deal, but that hasn't been true for the last few years." }, { "docid": "570071", "title": "", "text": "\"As advised you need to budget, but there are a few simple things you can do to make it easier. Work out how much your fixed bills are every month, for example, council tax, gas and electric, mortgage and rent etc. On pay-day, move an amount of cash equal to this into another bank account when you get paid. It's easier if this other account, let's call it a bills account, can pay the bills automatically via direct debits, you can then forget about it. Now your budget should tell you how much you spend on things that are more variable, food, fuel, travel etc. Again on pay-day, move an amount of cash aside to cover this (plus a small buffer amount) into another account. Whatever is now left in your main account is yours to spend or save as you see fit. You just need to make sure you are sticking to your budget and it's as easy as that. If you cannot pay direct debits from the other accounts you just need to move the money over to cover them when they need paying. Most banks will let you set up extra accounts so you can mvoe the money easily using internet banking or by a monthly standing order. If they won't let you have several \"\"current\"\" accounts you can use savings accounts but will need to manually move the money around as the bills are due. If you get all your direct debits to debit on pay-day, that makes it even easier. If you are struggling for money then prioritise paying off debt first and prioritise the debt with the highest interest rate.\"" }, { "docid": "438287", "title": "", "text": "\"See this question regarding the relationship between a HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan) and an HSA (Health Savings Account). In brief, to qualify for an HSA you must have a HDHP: HDHPs are plans with a minimum deductible of $1,200 for self-only coverage and $2,400 for self-and-family coverage. The maximum amount out-of-pocket limit for HDHPs is $5,950 for self-only coverage and $11,900 for self-and-family coverage. As mentioned by Stainsor, your insurance can either come from your employer, or it can be an individually purchased plan. The HSA can be bundled as part of a package with the insurance, or it can be an account you set up separately. Contributions you make to the HSA are tax deductible. You'll report the amount you contributed when you file your taxes the following year. E.g. in April 2012 you'll report (and deduct) the amount of HSA contributions you made for tax year 2011. I'm not sure what kind of trouble you'll get into if you have an HSA without having a qualified HDHP. To answer the main part of your question: Different HSAs may have slightly different features, but I've typically seen them provide the following ways to withdraw funds: Via a debit card issued with the account. You can use the debit card to pay for things like drugs at the pharmacy, or at a doctors' office that requires payment at the time of service. Via online bill pay. You can use this to pay bills from hospitals, doctors' offices, or other healthcare service providers that send you bills. Via paper checks. For doctors' offices that require payment at time of service but don't accept plastic. (Or if you prefer not to use online bill pay.) Via withdrawal at a teller window or ATM. You can use this to \"\"reimburse yourself\"\" for healthcare expenses that you paid out of pocket. The issue of documenting legitimate expenses and/or qualifying for the account with an HDHP is between you and the IRS. The bank at which your HSA is kept doesn't really care whether you comply with the tax laws.\"" }, { "docid": "386095", "title": "", "text": "I have only been comfortable using my credit unions online bill payment system where the service they use already has the target in the database. When I enter the name of the company and the zip code from the bill, the system responds with the address that matches what is on the bill. In most cases the money is not sent via mail, but it is sent electronically. This eliminates the case of somebody finding the check. Though electronic delivery doesn't guarantee that I didn't type the wrong account number. When adding a new target, I like to pick those that also have an online system that I can check in a few days to make sure the money was received and properly credited. Recently a company failed to credit my account in a timely manner, my credit union actually noticed that the payment hadn't been cashed, and alerted me. I asked the credit union about mistakes, either by me or by them. They claimed that the payment is treated like any other check, and that if there was a problem the money could be pulled back, and my account credited with the funds. Your bank should have a disclosure document stating the risks and protections with the service." }, { "docid": "557870", "title": "", "text": "\"A credit card is a way to borrow money. That's all. Sometimes the loans are very small - $5 - and sometimes they are larger. You can have a credit card with a company (bank or whatever) that you have no other relationship with. They're not a property of a bank account, they are their own thing. The card you describe sounds exactly like a debit card here, and you can treat your Canadian debit card like your French credit card - you pay for things directly from your bank account, assuming the money is in there. In Canada, many small stores take debit but not credit, so do be sure to get a debit card and not only a credit card. Now as to your specific concerns. You aren't going to \"\"forget to make a wire.\"\" You're going to get a bill - perhaps a paper one, perhaps an email - and it will say \"\"here is everything you charged on your credit card this month\"\" along with a date, which will be perhaps 21 days from the statement date, not the date you used the card. Pay the entire balance (not just the minimum payment) by that date and you'll pay no interest. The bill date will be a specific date each month (eg the 23rd) so you can set yourself a reminder to check and pay your bill once a month. Building a credit history has value if you want to borrow a larger amount of money to buy a car or a house, or to start a business. Unlike the US, it doesn't really have an impact on things like getting a job. If you use your card for groceries, you use it enough, no worries. In 5 years it is nice to look back and see \"\"never paid late; mostly paid the entire amount each month; never went over limit; never went into collections\"\" and so on. In my experience you can tell they like you because they keep raising your limit without you asking them to. If you want to buy a $2500 item and your credit limit is $1500 you could prepay $1000 onto the credit card and then use it. Or you could tell the vendor you'd rather use your debit card. Or you could pay $1500 on the credit card and then rest with your debit card. Lots of options. In my experience once you get up to that kind of money they'd rather not use a credit card because of the merchant fees they pay.\"" }, { "docid": "525685", "title": "", "text": "\"Everything I have read here sounds good except for one small detail. My bank does indeed identify ATM rebates as taxable income. They, in fact, seemed to have begun this practice several years ago but somehow forgot to send 1099's to their own customers despite sending them to the IRS. This ended up costing me nearly $2,000 in back taxes to cover 2012, 2013 and 2014. My bank sent a letter of apology and will cover any penalties and interest accrued \"\"due to their error\"\". No one from the bank ever told me that these rebates could be taxable when I signed on for this special checking account for which I pay a fee each month to continue. So what is the truth, is it taxable income or not? I have now paid for the 2012 and 2013 tax years for something I still say is not income. I am about to pay the 2014 tax bill and will have to pay another $850 or so due to this ruling by my bank. How can this be right??\"" }, { "docid": "536262", "title": "", "text": "\"littleadv's first comment - check the note - is really the answer. But your issue is twofold - Every mortgage I've had (over 10 in my lifetime) allows early principal payments. The extra principal can only be applied at the same time as the regular payment. Think of it this way - only at that moment is there no interest owed. If a week later you try to pay toward only principal, the system will not handle it. Pretty simple - extra principal with the payment due. In fact, any mortgage I've had that offered a monthly bill or coupon book will have that very line \"\"extra principal.\"\" By coincidence, I just did this for a mortgage on my rental. I make these payments through my bank's billpay service. I noted the extra principal in the 'notes' section of the virtual check. But again, the note will explicitly state if there's an issue with prepayments of principal. The larger issue is that your friend wishes to treat the mortgage like a bi-weekly. The bank expects the full amount as a payment and likely, has no obligation to accept anything less than the full amount. Given my first comment above here is the plan for your friend to do 99% of what she wishes: Tell her, there's nothing magic about bi-weekly, it's a budget-clever way to send the money, but over a year, it's simply paying 108% of the normal payment. If she wants to burn the mortgage faster, tell her to add what she wishes every month, even $10, it all adds up. Final note - There are two schools of thought to either extreme, (a) pay the mortgage off as fast as you can, no debt is the goal and (b) the mortgage is the lowest rate you'll ever have on borrowed money, pay it as slow as you can, and invest any extra money. I accept and respect both views. For your friend, and first group, I'm compelled to add - Be sure to deposit to your retirement account's matched funds to gain the entire match. $1 can pay toward your 6% mortgage or be doubled on deposit to $2 in your 401(k), if available. And pay off all high interest debt first. This should stand to reason, but I've seen people keep their 18% card debt while prepaying their mortgage.\"" }, { "docid": "137226", "title": "", "text": "\"I hear you (and those answering) use the words \"\"my money\"\" (or \"\"me to pay for stuff\"\") The sooner that ends, the better off you'll both be. My wife and I do have our own checking accounts that we maintain so she can write a check without notifying me, or I can buy her a birthday/mother's day/ etc gift without it showing in the joint account, but nearly all money flows through our joint account. Before we were married, the joint bank accounts were opened as was the joint brokerage account. You need to work on the budget as a single project and without judging. It's good that your incomes are similar, it makes the dynamics of pooling seem more fair, but for those where one spouse is making far more than the other, the impulse to 'chip in' equally towards bills leaves the lower earner with nothing. Will your wife go back to work after a maternity leave? Once she's back, and working for a time, things will settle down a bit. There's a postpartum time that's difficult. Women who have been through it will tell you that it can be pretty bad, and the best a guy can do is be understanding and supportive. As long as you are talking \"\"we\"\" with your wife, she'll see that you are both in it together. At the risk of sounding sexist, Women's clothing needs are different than men's. I could get away with owning 5 suits which could be replaced at the rate of one per year. If not for my wife, I can see in my own daughter how clothing makes her feel good about herself, and while I'm frugal with most of our budget, my clothing questions are 2 - Will it last? & Will it match other pieces you have? Therefore, clothing gets a line item all its own in the budget. There are a number of financial things to consider, but I see you are in the UK, so I'll generalize. In the States, there are pretax benefits to help care for a child under 13 (called a dependent care account) and for medical expenses not covered by insurance (called flexible spending account). These let you take money from your pay pretax to use for specific expenses. If UK offers similar, I invite a user to edit the detail into my answer. Last - once the kid comes into our lives, there's little room for many of the late teen/early 20's spending. Comics? DVDs? Those are the low hanging fruit of wasted money. Saving for retirement, and for University for the kid take priority. I'm not one to quote cliches but a friend once offered this observation - \"\"If you are not happy but your wife is happy, you are still far happier than if you were happy but your wife is not happy.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "521753", "title": "", "text": "I am on employment based visa in USA and want to send dollars from USA to India from my savings (after paying Tax). How much maximum dollars I can send in a day? month? or in a year regularly? There is no such limit. You can transfer as money you like to yourself anywhere. To pay the Bank Loan-student Loan how much maximum dollars I can send in a day, in a month or in a year? to pay that I have to pay directly to that Bank Account or in any account I can send money? You can transfer to your NRE account in India and move it further. You can also send it directly to the Loan Account [Check with the Bank, they may not be able to receive funds from outside for a Loan Account] My mother is having Green Card. She is not working. She has a NRE account in India. Can I send dollars from my USA Bank account to her NRE account in India? what are the rules for that? any Tax or limit for that? Or I have to get any permission before sending it? If you are sending money to your mother, it would come under Gift Tax act in US. There is no issue in India. Suggest you transfer to your own NRE account." }, { "docid": "273947", "title": "", "text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"" }, { "docid": "408124", "title": "", "text": "When you start at a new job here in the U.S., the default means of payment is usually a paper check. Most folks will quickly set up direct deposit so that their employer deposits their paycheck directly into their personal bank account - the incentive to do so is that you receive your funds faster than if you deposit a paper check. Even if you set up direct deposit on your first day on the job, you may still receive your first paycheck as a paper check simply because the wheels of payroll processing turn slowly at some (large) companies. A counter example is a self-employed contractor - perhaps a carpenter or house painter. These folks are paid by their customers, homeowners and such. Many larger, well established contracters now accept credit card payments from customers, but smaller independents may be reluctant to set up a credit card merchant account to accept payment by card because of all the fees that are associated with accepting credit card payments. 3% transaction fees and monthly service fees can be scary to any businessman who already has very thin profit margins. In such cases, these contractors prefer to be paid by check or in cash for the simple reason that there are no fees deducted from cash payments. There are a few folks here who don't trust direct deposit, or more specifically, don't trust their employer to perform the deposit correctly and on time. Some feel uncomfortable giving their bank info to their employer, fearing someone at the company could steal money from their account. In my experience, the folks who prefer a paper paycheck are often the same folks who rush to the bank on payday to redeem their paychecks for cash. They may have a bank account (helps with check cashing) but they prefer to carry cash. I operate in a manner similar to you - I use a debit card or credit card (I only have one of each) for nearly all transactions in daily life, I use electronic payments through my bank to pay my regular bills and mortgage, and I receive my paycheck by direct deposit. There have been periods where I haven't written or received paper checks for so long that I have to hunt for where I put my checkbook! Even though I use a debit card for most store purchases, the bank account behind that debit card is actually a checking account according to the bank. Again, the system defaults to paper checks and you have the option of going electronic as well. Before we judge anyone who doesn't use direct deposit or who prefers to be paid in cold hard cash, consider that direct deposit is a luxury of stability. Steady job, home, etc. Direct deposit doesn't make sense for a contractor or day laborer who expect to work for a different person each day or week. I don't think this is all that unique to the US. There are people in every city and country who don't have long-term employment with a single employer and therefore prefer cash or paper check over electronic payments. I'd be willing to bet that this applies to the majority of people on the planet, actually." }, { "docid": "264263", "title": "", "text": "\"Read the check: it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\". It's simply an order from you to your bank to give money to someone. It can be written on anything. Back in the olden days (a hundred years or so ago) it would have simply been a letter to the bank. Those rules haven't changed much with today's automation. What matters is that the order comes from you, which means it must have your signature. If the bank pays a check with a fraudulent signature they're responsible. Granted, banks don't look very carefully at checks any more (I once accidentally swapped two checks when I paid bills, and the phone company simply gave me a $700 credit on my $50-a-month account), but if they screw up it's their problem.\"" }, { "docid": "116684", "title": "", "text": "The easiest and cheapest way I can think of is the online bill pay service that most banks use. It's free for both of you; regardless of what the bank has to go through to get the payment to its destination, they generally eat the costs. You can use this to pay anyone from your rent to your electric company to your cousin Vinnie. However, I do not think that a business checking account has this feature. Instead, most corporate cash accounts typically have an ACH service attached to them, where for some small, fixed fee like 25 to 50 cents per transaction, they will accept transfer requests in an ACH format. This is how your electric company does auto-debit (if you let them), and how banks do online bill pay to most corporate payees; they, and their bank account numbers, would be verified by and kept on file with each bank that moved a substantial volume of money to this payee." }, { "docid": "537593", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it's a good idea to have a separate business account for your business because it makes accounting and bookkeeping that much easier. You can open a business checking account and there will be various options for types of accounts and fees. You may or may not want an overdraft account, for example, or a separate business credit card just so you can more easily separate those expenses from your personal cards. When I started my business, I opened a business checking account and met with my banker every year just to show them how the business was doing and to keep the relationship going. Eventually, when I wanted to establish a business line of credit, it was easier to set up because I they were already familiar with my business, its revenue, and needs for a line of credit. You can set up a solo 401k with your bank, too, and they'll be very happy to do so, but I recommend shopping around for options. I've found that the dedicated investment firms (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) tend to have better options, fees, and features for investment accounts. Just because a specific bank handles your checking account doesn't mean you need to use that bank for everything. Lastly, I use completely different banks for my personal life and for my business. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I just don't want all my finances in the same place for both privacy reasons and to avoid having all my eggs in the same basket. Just something to consider -- I don't really have a completely sane reason for using completely different banks, but it helps me sleep." }, { "docid": "257841", "title": "", "text": "Using the bank's bill pay always seemed like a hassle to me. There are lots of mistakes to be made by me that can result in late payments and not too many benefits other than some convenience, and being able to pay bills online for accounts that require paper payment. (Although the banking systems often screw up those payments) Plus, there is usually a fee associated with bill pay, at least to some extent. I generally use the websites of my credit cards or other entities to pay bills. Then again, maybe I'm a bit of a weirdo here... I don't see mailing a check 3 days ahead of the due date as a particular hassle." }, { "docid": "529455", "title": "", "text": "They will not send a bill, though there's a chance they will eventually send an accusatory letter. You must proactively pay your taxes. The simplest route is to send a check to each taxing authority with the respective full amounts due. I wouldn't bother calling them. You could also file amended returns with each containing the correct information. As a general rule, tax advisors tend to counsel against giving bank account information to the IRS for payment purposes (as opposed to refund purposes), both to protect the timing of payment and to make it slightly more difficult for them to seize or lien your account. If you choose to send a check, you can use Form 1040-V and NY Form IT-201-V. Please triple check your Social Security Number matches your tax return SSN, so they correctly credit you for payment. You may include an explanation of the closed account if you are feeling either fearful or contrite, but if the amount due is paid in full, then neither taxing authority should really care about your error." } ]

[ { "docid": "309171", "title": "", "text": "I can't speak for the US, but I've completed direct tax payments via my online bank account (for business and personal) in two countries (South Africa and the UK). I find it easier and with a better record that the transaction took place than any of the other methods available (including going directly into a tax office to pay by cheque). Mail can go missing. Queueing in their offices takes hours and the result can still be misfiled (by them). Ditto allowing them to do a pay run on your account - they can make a mistake and you'll have difficulty proving it. A payment via my bank account gives me an electronic record and I can ensure all the details are correct myself. In addition, in the UK, paying online gives you a good few months extra grace to pay. Even in South Africa, online payments are given a few weeks grace over physical payments. Their recognising that you paying electronically saves them processing time." } ]

[ { "docid": "42999", "title": "", "text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk." }, { "docid": "460325", "title": "", "text": "Recommend using quickbooks for account management. If you use the manufacturing and wholesale you can track POs from vendors, estimates, bill payment quotes and invoicing (there's an editor to customize your set up)Also, most accountants are very familiar with this platform so come tax time they'll be able to give you a hand no problem. For accepting payments I highly suggest asking for checks. If you do accept credit cards keep in mind most payment processors charge a percent (1.5-3%) depending on transaction amounts and quantities of transactions. So you'll want to mark up your products by at least that amount. Another area is sales tax. Since you are not the end user you should be able to avoid sales tax on the items you will be selling to customers. You then charge the customer this sales tax. Not sure about NJ but in Texas we are 8.25%. I then pay the state of Texas the taxes collected quarterly. Edit: also make sure you have separate finances for the LLC. Separate checking, separate credit card, separate everything! If you end up using an account that is tied to you personally then you run into the risk of losing the protective nature of an LLC from a legal standpoint. Edit2: by separate I mean using your IRS issued EIN number to open accounts with the LLC name. When you sign anything on behalf of the company make sure to add the name of the company next to it to show the company is making the signature not you. For instance u/sexlessnights Company name, LLC" }, { "docid": "29024", "title": "", "text": "\"As with many questions here, while littleadv is correct, the real answer is \"\"each bank may handle this differently.\"\" In my case, I was experimenting with my balance to see the impact of utilization, and I overpaid the current bill before the bill was issued. The prior balance was paid, but then I sent a payment to bring my account to a credit balance. Further down the statement appears the line - Your account has a credit balance. We can hold and apply this balance against future purchases and cash advances, or refund it. If you would like a check mailed to you in the amount of the credit balance, simply call us and speak to a representative. You can also see that the \"\"revolving credit available\"\" is above the line of credit, implying that someone with a $5000 credit line wanting to charge a $6000 engagement ring can send a higher payment to the account and then make that charge.\"" }, { "docid": "310284", "title": "", "text": "\"An old question... but the recent answer for me turned out to be Check (formerly Pageonce) https://check.me/ (NOTE: Check was recently purchased by Intuit and is now MintBills) The only thing Check doesn't do that PayTrust did was accept paper bills from payees that couldn't do eBill... but that's a rare problem anymore (for me anyways). I went through each of my payees in PayTrust and added them into Check, it found almost all of them... I added my security info for their logins, and it was setup. The few that Check couldn't find, it asked me for the details and would contact them to try and get it setup... but in the meantime I just added them to my bank's billpay system with automatic payment rules (my mortgage company was the only one it couldn't find, and I know what my mortgage is every month so it's easy to setup a consistent rule) Check does so much more than PayTrust will ever do... Check has a MOBILE APP, and it is really the centerpiece of the whole system... you never really log into the website from your desktop (except to setup all the payees)... most of the time you just get alerts on your phone when a bill is due and you just click \"\"pay\"\" and choose a funding source, and bam you're done. It's been awesome so far... I highly recommend dumping PayTrust for it! FYI: Check is clearly winning at this point, but some of the competition are are http://manilla.com (not sure if you can pay your bills through them though) and DoxoPay ( https://www.doxo.com/posts/pay-your-bills-on-the-go-with-mobile-doxopay-new-android-app-and-an-updated-iphone-app/ )\"" }, { "docid": "358962", "title": "", "text": "\"It's a certified accountant who has passed the CPA exam in order to hold the designation. If you don't pay taxes on your income, you'll be completely fucked down the line. If you're self reporting and it's not automatically deducted, definitely speak to a CPA. They may even recommend filing taxes quarterly. The sub you're using is more for high finance and capital markets, I'd suggest /r/personalfinance for your situation. Also, far be it from me to say, because $2k/mo is great for an 18 year old who is presumably in college, but you won't get in trouble as long as you pay taxes. If you mean in a long-term sense of financial stability, yeah that could be bad. $24k is absolutely amazing now and if being hot on instagram can pay for your college, then 100000% do it, that's fucking awesome. Just make sure to get a degree because if you're still only making $24k in your mid 20's, yes you could be in \"\"trouble\"\" as in dire financial straits. That's not much to live off of when you finally have lots of bills to pay.\"" }, { "docid": "29372", "title": "", "text": "\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \"\"stamp\"\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\"" }, { "docid": "531918", "title": "", "text": "There are some people that still get an old-fashioned paycheck but for the most part if you are an employee at a company you get a paystub while the money is direct deposited into your accounts. Paying for stuff at a store with a check is not very common. Most people use credit cards for that purpose. A significant percentage of the population still use checks for paying there regular bills through the mail. Although the more internet savvy people will most likely use online bill pay from their bank so they don't have to mail checks. Personally I have only written about 15 checks in 5 years. Mostly to people and not to businesses setup for receiving bill payments electronically." }, { "docid": "490100", "title": "", "text": "\"The preferred accounts are designed to hope you do one of several things: Pay one day late. Then charge you all the deferred interest. Many people think If they put $X a month aside, then pay just before the 6 months, 12 moths or no-payment before 2014 period ends then I will be able to afford the computer, carpet, or furniture. The interest rate they will charge you if you are late will be buried in the fine print. But expect it to be very high. Pay on time, but now that you have a card with their logo on it. So now you feel that you should buy the accessories from them. They hope that you become a long time customer. They want to make money on your next computer also. Their \"\"Bill Me Later\"\" option on that site as essentially the same as the preferred account. In the end you will have another line of credit. They will do a credit check. The impact, both positive and negative, on your credit picture is discussed in other questions. Because two of the three options you mentioned in your question (cash, debit card) imply that you have enough cash to buy the computer today, there is no reason to get another credit card to finance the purchase. The delayed payment with the preferred account, will save you about 10 dollars (2000 * 1% interest * 0.5 years). The choice of store might save you more money, though with Apple there are fewer places to get legitimate discounts. Here are your options: How to get the limit increased: You can ask for a temporary increase in the credit limit, or you can ask for a permanent one. Some credit cards can do this online, others require you to talk to them. If they are going to agree to this, it can be done in a few minutes. Some individuals on this site have even been able to send the check to the credit card company before completing the purchase, thus \"\"increasing\"\" their credit limit. YMMV. I have no idea if it works. A good reason to use the existing credit card, instead of the debit card is if the credit card is a rewards card. The extra money or points can be very nice. Just make sure you pay it back before the bill is due. In fact you can send the money to the credit card company the same day the computer arrives in the mail. Having the transaction on the credit card can also get you purchase protection, and some cards automatically extend the warranty.\"" }, { "docid": "165691", "title": "", "text": "\"Firstly, it isn't so generous. It is a win-win, but the bank doesn't have to mail me a free box of checks with my new account, or offer free printing to compete for my business. They already have the infrastructure to send out checks, so the actual cost for my bank to mail a check on my behalf is pretty minimal. It might even save them some cost and reduce exposure. All the better if they don't actually mail a check at all. Per my bank Individuals and most companies you pay using Send Money will be mailed a paper check. Your check is guaranteed to arrive by the delivery date you choose when you create the payment. ... A select number of companies–very large corporations such as telecoms, utilities, and cable companies–are part of our electronic biller network and will be paid electronically. These payments arrive within two business days... So the answer to your question depend on what kind of bill pay you used. If it was an electronic payment, there isn't a realistic possibility the money isn't cashed. If your bank did mail a paper check, the same rules would apply as if you did it yourself. (I suppose it would be up to the bank. When I checked with my bank's support this was their answer.) Therefore per this answer: Do personal checks expire? [US] It is really up to your bank whether or not they allow the check to be cashed at a later date. If you feel the check isn't cashed quickly enough, you would have to stop payment and contact whoever you were trying to pay and perhaps start again. (Or ask them to hustle and cash the check before you stop it.) Finally, I would bet a dime that your bank doesn't \"\"pre-fund\"\" your checks. They are just putting a hold on the equivalent money in your account so you don't overdraw. That is the real favor they do for you. If you stopped the check, your money would be unfrozen and available. EDIT Please read the comment about me losing a dime; seems credible.\"" }, { "docid": "450742", "title": "", "text": "\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \"\"unlimited\"\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \"\"landline\"\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \"\"landline\"\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \"\"on network\"\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \"\"bring your own device\"\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\"" }, { "docid": "65040", "title": "", "text": "As the owner of the S-corp, it is far easier for you to move money in/out of the company as contributions and distributions rather than making loans to the company. Loans require interest payments, 1099-INT forms, and have tax consequences, whereas the distributions don't need to be reported because you pay taxes on net profits regardless of whether the money was distributed. If you were paid interest, disregard this answer. I don't know if or how you could re-categorize the loan once there's a 1099-INT involved. If no interest was ever paid, you just need to account for it properly: If the company didn't pay you any interest and never issued you a 1099-INT form (i.e. you wrote a check to the company, no promissory note, no tax forms, no payments, no interest, etc.) then you can categorize that money as a capital contribution. You can likewise take that money back out of the company as a capital distribution and neither of these events are taxable nor do they need to be reported to the IRS. In Quickbooks, create the following Equity accounts -- one for each shareholder making capital contributions and distributions: When putting money into the company, deposit into your corporate bank account and use the Capital Contribution equity account. When taking money out of the company, write yourself a check and use the Distributions account. At the end of every tax year, you can close out your Contributions and Distributions to Retained Earnings by making a general journal entry. For example, debit retained earnings and credit distributions on Dec 31 every year to zero-out the distributions account. For contributions, do the reverse and credit retained earnings. There are other ways of recording these transactions -- for example I think some people just use a Member Capital equity account instead of separate accounts for contributions and distributions -- and QB might warn you about posting journal entries to the special Retained Earnings account at the end of the year. In any case, this is how my CPA set up my books and it's been working well enough for many years. Still, never a bad idea to get a second opinion from your CPA. Be sure to pay yourself a reasonable salary, you can't get out of payroll taxes and just distribute profits -- that's a big red flag that can trigger an audit. If you're simply distributing back the money you already put into the company, that should be fine." }, { "docid": "558237", "title": "", "text": "\"Nope, anything is that has the required information is fine. At a minimum you need to have the routing number, account number, amount, \"\"pay to\"\" line and a signature. The only laws are that it can't be written on anything illegal, like human skin, and it has to be portable, not carved on the side of a building ( for example) https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-20434,00.html http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/people-actually-cash-big-novelty-checks-even-possible/ That said, the MICR line and standard sizes will make things eaiser for they bank, but are hardly required. You could write your check on notebook paper so long as it had the right information, and the bank would have to \"\"cash it\"\". Keep in mind that a check is an order to the bank to give your money to a person and nothing more. You could write it out in sentence form. \"\"Give Bill $2 from account 12344221 routing number 123121133111 signed _________\"\" and it would be valid. In practice though, it would be a fight. Mostly the bank would try to urge you to use a standard check, or could hold the funds because it looks odd, till they received the ok from \"\"the other bank\"\". But.... If you rant to fight that fight....\"" }, { "docid": "287293", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have said, the decision is a very personal one. Personally, I think you have a good idea. For those of us that thrive in structured systems having a detailed breakdown and distribution of assets is a great idea. I recommend going one step further however. Instead of having a single \"\"Necessities\"\" account have a division here. 1 account for \"\"Bills\"\" and another for \"\"Living Expenses.\"\" Your Bills account should recieve the funds to pay your monthly expenses such as Rent, Utilities, Insurance. Living Expenses is for day to day spending. I recommend this because your Bills are generally a fairly fixed expense. Keeping your flexible spending separate allows you to manage it more carefully and helps prevent overspending. I keep my Living Expenses in cash and divide it up by the number of days before my next check. Every day I put my portion of the Living Expenses in my wallet. This way I know that I can spend as much money in my wallet and still be fine for the rest of the pay period. I also know that if I want to go out to a nice dinner on Friday, it would be helpful if I have money left over at the end of the day Monday through Thursday.\"" }, { "docid": "298154", "title": "", "text": "I used to be both a customer of theirs, and of NetBank. When ING bought NetBank, I felt like they handled the transition very poorly from a customer-service standpoint. I felt like they didn't really value me as a customer, and they didn't do anything to make the transition easy for me. For that reason, I decided to pull my money out from all of my accounts I had with them, and I have never looked back. I now get considerably better rates with a high-yield rewards checking account at my local brick & mortar bank. I am still able to pay bills online, or mail checks into my local bank if I don't want to physically go to a branch or ATM." }, { "docid": "16466", "title": "", "text": "I fell into a similar situation as you. I spent a lot of time trying to understand this, and the instructions leave a lot to be desired. What follows is my ultimate decisions, and my rationale. My taxes have already been filed, so I will let you know if I get audited! 1.) So in cases like this I try to understand the intent. In this case section III is trying to understand if pre-tax money was added to your HSA that you were not entitled too. As you describe, this does not apply to you. I would think you should be ok not including section III (I didn't.) HOWEVER, I am not a tax-lawyer or even a lawyer! 2.) I do not believe these are medical distributions From the 8889 doc.... Qualified HSA distribution. This is a distribution from a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) that is contributed by your employer directly to your HSA. This is a one-time distribution from any of these arrangements. The distribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the HSA and is subject to the testing period rules shown below. See Pub. 969 for more information. So I don't think you have anything to report here. 3.) As you have no excess this line can just be zero. 4.) From the 8889 doc This is a distribution from your traditional IRA or Roth IRA to your HSA in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer. Again, I don't think this applies to you so you can enter zero. 5.) This one is the easiest. You can always get this money tax free if you use it for qualified medical expenses. From the 8889 Distributions from an HSA used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of the account beneficiary, spouse, or dependents are excludable from gross income. (See the line 15 instructions for information on medical expenses of dependents not claimed on your return.) You can receive distributions from an HSA even if you are not currently eligible to have contributions made to the HSA. However, any part of a distribution not used to pay qualified medical expenses is includible in gross income and is subject to an additional 20% tax unless an exception applies. I hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "39006", "title": "", "text": "\"For some people, it's easier to stick to a budget if they have separate checking and savings accounts because they can deposit funds directly into their savings account and not have those funds accessible by debit/credit card, checks, etc. This allows people to pay themselves first and accumulate savings, while making it slightly more difficult to spend those savings on a whim. One a more technical/legal note, one key difference in the United States comes from Regulation D. §204.2(d)(2) of the law limits you to six withdrawals from savings and money market accounts. No such limit exists for checking accounts. Regulation D also forbids banks from paying interest on business checking accounts. In the simplest case, checking accounts and savings accounts are a tradeoff between liquidity and return. Checking accounts are much more liquid, but won't necessarily earn interest, while savings accounts are less liquid because of the withdrawal limits, but earn interest. Nowadays, however, sweep accounts blur this line somewhat because they function like checking accounts, in that you can write an unlimited number of checks, make an unlimited number of withdrawals, etc. but you can also earn interest on your account balance because some or all of the funds are \"\"swept\"\" into an investment account when not in use. The definition of \"\"in use\"\" can vary from business to business and bank to bank.\"" }, { "docid": "325342", "title": "", "text": "\"Senate vs. House Health-Care bills. Summarized from bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-22/republicans-health-care-bills-boil-down-to-more-obamacare 1) Reduces subsidies from eligibility from 400 percent of the federal poverty line which is a hair under $100,000 a year for a family of four to 350 percent of the poverty line which is about $86,000. 2) Reduces premium subsidies which determines the subsidy level which should cover about 70 percent of anticipated health expenses -- to one with an actuarial value of 58 percent causing people to opt for plans with higher deductibles. To offset effects on the elderly the bill changes the subsidy formula to account for age. 3) Obamacare's growth subsidy cap on premium subsidies changed from 0.504 percent of GDP 0.4 percent of GDP meaning program cap is more likely to hit cutting subsidies to some groups. 4) Eliminates the individual and employer mandates may destabilize the Obamacare exchanges and subsidies. 5) Restricts the already small abortion coverage. 6) Ends the cost-sharing reductions that lowered out-of-pocket expenditures for people making less than 250 percent of the federal poverty line not funded since Republicans took over Congress. The bill pays the insurers the money they’ve been owed. Ending the program makes Obamacare significantly less attractive for the folks whose policies are so heavily subsidized. 7) States given a great deal more flexibility expedite waiver program with less interference from federal regulators. 8) Eliminates many Obamacare taxes on everything from tanning to high earners. The “Cadillac tax” on pricey employer-sponsored insurance postponed until 2026 ending an attempt to curtail our nation’s hog-wild tax subsidies for employer-sponsored insurance. Presumably, senators are keeping the tax in after Doing so reduces the apparent cost of a full repeal. 9) Market stabilization funds designed to keep the dreaded “death spiral” from happening by dealing with the major problem driving costs on the exchanges: very sick people. Details on this are sketchy, because states are expected to design programs to meet the goal. If it works, it has the potential to substantially improve the sustainability of the exchanges. 10) Winds down the Medicaid expansion funding … but not as fast as the House bill. 11) It also makes people below the poverty threshold eligible to buy exchange policies with subsidies. This coverage is not as generous as Medicaid; it will probably involve substantial deductibles and copayments. But the premiums are capped at 2 percent of family income, which for a single person making exactly the federal poverty line would be about $20 a month. 12) Converts Medicaid to a per-capita allotment rather than an open-ended entitlement. Like the House bill, the Senate bill changes the program to a per-beneficiary grant based on previous spending levels. It’s not the \"\"block-granting\"\" of supply-sider dreams, but it’s close. This will give states heavy incentives to keep program growth in check especially with future payment growth will be indexed to general inflation, rather than the higher medical inflation. States can also apply to switch to a block grant formula, or to implement a work requirement for Medicaid recipients.\"" }, { "docid": "344780", "title": "", "text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"" }, { "docid": "190844", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately you can't use your HSA to pay for expenses in year A. Qualified medical expenses for an HSA must occur after the date the HSA account was established. (Established typically means the date the account was opened in your name.) The other answers already mostly answered your other questions, but I want to really hit home some particular points that many people may not realize: The most important thing to do when you are eligible to have an HSA account, is to open an HSA account ASAP. This is true even if you don't put any money in it and you leave it empty for years. The reason is that once the account is established, all qualified medical expenses that occur after that date are eligible for distributions, even if you wait years before you fund your HSA account. The second most important thing to do is to keep track of all out of pocket medical expenses you incur after you open the HSA account. All you need is a simple spreadsheet and a place to store your receipts. Once you have the account and are tracking expenses, now you can put money into your HSA and take it out whenever you'd like. (With limits- you can't put in more than the contribution limit for a single tax year, and you can't take out more than your eligible expenses to date.) Helpful Tip: Many people don't fund their HSA because they can't afford to set aside extra money to do so. Fortunately, you don't have to. For example, suppose you have some dental work and it costs you $500. Once you get the bill, before you pay it, put the $500 into your HSA account. The next day, take the $500 back out and pay your dental bill with it. Most HSA accounts will give you a debit card to make this even easier to pay the bill. By putting the money into your HSA for 1 day you just received a $500 tax deduction. Alternatively you can always pay out of pocket like you normally would, track your receipts, and wait until the end of the year (or up until April 15 of the next year). I like this option because I can pay all of my medical bills with a credit card and get cash back. Then at the end of the year, I add up the expenses, deposit that much into my HSA, and if I'd rather put that money somewhere else I just pull it out the next day. If you decide you don't need the money right away that's even better since you can leave it in the HSA account and invest it. Like a Roth account, you don't pay tax on the growth you achieve inside of an HSA. Another Tip: if your employer offers the service of automatically making deposits into your HSA by reducing your paycheck, you should definitely try to do that if you can afford it, rather than manually making contributions as I described in the previous tip. When your employer makes the contributions for you, your wages are reduced by that amount on your W2, so you end up saving an additional 7% in FICA taxes." } ]

[ { "docid": "155389", "title": "", "text": "And if you need to pay business taxes outside of the regular US 1040 form, you can use the IRS' Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS). Basically, you enroll your bank accounts, and you can make estimated, penalty, etc. payments. The site can be found here." } ]

[ { "docid": "25906", "title": "", "text": "\"To avoid nitpicks, i state up front that this answer is applicable to the US; Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc may well have quite different systems and rules. You have nothing to worry about if you pay off your credit-card statement in full on the day it is due in timely fashion. On the other hand, if you routinely carry a balance from month to month or have taken out cash advances, then making whatever payment you want to make that month ASAP will save you more in finance charges than you could ever earn on the money in your savings account. But, if you pay off each month's balance in full, then read the fine print about when the payment is due very carefully: it might say that payments received before 5 pm will be posted the same day, or it might say before 3 pm, or before 7 pm EST, or noon PST, etc etc etc. As JoeTaxpayer says, if you can pay on-line with a guaranteed day for the transaction (and you do it before any deadline imposed by the credit-card company), you are fine. My bank allows me to write \"\"electronic\"\" checks on its website, but a paper check is mailed to the credit-card company. The bank claims that if I specify the due date, they will mail the check enough in advance that the credit-card company will get it by the due date, but do you really trust the USPS to deliver your check by noon, or whatever? Besides the bank will put a hold on that money the day that check is cut. (I haven't bothered to check if the money being held still earns interest or not). In any case, the bank disclaims all responsibility for the after-effects (late payment fees, finance charges on all purchases, etc) if that paper check is not received on time and so your credit-card account goes to \"\"late payment\"\" status. Oh, and my bank also wants a monthly fee for its BillPay service (any number of such \"\"electronic\"\" checks allowed each month). The BillPay service does include payment electronically to local merchants and utilities that have accounts at the bank and have signed up to receive payments electronically. All my credit-card companies allow me to use their website to authorize them to collect the payment that I specify from my bank account(s). I can choose the day, the amount, and which of my bank accounts they will collect the money from, but I must do this every month. Very conveniently, they show a calendar for choosing the date with the due date marked prominently, and as mhoran_psprep's comment points out, the payment can be scheduled well in advance of the date that the payment will actually be made, that is, I don't need to worry about being without Internet access because of travel and thus being unable to login to the credit-card website to make the payment on the date it is due. I can also sign up for AutoPay which takes afixed amount/minimum payment due/payment in full (whatever I choose) on the date due, and this will happen month after month after month with no further action necessary on my part. With either choice, it is up to the card company to collect money from my account on the day specified, and if they mess up, they cannot charge late payment fees or finance charge on new purchases etc. Also, unlike my bank, there are no fees for this service. It is also worth noting that many people do not like the idea of the credit-card company withdrawing money from their bank account, and so this option is not to everyone's taste.\"" }, { "docid": "290862", "title": "", "text": "My basic rule of thumb is that if the the bill come from a government office of taxation, and that if you fail to pay the amount they can put a tax lien on the property it is a tax. for you the complication is in Pub530: Assessments for local benefits. You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property. Local benefits include the construction of streets, sidewalks, or water and sewer systems. You must add these amounts to the basis of your property. You can, however, deduct assessments (or taxes) for local benefits if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. An example is a charge to repair an existing sidewalk and any interest included in that charge. If only a part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot show what part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you cannot deduct any of it. An assessment for a local benefit may be listed as an item in your real estate tax bill. If so, use the rules in this section to find how much of it, if any, you can deduct. I have never seen a tax bill that said this amount is for new streets, and the rest i for things the IRS says you can deduct. The issue is that if the Center City tax bill is a separate line or a separate bill then does it count. I would go back to the first line of the quote from Pub 530: You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property. Then I would look at the quote from the CCD web site: The Center City District (CCD) is a business improvement district. Our mission is to keep Philadelphia's downtown, called Center City, clean, safe, beautiful and fun. We provide security, cleaning and promotional services that supplement, but do not replace, basic services provided by the City of Philadelphia and the fundamental responsibilities of property owners. CCD also makes physical improvements to the downtown, installing and maintaining lighting, > signs, banners, trees and landscape elements. and later on the same page: CCD directly bills and collects mandatory payments from properties in the district. CCD also receives voluntary contributions from the owners of tax-exempt properties that benefit from our services. The issues is that it is a business improvement district (BID), and you aren't a business: I did find this document from the city of Philadelphia explain how to establish a BID: If the nature of the BID is such that organizers wish to include residential properties within the district and make these properties subject to the assessment, it may make sense to assess these properties at a lower level than a commercial property, both because BID services and benefits are business-focused, and because owner-occupants often cannot treat NID assessments as tax-deductible business expenses, like commercial owners do. Care must be taken to ensure that the difference in commercial and residential assessment rates is equitable, and complies with the requirements of the CEIA. from the same document: Funds for BID programs and services are generated from a special assessment paid by the benefited property owners directly to the organization that manages the BID’s activities. (Note: many leases have a clause that allows property owners to pass the BID assessment on to their tenants.) Because they are authorized by the City of Philadelphia, the assessment levied by the BID becomes a legal obligation of the property owner and failure to pay can result in the filing of a lien. I have seen discussion that some BIDS can accept tax deductible donations. This means if a person itemizes they can deduct the donation. I would then feel comfortable deducting the tax because: If you can't deduct it that would mean the only people who can't deduct it are home owners. So deduct it. (keep in mind I am not a tax professional)" }, { "docid": "310284", "title": "", "text": "\"An old question... but the recent answer for me turned out to be Check (formerly Pageonce) https://check.me/ (NOTE: Check was recently purchased by Intuit and is now MintBills) The only thing Check doesn't do that PayTrust did was accept paper bills from payees that couldn't do eBill... but that's a rare problem anymore (for me anyways). I went through each of my payees in PayTrust and added them into Check, it found almost all of them... I added my security info for their logins, and it was setup. The few that Check couldn't find, it asked me for the details and would contact them to try and get it setup... but in the meantime I just added them to my bank's billpay system with automatic payment rules (my mortgage company was the only one it couldn't find, and I know what my mortgage is every month so it's easy to setup a consistent rule) Check does so much more than PayTrust will ever do... Check has a MOBILE APP, and it is really the centerpiece of the whole system... you never really log into the website from your desktop (except to setup all the payees)... most of the time you just get alerts on your phone when a bill is due and you just click \"\"pay\"\" and choose a funding source, and bam you're done. It's been awesome so far... I highly recommend dumping PayTrust for it! FYI: Check is clearly winning at this point, but some of the competition are are http://manilla.com (not sure if you can pay your bills through them though) and DoxoPay ( https://www.doxo.com/posts/pay-your-bills-on-the-go-with-mobile-doxopay-new-android-app-and-an-updated-iphone-app/ )\"" }, { "docid": "361974", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, leaving money in a 529 account is not that bad, since you may always change the beneficiary to most any blood relative. So if you have leftovers, you don't HAVE to pay the 10% penalty if you have a grandchild, for instance, that can use it. But if you would rather have the money out, then you need a strategy to get it out that is tax efficient. My prescription for managing a situation like this is not to pay directly out of the 529 account, but instead calculate your cost of education up-front and withdraw that money at the beginning of the school year. You can keep it in a separate account, but that's not necessary. The amount you withdraw should be equal to what the education costs, which may be estimated by taking the budget that the school publishes minus grants and scholarships. You should have all of those numbers before the first day of school. This is amount $X. During the year, write all the checks out of your regular account. At the end of the school year, you should expect to have no money left in the account. I presume that the budget is exactly what you will spend. If not, you might need to make a few adjustments, but this answer will presume you spend exactly $X during the fall and the spring of the next year. In order to get more out of the 529 without paying penalties, you are allowed to remove money without penalty, but having the gains taxed ($y + $z). You have the choice of having the 529 funds directed to the educational institution, the student, or yourself. If you direct the funds to the student, the gains portion would be taxed at the student's rate. Everyone's tax situation is different, and of course there is a linkage between the parent's taxes and student's taxes, but it may be efficient to have the 529 funds directed to the student. For instance, if the student doesn't have much income, they might not even be required to file income tax. If that's the case, they may be able to remove an amount, $y, from the 529 account and still not need to file. For instance, let's say the student has no unearned income, and the gains in the 529 account were 50%. The student could get a check for $2,000, $1,000 would be gains, but that low amount may mean the student was not required to file. Or if it's more important to get more money out of the account, the student could remove the total amount of the grants plus scholarships ($y + $z). No penalty would be due, just the taxes on the gains. And at the student's tax rate (generally, but check your own situation). Finally, if you really want the money out of the account, you could remove a check ($y + $z + $p). You'd pay tax on the gains of the sum, but penalty of 10% only on the $p portion. This answer does not include the math that goes along with securing some tax credits, so if those credits still are around as you're working through this, consider this article (which requires site sign-up). In part, this article says: How much to withdraw - ... For most parents, it will be 100% of the beneficiary’s qualified higher education expenses paid this year—tuition, fees, books, supplies, equipment, and room and board—less $4,000. The $4,000 is redirected to the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC),... When to withdraw it - Take withdrawals in the same calendar year that the qualified expenses were paid. .... Designating the distributee - Since it is usually best that the Form 1099-Q be issued to the beneficiary, and show the beneficiary’s social security number, I prefer to use either option (2) or (3) [ (2) a check made out to the account beneficiary, or (3) a check made out to the educational institution] What about scholarships? - The 10 percent penalty on a non-qualified distribution from a 529 plan is waived when the excess distribution can be attributed to tax-free scholarships. While there is no direct guidance from the IRS, many tax experts believe the distribution and the scholarship do not have to match up in the same calendar year when applying the penalty waiver. If you're curious about timing (taking non-penalty grants and scholarship money out), there is this link, which says you \"\"probably\"\" are allowed to accumulate grants and scholarship totals, for tax purposes, over multiple years.\"" }, { "docid": "559761", "title": "", "text": "Economically it doesn't make much difference, but I like to control the account because I can adjust the amount I put aide each month based on the new tax rates that come out each spring. This allow me finer control. I also know that the bills have been paid, I had one lender years ago that failed to pay the property tax bill, I had to end the money in to the county, and then pend months fighting the lender to get the money back. Now I avoid escrow accounts. The money being collected by the mortgage servicing company for property taxes and property insurance goes into a separate account. The company insists on handling the funds to make sure that these bills are paid on time, thus protecting their investment. The failure to pay the taxes leaves the property subject to forfeiture via tax lien. The failure to pay property insurance leaves the house unprotected if there is a fire or other incident. You can avoid the use of an escrow account if you have enough equity in the account. Some lenders ask for you to provide proof of payment each year if you are going to pay it yourself. At the end of each year the servicing company will provide you with an accounting for interest on the loan, and the amount of money spent on taxes and insurance. Also expect that they will make adjustments to the monthly withholding based on estimated increases for taxes and insurance. Depending on your financial situation the interest, taxes may be included on Schedule A. If you have a rental property the interest, taxes and insurance are considered expenses that you can write off. The biggest issue with escrow accounts is that the company can have a buffer built in to protect them from unexpected increases. Many people view the calculation of the buffer a confusing and feel that they are overpaying. If you want to avoid the escrow account you should make sure that each month you put the money into a separate account so that when the property tax bill is due you can pay it on time. When savings accounts earned significant interest it was possible to make a little money in the deal, but that hasn't been true for the last few years." }, { "docid": "379732", "title": "", "text": "\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"" }, { "docid": "322064", "title": "", "text": "\"It appears you can elect to classify some or all of your scholarship money as taxable. If you do this, you would be deemed to have used the scholarship funds for non-deductible purposes (e.g., room and board), and you could be eligible to claim the American opportunity credit based on the money you used to pay for the tuition out of your own pocket. I found this option in the section of Publication 970 about \"\"Coordination with Pell grants and other scholarships\"\", specifically example 3: The facts are the same as in Example 2—Scholarship excluded from income [i.e., Bill receives a $5600 scholarship and paid $5600 for tuition]. If, unlike Example 2, Bill includes $4,000 of the scholarship in income, he will be deemed to have used that amount to pay for room and board. The remaining $1,600 of the $5,600 scholarship will reduce his qualified education expenses and his adjusted qualified education expenses will be $4,000. Bill's AGI will increase to $34,000, his taxable income will increase to $24,250, and his tax before credits will increase to $3,199. Based on his adjusted qualified education expenses of $4,000, Bill would be able to claim an American opportunity tax credit of $2,500 and his tax after credits would be $699. You can only reclassify income in this way to the extent that your scholarship allows you to use that money for nonqualified expenses (such as room and board). You should carefully check the terms of the scholarship to determine whether it allows this. The brief paragraph you cite from the Palmetto fellowship document is not totally clear on this point (at least to my eye). You might want to ask the fellowship administrators if there are restrictions on how they money may be used. In addition, I would be cautious about attempting to do this unless you actually did pay for the nonqualified expenses yourself, so you can treat the money as fungible. If, for instance, your parents paid for your room and board, it's not clear whether you could legitimately claim that you used the scholarship money to pay for that, since you didn't pay for it at all (although in this case your parents could possibly be able to claim the AOC themselves). I mention this because you say in your question that you \"\"only used the scholarship for tuition and fees\"\". I'm not sure how exactly you meant that, but it seems from the example cited above that, in order to claim the scholarship as taxable income, you have to actually have nonqualified expenses which you can say you paid for with the scholarship. (Also, of course, you had to actually receive the money yourself. If the scholarship money was given directly to your school as payment of tuition, then you never had any ability to use it for anything else.)\"" }, { "docid": "319265", "title": "", "text": "Other than the options pointed out by MoneyOne, I would like to add one more. If the bank that you want to transfer money from has bill pay facility, then you can send yourself a check for the required amount. Then you could deposit this check in the bank where you want to money transferred. I do agree that this is a long way method of transferring money between banks, but this is the only way to do it if your (From) bank doesn't allow bank to bank transfers for your (To) bank or charges you money for each transfer. Normally, most banks give you access to bill pay facility free of charge if you use online banking. I also believe that you could even use it with a savings account, but don't quote me on that. Also, I do know that Bank Of America has started accepting checks through their ATMs, so if your (To) bank does something similar, you would not even need to go to a physical branch." }, { "docid": "42999", "title": "", "text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk." }, { "docid": "320578", "title": "", "text": "I have been following some of these threads. Some of them are really old. I have read used recording to equity accounts to resolve the imbalance USD issue. The thing I noticed is that all my imbalances occur when paying bills. I took all the bills and set them up as vendor accounts, entered the bills in the new bills, and used the process payment when paying bills. The imbalance issue stopped. It makes sense. The system is a double entry. That's it will credit and debit. Assets accounts are increased with a debit and decreased with a credit. Equity accounts are increased with a credit and decreased with a debit. ie; Say you have an monthly insurance bill for $100. You enter it into the new vendor bill. This credits Accounts Payable. When paying the bill it credits checking, debits account payable, credits vendor account, debits the expense insurance. In short for each credit there has to be a debit for the books to balance. When there is no account for it to record to it will record in Imbalance USD to balance the books." }, { "docid": "325342", "title": "", "text": "\"Senate vs. House Health-Care bills. Summarized from bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-22/republicans-health-care-bills-boil-down-to-more-obamacare 1) Reduces subsidies from eligibility from 400 percent of the federal poverty line which is a hair under $100,000 a year for a family of four to 350 percent of the poverty line which is about $86,000. 2) Reduces premium subsidies which determines the subsidy level which should cover about 70 percent of anticipated health expenses -- to one with an actuarial value of 58 percent causing people to opt for plans with higher deductibles. To offset effects on the elderly the bill changes the subsidy formula to account for age. 3) Obamacare's growth subsidy cap on premium subsidies changed from 0.504 percent of GDP 0.4 percent of GDP meaning program cap is more likely to hit cutting subsidies to some groups. 4) Eliminates the individual and employer mandates may destabilize the Obamacare exchanges and subsidies. 5) Restricts the already small abortion coverage. 6) Ends the cost-sharing reductions that lowered out-of-pocket expenditures for people making less than 250 percent of the federal poverty line not funded since Republicans took over Congress. The bill pays the insurers the money they’ve been owed. Ending the program makes Obamacare significantly less attractive for the folks whose policies are so heavily subsidized. 7) States given a great deal more flexibility expedite waiver program with less interference from federal regulators. 8) Eliminates many Obamacare taxes on everything from tanning to high earners. The “Cadillac tax” on pricey employer-sponsored insurance postponed until 2026 ending an attempt to curtail our nation’s hog-wild tax subsidies for employer-sponsored insurance. Presumably, senators are keeping the tax in after Doing so reduces the apparent cost of a full repeal. 9) Market stabilization funds designed to keep the dreaded “death spiral” from happening by dealing with the major problem driving costs on the exchanges: very sick people. Details on this are sketchy, because states are expected to design programs to meet the goal. If it works, it has the potential to substantially improve the sustainability of the exchanges. 10) Winds down the Medicaid expansion funding … but not as fast as the House bill. 11) It also makes people below the poverty threshold eligible to buy exchange policies with subsidies. This coverage is not as generous as Medicaid; it will probably involve substantial deductibles and copayments. But the premiums are capped at 2 percent of family income, which for a single person making exactly the federal poverty line would be about $20 a month. 12) Converts Medicaid to a per-capita allotment rather than an open-ended entitlement. Like the House bill, the Senate bill changes the program to a per-beneficiary grant based on previous spending levels. It’s not the \"\"block-granting\"\" of supply-sider dreams, but it’s close. This will give states heavy incentives to keep program growth in check especially with future payment growth will be indexed to general inflation, rather than the higher medical inflation. States can also apply to switch to a block grant formula, or to implement a work requirement for Medicaid recipients.\"" }, { "docid": "332194", "title": "", "text": "From the link you provided, it seems like it can be any payee, as long as the check isn't delivered to your own address. From my experience using three other banks with similar requirements (2 bill pays / month), as long as you initiate the bill pay from the bank's website, it should be okay. You can pay anything that you could pay with a check, such as utilities, rent, loan payments and credit card payments. Payments to friends and individuals is fine also, but it's a little bit of a hassle since you have to tell them what you're doing and ask for the money back, unless you really do owe them money. After three bills have cleared, you can send a secured message through their website asking if the requirement for the bonus has been met. I prefer secured messages to a phone call because it leaves a permanent record." }, { "docid": "190844", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately you can't use your HSA to pay for expenses in year A. Qualified medical expenses for an HSA must occur after the date the HSA account was established. (Established typically means the date the account was opened in your name.) The other answers already mostly answered your other questions, but I want to really hit home some particular points that many people may not realize: The most important thing to do when you are eligible to have an HSA account, is to open an HSA account ASAP. This is true even if you don't put any money in it and you leave it empty for years. The reason is that once the account is established, all qualified medical expenses that occur after that date are eligible for distributions, even if you wait years before you fund your HSA account. The second most important thing to do is to keep track of all out of pocket medical expenses you incur after you open the HSA account. All you need is a simple spreadsheet and a place to store your receipts. Once you have the account and are tracking expenses, now you can put money into your HSA and take it out whenever you'd like. (With limits- you can't put in more than the contribution limit for a single tax year, and you can't take out more than your eligible expenses to date.) Helpful Tip: Many people don't fund their HSA because they can't afford to set aside extra money to do so. Fortunately, you don't have to. For example, suppose you have some dental work and it costs you $500. Once you get the bill, before you pay it, put the $500 into your HSA account. The next day, take the $500 back out and pay your dental bill with it. Most HSA accounts will give you a debit card to make this even easier to pay the bill. By putting the money into your HSA for 1 day you just received a $500 tax deduction. Alternatively you can always pay out of pocket like you normally would, track your receipts, and wait until the end of the year (or up until April 15 of the next year). I like this option because I can pay all of my medical bills with a credit card and get cash back. Then at the end of the year, I add up the expenses, deposit that much into my HSA, and if I'd rather put that money somewhere else I just pull it out the next day. If you decide you don't need the money right away that's even better since you can leave it in the HSA account and invest it. Like a Roth account, you don't pay tax on the growth you achieve inside of an HSA. Another Tip: if your employer offers the service of automatically making deposits into your HSA by reducing your paycheck, you should definitely try to do that if you can afford it, rather than manually making contributions as I described in the previous tip. When your employer makes the contributions for you, your wages are reduced by that amount on your W2, so you end up saving an additional 7% in FICA taxes." }, { "docid": "322838", "title": "", "text": "How much amount can we transfer from India to the USA? Is the limit per year? As I understand your father in law is Indian Citizen and his tax paid earnings need to be transferred outside of India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfer upto 2,50,000 USD. Please check with your Bank for the exact paperwork. A form 15CA and 15CB [by CA] are required to establish taxes have been paid. What documents we have to present to the bank? See above. Should money be transferred to company's account(Indian Company) to USA company? or can be transferred to my husband's account. Transfer of funds by a Indian Company to US Company has some restrictions. Please check with CA for details. If you father in law has sold the Indian Company and paid the taxes in India; he can transfer the proceeds to his son in US as per the Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Can they just gift the whole amount to my husband? What will be the tax implication on my husband's part in USA and on my father in law in India. The whole amount can be gifted by your father in law to your husband [his son]. There is no tax implication in India as being an Indian resident, gift between close relatives is tax free. There is no tax implication to your husband as he is a US Citizen and as per gift tax the person giving the gift should be paying the applicable taxes. Since the person gifting is not US Citizen; this is not applicable." }, { "docid": "450742", "title": "", "text": "\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \"\"unlimited\"\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \"\"landline\"\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \"\"landline\"\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \"\"on network\"\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \"\"bring your own device\"\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\"" }, { "docid": "373180", "title": "", "text": "A tax liability account is a common thing. In my own books I track US-based social insurance (Medicare and Social Security) using such an account. At the time I pay an employee, a tax liability is incurred, increasing my tax liability account; at the same time, on the other end of the double-entry, I increase a tax expense account. Notably, though, the US IRS does not necessarily require that the tax is paid at the time it is incurred. In my case I incur a liability twice a month, but I only have to pay the taxes quarterly. So, between the time of incurring and the time of remitting/paying, the amount is held in the tax liability account. At the time that I remit payment to the IRS, the transaction will decrease both my checking account and also, on the other end of the double-entry, my liability account. To answer your question in short, use an expense account for your other-side-account." }, { "docid": "21576", "title": "", "text": "\"TL;DR summary: 0% balance transfer offers and \"\"free checks usable anywhere\"\" rarely are a good deal for the customer. 0% rate balance transfer offers (and the checks usable anywhere including payment of taxes) come with a transaction fee because the credit card company is paying off the balance on the other card (or the tax or the electric bill) in the full amount of $X as stated on the other card statement or on the tax/electric bill). This is in contrast to a purchase transaction where if you buy something for $X, you pay the card company $X but the card company pays the merchant something less than $X$. (Of course, the merchant has jacked up the sale price of the item to pass on the charge to you.) Can you get the credit card company to waive the transaction fee? You can try asking them but it is unlikely that you will succeed if your credit score is good! I have seen balance transfer offers with no transaction fees made to people who have don't have good credit scores and are used to carrying a balance on their credit cards. I assume that the company making the offer knows that it will make up the transaction fee from future interest payments. A few other points to keep in mind with respect to using a 0% balance transfer offer to pay off a student loan (or anything else for that matter):\"" }, { "docid": "19640", "title": "", "text": "Yup. I scrutinize the income statement I receive from my employer every year. What I make vs what the company actually invests in me as an employee is really astounding. Beyond my hourly wage, the company pays for my health insurance premium (all but $10/check), and pays for a medical flex-spending account. On top of this (I know this isn't taxes but it's still an expense and government sanctioned) if I do some dumbass thing to get myself hurt at work, they'd pay all medical bills since it happened on their property. We recently had a bit of a wake-up call this summer, as the board of directors warned everyone that the current medical plan our company provides to us is not sustainable, and will have to undergo changes (we're going to either start paying for our premiums, decrease our flex accounts, or charge smokers additional fees) beginning Jan 1st. Lots of people are complaining about this. I don't think they're aware of the horde of expenses and fees that the company swallows for them in other ways. There's property taxes, business income taxes, excise taxes, customs/duty taxes, state taxes... along with meeting the restrictions and standards of certain governmental agencies (like OSHA). I don't know how a small business owner could ever maintain control over all of this financial mess and be able to help their customers or other employees. There's OSHA, a profit-seeking (through citations) business now, instead of a partner and ally to businesses. A typical 'violation' is $70K, and a 'repeat' violation is $140K. Imagine running a small grocery store, and having to pay this fine because you accidentally had a piece of styrofoam lying on top of a cooler not built to withstand overhead weight. Or because someone wasn't wearing safety shoes in the store. You'd simply go out of business." }, { "docid": "558237", "title": "", "text": "\"Nope, anything is that has the required information is fine. At a minimum you need to have the routing number, account number, amount, \"\"pay to\"\" line and a signature. The only laws are that it can't be written on anything illegal, like human skin, and it has to be portable, not carved on the side of a building ( for example) https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-20434,00.html http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/people-actually-cash-big-novelty-checks-even-possible/ That said, the MICR line and standard sizes will make things eaiser for they bank, but are hardly required. You could write your check on notebook paper so long as it had the right information, and the bank would have to \"\"cash it\"\". Keep in mind that a check is an order to the bank to give your money to a person and nothing more. You could write it out in sentence form. \"\"Give Bill $2 from account 12344221 routing number 123121133111 signed _________\"\" and it would be valid. In practice though, it would be a fight. Mostly the bank would try to urge you to use a standard check, or could hold the funds because it looks odd, till they received the ok from \"\"the other bank\"\". But.... If you rant to fight that fight....\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "411061", "title": "", "text": "One place you might consider looking for answers is in case studies from Harvard Business School. When I was working an MBA, we studied the default of Argentina as part of our economics coursework. Other sources for your consideration might include:" } ]

[ { "docid": "461349", "title": "", "text": "&gt; The new exchange bonds will be getting paid as normal in Argentina. (Unless Argentina changes its mind! In which case it will have home-court advantage in changing the terms of the bonds.) The old exchange bonds, and the old old bonds, won't get paid, exactly, but Argentina will deposit money at the central bank for them, which they can get any time they want to swap into new exchange bonds. Presumably many people will hold on to the old exchange bonds, hoping for some improvement in their lot in life, and eventually that hope will turn into lawsuits, as hope does. So there will be two classes of bondholders suing Argentina, and each other, and not getting paid, and being sad. This paragraph from OP's article is golden" }, { "docid": "402325", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; So I asked this question in /r/DebateaCommunist and got some interesting answers, mostly about how banks exist to make money out of nowhere and to fool people. What do yall have to say? That isn't what they said. Nobody mentioned fooling people from what I can see from a cursory glance. And if they did, they're being facetious. Also, they didn't mean \"\"make money from thin air\"\" in the sense of it being a magical trick. They make money from a sort of market inefficiency: they broker between people who want to invest money and those who want to borrow it. The top two answers are about right: a bank borrows money from investors (who deposit money in checking and savings accounts), and lends it to borrowers in the form of loans or mortgages. The difference between the interest rates is their profit. You deposit $1000 with me at 2% for 20 years. I give you $1485.95 at the end of that term. Where did I get the extra five hundred books? Well I lent it out in mortgages over the same terms at 6% and received $3207.14 over the same period of time. Your $1000 made you $485.95, and made me $1721.19 which I keep for the purposes of providing you with ATMs, dealing with bad debts and staffing the place. Simple, eh? Of course, they also provide other services in addition to this, and the way in which they do it is regulated, but that's all a bank is at its core. A central bank is slightly different: they issue money (i.e. \"\"print\"\" it), and supply it at a headline interest rate to the commercial banks. And of course banks borrow amongst themselves. But then we get ourselves down the rabbit hole of \"\"grown up\"\" economics and LIBOR and the like... there are whole textbooks used to explain exactly how that mechanism works and what's going on there. But if you want to get rich, find a way to start a bank. Seriously. Doing it to the old school way is seriously profitable if you can be trusted.\"" }, { "docid": "186869", "title": "", "text": "A lot may depend on the nature of a buyout, sometimes it's is for stock and cash, sometimes just stock, or in the case of this google deal, all cash. Since that deal was used, we'll discuss what happens in a cash buyout. If the stock price goes high enough before the buyout date to put you in the money, pull the trigger before the settlement date (in some cases, it might be pulled for you, see below). Otherwise, once the buyout occurs you will either be done or may receive adjusted options in the stock of the company that did the buyout (not applicable in a cash buyout). Typically the price will approach but not exceed the buyout price as the time gets close to the buyout date. If the buyout price is above your option strike price, then you have some hope of being in the money at some point before the buyout; just be sure to exercise in time. You need to check the fine print on the option contract itself to see if it had some provision that determines what happens in the event of a buyout. That will tell you what happens with your particular options. For example Joe Taxpayer just amended his answer to include the standard language from CBOE on it's options, which if I read it right means if you have options via them you need to check with your broker to see what if any special exercise settlement procedures are being imposed by CBOE in this case." }, { "docid": "157715", "title": "", "text": "I believe it is so. It doesn't sound like they did anything outright illegal, just a pushy upsell. You can complain to the bank manager. If you want you can mention the employee by name (if you know who they are). Ultimately, you can change banks. From what you say it sounds like you are dissatisfied with this bank, so I think you should at least begin evaluating other banks and consider switching. You can also let your current bank know you are planning to take all your money away from them specifically because of their poor customer service. You could consider filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleging that the bank engaged in some kind of deceptive marketing of their financial products. Of course you can also file a complaint with something like the Better Business Bureau, or even just write a negative Yelp review. But these actions won't really result in any penalty for the bank as a result of what they did in your specific case; they just express your dissatisfaction in a way that will be recorded and possibly made public (e.g., in a list of complaints) to protect future consumers. If you're really gung-ho and have time and money to burn, you could hire a lawyer and get legal advice about whether it is possible to sue the bank for fraud or misuse of your personal information. Needless to say, I think this would be overkill for this situation. I would just cancel the credit card, tell the bank you're dissatisfied, switch banks, and move on." }, { "docid": "552677", "title": "", "text": "The reason there should really be no bad feelings for the bond-holders is that they knew full well that these were defaulted bonds, but bought them because they saw a loophole they could use to try and force Argentina's hand. It was basically a setup to enable them to try and blackmail the government into 'undefaylting' on those bonds. I recon what will happen in the end is that the other creditors, the ones who had accepted the haircut, will end up buying those bonds at close to full price, just to ensure they are paid at least part of their money back. Because around 95% of bond holders agreed to the haircut, the diluted costs would be small. What is infuriating is the precedent these guys are setting. In the end, all bond will have class-action clauses in which a majority agreeing to a restructure will apply to all bond holders." }, { "docid": "567193", "title": "", "text": "Under US law, a bank is not obligated to honor a check that is more than six months old. § 4-404. BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD. A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith. Note the law says the bank is not OBLIGATED to honor the check, but they are not forbidden from doing so. I don't have a survey on this, but I think most banks won't honor a check after more than 6 months to a year. I've had a few occasions where early in the year someone accidentally wrote the previous year on a check, like on January 10, 2017 they dated the check January 10, 2016, and the bank has given me a hard time about cashing it. The statute of limitations to challenge payment or non-payment of a check is 6 years: § 3-118. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (b) Except as provided in subsection (d) or (e), if demand for payment is made to the maker of a note payable on demand, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the note must be commenced within six years after the demand. I understand your frustration about being denied money that you presumably worked for and earned. But look at it from the other side. Suppose you wrote a check to someone, and years later they still had not cashed it. At some point you'd want to be able to clear this off your bank account. What if you want to close the account? What happens when you die? Would your heirs have to keep this account open for years ... decades ... centuries ... on the possibility that someday someone will cash this check? Realistically, there has to be SOME time limit. 6 months should be plenty of time for someone to make it to the bank with a check. If the company still exists then you could argue they have a MORAL obligation to pay you. If they have records that show that they did indeed give you this check and you never cashed it there'd be no question that you were trying to cheat them. But a moral obligation and a legal obligation are two different things. Legally, they paid you, and it's your problem that you failed to cash the check. You could talk to a lawyer, but if you live in the US, I think you are out of luck. (Of course other countries have different laws.)" }, { "docid": "1982", "title": "", "text": "Left out, of course, is the fact that this is Argentina's eighth default, because its policymakers are complete nincompoops, and the fact that, instead of not paying anybody by complying with the ruling, it could probably have struck a deal with NML to pay them the principal and interest (or a bit less, if they were decent negotiators) by waiting until December when a bond clause expires that states Argentina can't willingly pay less to some creditors than others. The blame isn't all Argentina's, but there's a reason why this sort of stuff doesn't happen in literally any other country in Latin America on such a regular basis." }, { "docid": "271116", "title": "", "text": "Absolute scam. Any time anyone asks you to open a bank account so they can send you money and then you have to send some portion of it back to them, it's a guarantee that it's a scam. What happens is that your dad will deposit the check and transfer it to this woman, then the check will bounce (or turn out to be fake altogether) and your dad will be on the hook for the money to the bank. These schemes are dependent on the fact that people want hope and believe in quick, easy money, and it works as long as the con artists are able to get the 'mark' (the person who deposits the check and sends them the money) to send the money before the check (always drawn on some obscure foreign bank) has a chance to clear. This is another variation of a long-running type of bank scam, and if you get involved, you'll regret it. I hope you can keep your dad from getting involved, because it will create a financial mess and affect his credit as well. The basic premise of this scam is this: In the interests of providing good customer service, most banks will make some or all of a deposit available right away, even though the check hasn't cleared. The scammer has you withdraw the money (either a cashier's check, have you send a wire transfer, etc) immediately and send it to them. Eventually the check is returned because it is The bank charges the check back against your account, often imposing pretty substantial penalties and fees, so you as the account holder are left without the money you sent the scammer and all of the fees. This is the easy version of events. You could end up in legal trouble, depending on the nature of the scam and what they determine your involvement to be. It will certainly badly affect your banking history (ChexSystems tracks how we all treat bank accounts, much like the credit agencies do with our credit), so you may have trouble opening bank accounts. So there are many consequences to this to think about, and it's why you JUST SAY NO!! Don't walk away from this -- RUN!!!" }, { "docid": "268078", "title": "", "text": "\"Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. \"\"Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?\"\" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal? You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer.\"" }, { "docid": "62052", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-closing-of-the-jobs-gap-a-decade-of-recession-and-recovery/) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The average rate of recovery in the jobs gap after the trough of the Great Recession was 116 thousand jobs per month, and it took 89 months to close the gap. &gt; The recessions of 1981 and 1990 involved smaller and briefer jobs gaps, with recovery to the demographically adjusted, pre-recession employment rate after 40 and 48 months, respectively. &gt; The 2001 recession saw a more gradual decline in jobs, and a slower recovery; the jobs gap from the 2001 recession did not close before the Great Recession started. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6s3z53/the_jobs_gap_has_closed/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~185011 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **employment**^#1 **gap**^#2 **rate**^#3 **job**^#4 **Recession**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "157907", "title": "", "text": "\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"" }, { "docid": "254684", "title": "", "text": "\"I can answer this question for my jurisdiction (Florida, USA), because I lived through it. My Dad (\"\"Alice\"\") passed away in 2008, just as the housing crisis was starting to heat up. What happened to the Mortgage? My Dad had a will in place. It was an old will (from the 1980's), but never-the-less, a will. We had to provide paperwork to the court that my Mom had already passed away, and my oldest brother was living out-of-state (he would have been the executor, otherwise). With the proper paperwork, I became the Executor, and the property passed in to probate. At this point, the \"\"Estate\"\" was responsible for the house and the mortgage on it (meaning me, as I was the Executor). We decided to sell the house, so we hired a realtor, and set an asking price about $40k over what was owed on it. As we waited for it to sell, I had to make monthly mortgage payments, and payments to the HOA (otherwise the HOA could put a lien on the property, making it more difficult to sell, should we find a buyer). Is it Automatically Transferred? In most jurisdictions, I would say not \"\"automatic\"\". I definitely had get an estate lawyer and file the proper legal paperwork with the local county courthouse. Some states have an easier probate process (\"\"Summary Administration\"\" in Florida), that eases the requirements for small estates. Is Bob expected to pay it off all at once? No, the mortgage holder was happy for me to make payments (out of other estate assets) in lieu of my Dad. The were earning interest, after all. This is probably true in most cases. Can the House be Foreclosed on? Yes. In our case, being 2008, we had a hard time selling the property. The asking price quickly went from $40k over what was owed, to $20k over, to $10k over, then to being equal to the mortgage value. Finally, I approached the bank about options. They suggested a \"\"Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure\"\" process. It was easier for us, and the bank had to pay less lawyers and such. Otherwise, a \"\"Deed in Lieu\"\" is effectively the same as a Foreclosure. At that point, we stopped making payments. Eventually, me and all my siblings (the \"\"heirs\"\") had to sign the proper paperwork giving the house over to the bank. In our case, the bank did not pursue us (or rather, the Estate) for the difference between final (auction) sale price and the mortgage balance (it was an FHA loan, so the US Government wound up picking up the difference). From what I understand, this could have happened, and we would have wound up with basically nothing out of the Estate. Can the Lender Force the Sale? I can't give a definite answer on this, but it probably depends. If you don't pay? Yes they sure can--it's usually part of the standard mortgage contract! I see 2 other options:\"" }, { "docid": "549254", "title": "", "text": "\"Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is \"\"leveraged\"\" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures \"\"on margin\"\" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being \"\"passed on\"\" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion.\"" }, { "docid": "339017", "title": "", "text": "\"Coming from someone who has worked a in the account servicing department of an actual bank in the US, other answers are right, this is probably a scam, the phone number on the letter is probably ringing to a fraudulent call center (these are very well managed and sound professional), and you must independently locate and dial the true contact number to US Bank. NOW. Tell them what happened. Reporting is critical. Securing your money is critical. Every piece of information you provided \"\"the bank\"\" when you called needs to be changed or worked around. Account numbers, passwords, usernames, card numbers get changed. Tax ID numbers get de-prioritized as an authentication mechanism even if the government won't change them. The true bank probably won't transfer you to the branch. If the front-line call center says they will, ask the person on the phone what the branch can do that they cannot. Information is your friend. They will probably transfer you to a special department that handles these reports. Apparently Union Bank's call center transfers you to the branch then has the branch make this transfer. Maybe their front-line call center team is empowered to handle it like I was. Either way, plug your phone in; if the call takes less than 5 minutes they didn't actually do everything. 5 to 8 minutes per department is more likely, plus hold time. There's a lot of forms they're filling out. What if that office is closed because of time differences? Go online and ask for an ATM limit increase. Start doing cash advances at local banks if your card allows it. Just get that money out of that account before it's in a fraudsters account. Keep receipts, even if the machine declines the transaction. Either way, get cash on hand while you wait for a new debit card and checks for the new account you're going to open. What if this was fraud, you draw your US Bank account down to zero $800 at a time, and you don't close it or change passwords? Is it over? No. Then your account WILL get closed, and you will owe EVERYTHING that the fraudsters rack up (these charges can put your account terrifyingly far in the negative) from this point forward. This is called \"\"participation in a scam\"\" in your depository agreement, because you fell victim to it, didn't report, and the info used was voluntarily given. You will also lose any of your money that they spend. What if US Bank really is closing your account? Then they owe you every penny you had in it. (Minus any fees allowed in the depository agreement). This closure can happen several days after the date on the warning, so being able to withdraw doesn't mean you're safe. Banks usually ship an official check shipped to the last known address they had for you. Why would a bank within the United States close my account when it's not below the minimum balance? Probably because your non-resident alien registration from when you were in school has expired and federal law prohibits them from doing business with you now. These need renewed at least every three years. Renewing federally is not enough; the bank must be aware of the updated expiration date. How do I find out why my account is being closed? You ask the real US Bank. They might find that it's not being closed. Good news! Follow the scam reporting procedure, open a new account (with US Bank if you want, or elsewhere) and close the old one. If it IS being closed by the bank, they'll tell you why, and they'll tell you what your next options are. Ask what can be done. Other commenters are right that bitcoin activity may have flagged it. That activity might actually be against your depository agreement. Or it set off a detection system. Or many other reasons. The bank who services your account is the only place that knows for sure. If I offer them $500 per year will they likely keep the account opened? Otherwise I got to go to singapore open another account Legitimate financial institutions in the United States don't work this way. If there is a legal problem with your tax status in the US, money to the bank won't solve it. Let's call the folks you've talked to \"\"FraudBank\"\" and the real USBank \"\"RealBank,\"\" because until RealBank confirms, we have no reason to believe that the letter is real. FraudBank will ask for money. Don't give it. Don't give them any further information. Gather up as much information from them as possible instead. Where to send it, for example. Then report that to RealBank. RealBank won't have a way to charge $500/year to you only. If they offer a type of account to everyone that costs $500, ask for the \"\"Truth in Savings Act disclosures.\"\" Banks are legally required to provide these upon request. Then read them. Don't put or keep your money anywhere you don't understand.\"" }, { "docid": "376103", "title": "", "text": "In any business keeping your customers happy is one thing, turining them into advocates for you is another. On the other side of this I knew a person who happened to be the owner and CEO of a multimillion dollar business he built from the ground up. He was incredibly loyal every firm he did business with and expected to be treated with respect. As it turns out he also enjoyed working in his garden on weekends. One Saturday, while working in his garden, he realized he needed to do some banking before the bank closed. He quickly runs out to the bank to do his business and is denied service despite having all the proper ID because of the way he looked (dirty from gardening). That following Monday he went in (In his suit this time) and transferred every penny of his business and personal holdings amounting to 10s of Millions to a different firm. Treat cuastomers well and they will generate business for you, treat people poorly and you will lose customers. Lose enough and you are no longer in business." }, { "docid": "373726", "title": "", "text": "The stock markets are closed on week-ends and public holidays because the Banks are closed. The Banking is a must to settle the payment obligations. So you may buy and sell as much as you wish, but unless money changes hands, nothing has really happened. Now as to why Banking itself is closed on week-ends and public holidays, well a different question :) Keeping the system 24 hrs up and running does not actually push volumes, but definately push expenses for brokers, Banks etc. There definately is some convinience to buyers and sellers." }, { "docid": "504816", "title": "", "text": "I don't think the verbal confirmation from the branch manager is worth anything, unless you got it in writing it basically never happened. That said, what did you sign exactly? An application? I'd think they would be well within their rights to deny that, no matter what the branch manager said. If you actually signed a binding contract between you and the bank, things would be different but the fact that 'approval' was mentioned suggests that all you and the bank signed was an application and the bank manager made some unreasonable promises he or she doesn't want to be reminded of now. If the complaints department can't get off their collective backsides, a firm but polite letter to the CEO's office might help, or it might end up in the round filing cabinet. But it's worth a try. Other than that, if you are unhappy enough to go through the pain, you can try to remortgage with another bank and end the business relationship with your current bank." }, { "docid": "546275", "title": "", "text": "&gt;i dont see what's the big deal, all the banks got bailed out. Govt printed over 7 trillion bucks, not much inflation. govt has to help private sector. gave plenty of freebies to the rich mother fukers in the banking sector. Yes that was bullshit, I agree. The difference is that most of the money that went to the banks is held with the banks. It didn't cause inflation because it isn't circulating in the economy. The government also had to do something with the banks because it would have triggered a major depression if they didn't. I don't think they handled it the best way at all. They should have nationalized the banks after the bailouts rather than let them keep thriving. However, students don't **need** that extra debt. That would be $1 trillion extra that actually is circulating in the economy, which would cause serious inflation. That would mean [doubling](http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm) the amount of money in circulation. That is a lot different than the trillions the government printed, mostly just to set monetary policy." }, { "docid": "400231", "title": "", "text": "\"So let's say, as a counterfactual, that Obama did not bail out the banks: what would happen? The world economy would have collapsed. Every creditor and their funds to endless bankruptcy stays. All credit would have been frozen. No businesses would have been able to pay off their loans or pay their employees' salaries. The banks, sadly, were too big to fail because everyone and everything depended on them for funding. The issue is not the bailout, but the activites of the banks that forced the bailout. This is why all of the current legislative schemes being put into operation are looking at way to limit systemic risk to both prevent future catastophic bankruptcies and limit their impact on the credit markets. As a last note: notice how inflation did not significantly increase since the bailout, despite Bernanke printing trillions of dollars. Cleary, \"\"printing money\"\" has not caused harm in and of itself. Its only harm is reinforcing the too big to fail mentality. This can be cured, but by not bailing out the banks, we would have seen a catastophic collapse.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "476632", "title": "", "text": "\"Rob - I'm sorry your first visit here has been unpleasant. What you are asking for is beyond the capability of most software. If you look at Fairmark.com, you find the standard deduction for married filing joint is $12,200 in 2012, and $12,400 in 2013. I offer this anecdote to share a 'deduction' story - The first year I did my MIL's taxes, I had to explain that she didn't have enough deductions to itemize. Every year since, she hands me a file full of paper substantiating medical deductions that don't exceed 7.5% of her income. In turn, I give her two folders back, one with the 5 or so documents I needed, and the rest labeled \"\"trash\"\". Fewer than 30% of filers itemize. And a good portion of those that do, have no question that's the right thing to do. e.g. my property tax is more than the $12K, so anything else I have that's a deduction adds right to the number. It's really just those people who are at the edge that are likely frustrated. I wrote an article regarding Standard Deduction vs Itemizing, in which I describe a method of pulling in one's deductible expenses into Odd years, reducing the number in Even years, to allow a bi-annual itemization. If this is your situation, you'll find the concept interesting. You also ask about filing status. Think on this for a minute. After pulling in our W2s (TurboTax imports the data right from ADP), I do the same for our stock info. The stock info, and all Schedule A deductions aren't assigned a name. So any effort to split them in search of savings by using Married Filing Separate, would first require splitting these up. TurboTax has a 'what-if' worksheet for this function, but when the 'marriage penalty' was lifted years ago, the change in status had no value. Items that phaseout over certain income levels are often lost to the separate filer anyway. When I got married, I found my real estate losses each year could not be taken, they accumulated until I either sold, or until our income dropped when the Mrs retired. So, while is respect your desire for these magic dials within the software, I think it's fair to say they would provide little value to most people. If this thread stays open, I'd be curious if anyone can cite an example where filing separately actually benefits the couple.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "387010", "title": "", "text": "\"New York will want to you to pay taxes on income from \"\"New York sources\"\". I'm not sure what this means to a freelance web developer. If your wife is doing freelance web development under the same business entity as she did in New York (ie. a New York sole proprietor, corporation, etc), you probably do need to file. From nonresident tax form manual: http://tax.ny.gov/pdf/2011/inc/it203i_2011.pdf If you were a nonresident of New York State, you are subject to New York State tax on income you received from New York State sources in 2011. If you were a resident of New York State for only part of 2011, you are subject to New York State tax on all income you received while you were a resident of the state and on income you received from New York State sources while you were a nonresident. To compute the amount of tax due, use Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return. You will compute a base tax as if you were a full-year resident, then determine the percentage of your income that is subject to New York State tax and the amount of tax apportioned to New York State.\"" }, { "docid": "196374", "title": "", "text": "\"First to clear a few things up. It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service. And for tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status. It is income. The question is then, is it \"\"Business\"\" income, or \"\"Hobby\"\" related income? Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually? If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business. Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable. The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so. Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate. As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss). If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit). If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant.\"" }, { "docid": "291079", "title": "", "text": "There are too many qualifying questions like martial status, dependent status, annual income, etc. Your answer is most likely in the Form Pub 970 you referenced: Adjustments to Qualified Education Expenses If you pay qualified education expenses with certain tax-free funds, you cannot claim a deduction for those amounts If the grant is tax free, you can not claim deductions up to that amount. Even if you were able to expense all the educational expenses you list, I doubt you can exceed the grant disbursement disbursement amount. I'm not a tax professional, so take my advice for what it is worth." }, { "docid": "413438", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"" }, { "docid": "540334", "title": "", "text": "\"There are TWO parts to an LLC or any company structure. This being the entire point of creating an LLC. The context is that a lawyer is after your LLC, and he's arguing that the LLC is not genuine, so he can go after your personal assets - your house, car, IRAs, tap your wife's salary etc. This is called \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\". What would he use to claim the LLC is not genuine? The determination here is between you and the judge in a lawsuit. Suffice it to say, the way you withdraw money must consider the above issues, or you risk breaking the liability shield and becoming personally liable, which means you've been wasting the $25 every year to keep it registered. The IRS has a word for single member LLCs: \"\"Disregarded entity\"\". The IRS wants to know that the entity exists and it's connected to you. But for reporting tax numbers, they simply want the LLC's numbers folded into your personal numbers, because you are the same entity for tax purposes. The determination here is made by you. *LLCs are incredible versatile structures, and you can actually choose to have it taxed like a corporation where it is a separate \"\"person\"\" which files its own tax return. * The IRS doesn't care how you move money from the LLC to yourself, since it's all the same to them. The upshot is that while your own lawyer prohibits you from thinking of the assets as \"\"all one big pile\"\", IRS requires you to. Yes, it's enough to give you whiplash.\"" }, { "docid": "316482", "title": "", "text": "If you owe a lot of money (more then $500 or $1000) you will get hit with penalties. You will also have to file every quarter the next year. That is very painful. There is a safe harbor if you make sure that you have withheld more money than your taxes from the previous year. The information you provided is not enough for me to give specific advice. But here is a hint: Right after you file this year, use turbo tax to determine what changes you can make to your withholding to minimize any excess withholding." }, { "docid": "76107", "title": "", "text": "Is my financial status OK? You have money for emergencies in the bank, you spend less than you earn. Yes, your status is okay. You will have a good standard of living if nothing changes from your status quo. How can I improve it? You are probably paying more in taxes than you would if you made a few changes. If you max out tax advantaged retirement accounts that would reduce the up-front taxes you are paying on your savings. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? The best time to see a financial advisor is any time that your situation changes. New job? Getting married? Having a child? Got a big promotion or raise? Suddenly thinking about buying a house? Is it worth the money? How would she/he help me? If you pick an advisor who has incentive to help you rather than just pad his/her own pockets with commissions, then the advice is usually worth the money. If there is someone whose time is already paid for, that may be better. For example, if you get an accountant to help you with your taxes and ask him/her how to best reduce your taxes the next year, the advice is already paid-for in the fee you for the tax help. An advisor should help you minimize the high taxes you are almost certainly paying as a single earner, and minimize the stealth taxes you are paying in inflation (on that $100k sitting in the bank)." }, { "docid": "303680", "title": "", "text": "Designed for both centralized and distributed development teams, SCM Anywhere Standalone, SQL Server-based software configuration management (SCM) software, helps development teams deliver software products faster and promotes team collaboration through centralized control of source code files, team activities, work item status and bug reports." }, { "docid": "34338", "title": "", "text": "\"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\"" }, { "docid": "554114", "title": "", "text": "Free File is not software by the IRS. Free File is actually a partnership between the IRS and the Free File Alliance, a group of tax software companies. The software companies have all agreed to provide a free version of their tax software for low-income taxpayers. According to the Free File Alliance FAQ, the Alliance was formed in 2002 as part of a Presidential initiative to improve electronic access to government. You can read all the excruciating details of the formal agreement (PDF) between the IRS and the Alliance, but basically, the participating software companies get exposure for their products and the possibility of up-selling services, such as state tax return software." }, { "docid": "271415", "title": "", "text": "As an NRI, you can't hold a regular savings account. It should have been converted to NRO. Option 1: Open NRE account : Since I am relocating permanently this might not be good option for me as converting This is the best Option as funds into NRE are not taxable in India. The provides a clean paper trail so that if there are any tax queries, you can answer them easily. You can open a Rupee NRE account, move the funds. On return move the funds into Normal Savings account and close the NRE account. This is not much of hassle. Option 2: Create NRO account: There would be taxes on the interest earned of the funds. But I am not sure of this, since I will have been moved to India permanently would I need to still pay taxes on the interest earned while I am in India? Any interest in NRO or normal savings account is taxable in India. There is no exemption. Option 3: I can transfer my funds directly to my account in India but I believe I would have to pay tax on the the funds that I transfer and that would be double taxation. Which I think would be the worst option for me. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is incorrect. Any earnings outside of India when your status is NRI, is not taxable in India. Opening an NRE account provides proper paper trail of funds. As an NRI one cannot hold normal savings account. This should have been converted into an NRO account. Although there is no penalty prescribed, its violation of FEMA regulation. I also hope you were declaring any income in India, i.e. interest etc on savings and filing returns accordingly. Option 4: I can transfer the funds to my direct relatives account. I still believe there would be tax to be paid on the interest earned of the amount. You can transfer it to your parents / siblings / etc. This would come under gift tax purview and would not be taxable. They can then gift this back to you. However such transactions would appear to be evading regulations and may come under scrutiny. Interest on Savings account is taxable. So best is go with Option 1. No hassle. Else go with Option 3, but ensure that you have all the paperwork kept handy for next 7 years." }, { "docid": "202019", "title": "", "text": "Your wife doesn't need to file a 2014 tax return because she's a nonresident and she didn't have any U.S. income. Her visa is irrelevant; it only matters what her status was (if she was in the U.S., but she wasn't) and if she had U.S. income. Your child doesn't need to file a tax return because she didn't have any income. There's a certain income threshold below which she doesn't have to file. Children generally never file their own tax returns. I don't know who told you otherwise. You may have to file if you had income (maybe including fellowship income and stuff like that) in the U.S. during the year? Did you? If you didn't then you probably don't need to file a tax return. Also, you said you're nonresident for the year. Are you sure about that? Students are generally nonresident for the first 5 calendar years, and resident thereafter. So if you came in 2009 or before, you would be resident for all of 2014; but if you came in 2010 or after, you would be nonresident for all of 2014. If you were in the first 5 calendar years of being a student, you also need to file Form 8843 regardless of whether you need to file a tax return. Nonresidents generally can't claim dependents. Residents can, however. A dependent will provide you with an exemption (it reduces your taxable income by a certain amount). You can also get the Child Tax Credit if your income is low enough. There is a U.S.-Sweden tax treaty. It has a section covering students. It may exempt some or all of your income from U.S. tax. Most universities provide free international tax programs for their international students and scholars. You should look to see if your school offers this. Don't go to outside tax filing places because those generally don't know anything about how to file for nonresidents." }, { "docid": "359814", "title": "", "text": "Starting and running a business in the US is actually a lot less complicated than most people think. You mention incorporation, but a corporation (or even an S-Corp) isn't generally the best entity to start a business with . Most likely you are going to want to form an LLC instead this will provide you with liability protection while minimizing your paperwork and taxes. The cost for maintaining an LLC is relatively cheap $50-$1000 a year depending on your state and you can file the paperwork to form it yourself or pay an attorney to do it for you. Generally I would avoid the snake oil salesman that pitch specific out of state LLCs (Nevada, Delaware etc..) unless you have a specific reason or intend on doing business in the state. With the LLC or a Corporation you need to make sure you maintain separate finances. If you use the LLC funds to pay personal expenses you run the risk of loosing the liability protection afforded by the LLC (piercing the corporate veil). With a single member LLC you can file as a pass through entity and your LLC income would pass through to your federal return and taxes aren't any more complicated than putting your business income on your personal return like you do now. If you have employees things get more complex and it is really easiest to use a payroll service to process state and federal tax with holding. Once your business picks up you will want to file quarterly tax payments in order to avoid an under payment penalty. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid the under payment penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller. Even if you get hit by the penalty it is only 10% of the amount of tax you didn't pay in time. If you are selling a service such writing one off projects you should be able to avoid having to collect and remit sales tax, but this is going to be very state specific. If you are selling software you will have to deal with sales tax assuming your state has a sales tax. One more thing to look at is some cities require a business license in order to operate a business within city limits so it would also be a good idea to check with your city to find out if you need a business license." }, { "docid": "89611", "title": "", "text": "In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences." }, { "docid": "23955", "title": "", "text": "If you have both consumer debt and IRS debt, you can file Chapter 7 bankruptcy to get rid of all of it. The trick is your taxes have to be at least 3 years old from the due date in order to be considered for bankruptcy. So newer taxes, like 2010 and on, can't be discharged yet (and earlier ones may not be yet, there are rules which toll the time) You'll definitely want to talk to a bankruptcy attorney in your area who focusing on discharge in tax debts. You may be able to kill two birds with one stone. My other concern is are you current? Typically people routinely run up a new debt when trying to settle up on 9old debt. So the OIC route may be a waste of your time. Also, $6000 isn't a lot of money, so there's not a lot of room to negotiate down. It's all how you fill out the 656-OIC. I've seen way to many people not fill it out incorrectly. The IRS has a limited amount of time to collect on a debt, so if there are old taxes, you may be better off getting into CNC status, which it seems like you would qualify for and let the debt expire on your own. That may be another viable solution. Unfortunately, this is really complicated to get the best result. And good tax debt attorneys fees start at the amount of taxes you owe! So that's not really cost effective to hire one." }, { "docid": "347186", "title": "", "text": "Tax liability in US: You would need to determine if you are a resident alien or non resident alien. Resident alien are taxed normally as per US citizens. For the annual remuneration you have quoted it would be in the range of 25%. Refer http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm To determine if you are resident alien or non resident alien, you need to be present for certain period in US. There is also an exemption even if you meet this you can still be treated as non resident alien if your tax home is outside US [India in this case] Refer to the link for details to determine your category, the durations are for number of days in financial year, hence it matters when you are in US and the exact durations. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html Also note that if you are assessed as resident alien, even the income from India will be taxed in US unless you declare there is no income in India. Tax liability in India: The tax liability in India would be depending on your NRI status. This again is tied to the financial year and the number of days you are in country. While the year you are going out of India you need to be away for atleast 183 days for you be considred are NRI. So if you are treated as Indian resident, you would have to pay tax in India on entire income. In the worst case, depending on the period you travel and the dates you travel, you could get classified as citizen in US as well as India and have to pay tax at both places. India and US do not have a dual tax avoidance treaty for individuals. Its there for certain category like small business and certain professions like teacher, research etc." }, { "docid": "149535", "title": "", "text": "\"Look at how much tax you paid last year, including withholding and any additional amount that might have been due with the tax return. Look at the instructions for the W-4 form, which sets how much tax you want your employer to withhold. Adjust the numbers on that form until the total withheld during the year is close to what you expect this year's total to be -- remember, though, that there's no penalty for over-withholding but could be for under-withholding. Submit the W-4 form to your employer. Remember that we're a few weeks into the year, so even if you adjust withholding now there will have been several paychecks at the prior setting; you can try to build that into your guesstimate of how to reset the withholding, or just not worry about it. Do the same with your state's withholding adjustments form. Repeat on a yearly basis, to account for raises, changes in other income, changes in filing status, etc. until it's close enough that you're satisfied with it. Then reconsider if/when your financial situation changes. Personally I find that exercise more effort than it's worth, and have simply set my withholding at \"\"close enough\"\". I usually get some money back from the feds and owe some to the state, but either is handled happily by my normal bank account balance.\"" }, { "docid": "526555", "title": "", "text": "The accountant must provide you a signed copy of your return, and the e-file authorization form for you to sign which should show the amount you're supposed to get refunded. Once you sign the authorization, the accountant must e-file your return, and provide you the receipt of filing (usually an email from the accountant's software provider). If any of these steps didn't happen - your accountant is lying to you, and is likely to have misused your information. If your return was supposed to be filed on paper - then it was you who was supposed to mail it, via USPS certified mail. Usually, if a professional prepares a return, it would be e-filed unless there's a specific reason not to, or you explicitly requested paper filing (any of that would also be documented on a specific IRS form which you would sign). If your accountant is lying to you, then you should use form 14157 to complain about him to the IRS. Read carefully the letter you've got from the IRS. They're probably asking about the ACA insurance coverage information. It should have been reported on your tax return. See here for more details about what reporting you were supposed to do, depending on your situation. I suggest you go to a (different) tax preparer, make sure he is in fact licensed (I.e.: has EA or CPA credentials), and ask him to sort it out. If indeed the original preparer didn't file your return, you can also (in addition to the form 14157) file a complaint with your State regulatory agency that oversees tax preparers, if there's such. If the original preparer made a mistake, it is your right to sue for damages (including the costs of sorting it out, and penalties that you might have incurred due to that mistake)." }, { "docid": "440506", "title": "", "text": "I have researched this question extensively in previous years as we have notoriously high taxes in California, while neighboring a state that has zero corporate income tax and personal income tax. Many have attempted pull a fast one on the California taxation authorities, the Franchise Tax Board, by incorporating in Nevada or attempting to declare full-year residence in the Silver State. This is basically just asking for an audit, however. California religiously examines taxpayers with any evidence of having presence in California. If they deem you to be a resident in California, and they likely will based on the fact that you live in California (physical presence), you will be subject to taxation on your worldwide income. You could incorporate in Nevada or Bangladesh, and California will still levy its taxation on any business income (Single Member LLCs are disregarded as separate corporate entities, but still taxed at ordinary income rates on the personal income tax basis). To make things worse, if California examines your Single Member LLC and finds that it is doing business in California, based on the fact that its sole owner is based in California all year long, you could feasibly end up with additional penalties for having neglected to file your LLC in California (California LLCs are considered domestic, and only file in California unless they wish to do business in other states; Nevada LLCs are considered foreign to California, requiring the owner to file a domestic LLC organization in Nevada and then a foreign LLC organization in California, which still gets hit with the minimum $800 franchise fee because it is a foreign LLC doing business in California). Evading any filing responsibility in California is not advisable. FTB consistently researches LLCs, S-Corporations and the like to determine whether they've been organized out-of-state but still principally operated in California, thus having a tax nexus with California and the subsequent requirement to be filed in California and taxed by California. No one likes paying taxes, and no one wants to get hit with franchise fees, especially when one is starting a new venture and that minimum $800 assessment seems excessive (in other words, you could have a company that earns nothing, zero, zip, nada, and still has to pay the $800 minimum fee), but the consequences of shirking tax laws and filing requirements will make the franchise fee seem trivial in comparison. If you're committed to living in California and desire to organize an LLC or S-Corp, you must file with the state of California, either as a domestic corporation/LLC or foreign corporation/LLC doing business in California. The only alternatives are being a sole proprietor (unincorporated), or leaving the state of California altogether. Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure, but that's the law." } ]

[ { "docid": "376631", "title": "", "text": "When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job. When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom. Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself. You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)" } ]

[ { "docid": "464821", "title": "", "text": "\"I was on a form of a retainer for a little over a year. My situation kind of sucked but there's ways in which it would be favourable. I was pretty green at the time and just agreed to what they wanted. I worked for them as an employee for over a year, but they didn't pay overtime so I asked to work part time for them instead. They bait and switched me to work contractor. I renegotiated pay to be higher to fit that. I was paid minimum 22.5 hours a week, on a monthly schedule, plus any extra hours I worked. In reality a retainer would pay in advance and you wouldn't have to actually be present for the minimum hours like I was. Still was better than being an employee. I worked as an \"\"application developer\"\". But this isn't an unheard of thing in the tech sector; former employees that built your systems to be contracted at a later date to provide their expertise at a higher rate because they are the most familiar with the system and/or have a track record of being very good at satisfying the business' specifications or needs.\"" }, { "docid": "452896", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least)." }, { "docid": "308255", "title": "", "text": "Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help." }, { "docid": "545039", "title": "", "text": "Firstly, check your visa conditions (if you're not from the EU): http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Information--Advice/Working/How-many-hours-can-you-work You do need to register for NI, but that's apparently streamlined into registering as self-employed: How to pay N.I contributions when both employed and self-employed? (Realistically, you can almost certainly get away with doing <£50 month in cash-in-hand jobs with no paperwork whatsoever, but in the very unlikely event of being caught it could result in being deported)" }, { "docid": "15270", "title": "", "text": "Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time." }, { "docid": "585121", "title": "", "text": "\"Being self employed just means you fill out some more forms in your annual self assessment for your \"\"profit\"\" from being self employed. Profit = all the money you receive, minus any tax deductible cost that you spent for making that money (and all the cost must be documented, which means you have a folder with all the receipts and keep it safe). You pay normal income tax on all the profit, which means it is just added to your taxable income. What you do with the profit is up to you; you don't pay yourself a salary, just take the money (make sure you leave enough to pay your taxes).\"" }, { "docid": "542022", "title": "", "text": "You need to set your status as self-employed the day you started online work. If that date is a little ambiguous (as is usually the case with online business), you can start with the day you first made any money. Yes, you can deduct expenses from your revenue. But you have to be sure that the expenses were purely business related. This is how it goes: You inform HMRC about the day you started work. HMRC will assign you a UTR (Unique Tax Reference) number. Depending on how much you make you might or might not need to pay Class 2 NI contributions. You'll need to tell HMRC how much you expect to earn in the current tax year. Finally, you'll need to complete a Self-Assessment at the end of the tax year. I highly recommend setting up a business banking account. Here is a link that discusses being part-time self-employed in the UK." }, { "docid": "346735", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, setting some basics: What is a sound way to measure the risk of each investment in order to compare them with each other ? There is no single way that can be used across all asset classes / risks. Generally speaking, you want to perform both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of risks that you identify. Quantitative risk assessment may involve historical data and/or parametric or non-parametric models. Using historical data is often simple but may be hard in cases where the amount of data you have on a given event is low (e.g. risk of bust by investing in a cryptocurrency). Parametric and non-parametric risk quantification models exist (e.g. Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall (ES), etc) and abound but a lot of them are more complicated than necessary for an individual's requirements. Qualitative risk assessment is \"\"simply\"\" assessing the likelihood and severity of risks by using intuition, expert judgment (where that applies), etc. One may consult with outside parties (e.g. lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc) where their advisory may help highlighting some risks or understanding them better. To ease comparing investment opportunities, you may want to perform a risk assessment on categories of risks (e.g. investing in the stock market vs bond market). To compare between those categories, one should look at the whole picture (quantitative and qualitative) with their risk appetite in mind. Of course, after taking those macro decisions, you would need to further assess risks on more micro decisions (e.g. Microsoft or Google ?). You would then most likely end up with better comparatives as you would be comparing items similar in nature. Should I always consider the worst case scenario ? Because when I do that, I always can lose everything. Generally speaking, you want to consider everything so that you can perform a risk assessment and decide on your risk mitigating strategy (see Q4). By assessing the likelihood and severity of risks you may find that even in cases where you are comparatively as worse-off (e.g. in case of complete bust), the likelihood may differ. For example, keeping gold in a personal stash at home vs your employer going bankrupt if you are working for a large firm. Do note that you want to compare risks (both likelihood and severity) after any risk mitigation strategy you may want to put in place (e.g. maybe putting your gold in a safety box in a secure bank would make the likelihood of losing your gold essentially null). Is there a way to estimate the probability of such events, better than intuition ? Estimating probability or likelihood is largely dependent on data on hand and your capacity to model events. For most practical purposes of an individual, modelling would be way off in terms of reward-benefits. You may therefore want to simply research on past events and assign them a 1-5 (1 being very low, 5 being very high) risk rating based on your assessment of the likelihood. For example, you may assign a 1 on your employer going bankrupt and a 2 or 3 on being burglarized. This is only slightly better than intuition but has the merit of being based on data (e.g. frequency of burglary in your neighborhood). Should I only consider more probable outcomes and have a plan for them if they occur? This depends largely on your risk appetite. The more risk averse you are, the more thorough you will want to be in identifying, tracking and mitigating risks. For the risks that you have identified as relevant, or of concern, you may opt to establish a risk mitigating strategy, which is conventionally one of accepting, sharing (by taking insurance, for example), avoiding and reducing. It may not be possible to share or reduce some risks, especially for individuals, and so often the response will be either to accept or avoid the given risks by opting in or out on an opportunity.\"" }, { "docid": "510373", "title": "", "text": "When getting a mortgage it always depends on the bank and each bank may be more or less strict. With that being said there are rules and general guidelines which can help you understand how you fit in the world of mortgage approvals. If you can provide the same paper work as an employee of your company that you would normally provide from any other company then a bank may just accept that alone. However to me it seems like you will be looking at a new variation of what was known as a Self-certification mortgage A self-certification mortgage is basically a mortgage for those who cannot prove their income. As a result of the housing collapse, the rules on a traditional self-cert mortgages have changed. As someone who is self employed, it is more difficult today to get a mortgage but is still possible. This article provides some good information: Can the self employed still get a mortgage? I advise doing some research on this topic and speaking with a professional mortgage broker. Some Resources: Compare Self Cert Mortgages How to beat the mortgage famine in 2012 Can the self employed still get a mortgage?" }, { "docid": "489898", "title": "", "text": "\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \"\"hurdle\"\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \"\"independent contractor\"\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\"" }, { "docid": "351114", "title": "", "text": "Permanent employees are the distinct opposite of contractors. Upwork can easily have business entities (limited liability company equivalents) in multiple countries, and it can make payments between them. Or they can merely use existing payment infrastructure (paypal, amazon) to accomplish the same thing. Their corporate structure is a red herring and most likely unrelated to what they've accomplished." }, { "docid": "506108", "title": "", "text": "\"LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is \"\"sole proprietorship\"\"), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues \"\"you\"\", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from \"\"not needed\"\" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs.\"" }, { "docid": "594911", "title": "", "text": "\"Read \"\"Rich Dad, Poor Dad\"\" and learn about Cashflow Quadrants, specifically the difference between being self employed and being a business owner. The short version is that when you're self employed, you just own your job, and your boss is a complete asshole. Owning a business is about leveraging the efforts and capital of others, essentially \"\"Playing the orchestra\"\" as your instrument. Edit: BTW, gorgeous work!!\"" }, { "docid": "441476", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Michael Preiss was happy to escape the corporate grind after being laid off by International Business Machines Corp. in 2001. He became a contractor, earning more than $100,000 a year from steady assignments helping companies figure out how to do things faster and cheaper. &gt; That work eventually dried up. The past decade has been a revolving door of outsourced jobs for shrinking pay, fear that any day at a company could be his last, and reminders that full-time employees live in a different world, even though they often sit at the next desk. Mr. Preiss says one manager reprimanded him because co-workers complained that he laughed too loudly. An experienced tech contractor that does process reengineering who earns less than $50 per hour? Something doesn't add up. Many industries have contractors who are taken advantage of. In tech, contractors are often making 50-100% MORE than employees. It is highly lucrative, a huge portion are contractors by choice (I am yet to work at a firm that didn't try to offer a lowball permanent position)." }, { "docid": "392503", "title": "", "text": "Have you found a general contractor to rebuild your home? I would imagine that someone with a bit of expertise in the area is used to dealing with insurance companies, floating the money for a rebuild, and hitting the gates to receive payment for work accomplished. Business are used to not receiving payment when work is accomplished and it is part of the risk of being in business. They have to buy materials and pay employees with the expectation of payment in the future. Much like workers go to work on a Monday for the work that day, three Friday's later, business often have to float costs but for longer periods of time. If you are looking to be your own general contractor then you will have to float the money on your own. The money should not be used for living expenses or mortgage payments, it should be used for down payments in order to get the work of rebuilding started." }, { "docid": "240556", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; I think the primary reason you're being down voted I find the right obnoxious and the left repulsive. Virtually every foolish thing in our society was born from the left and they should be roundly shown the distain their ideas deserve. Now the right has joined the party and is using the exact same thug tactics to try to instantiate THEIR tyranny by government force. It's revolting, but the left wins on just pure malice and stupidity. &gt; all too often better candidates for a job are excluded in favor for those who are of similar religion or race as the employe So what? It's the employer's money and his/her company. If they make these kinds of decision too often or too long, they will lose out competitively to people who do hire Best In Class. &gt; Employing people to help create your master vision fundamentally incorporates compromise, for the betterment of society. But I don't exist for the \"\"betterment of society\"\". I exist to promote my interests, my family - my enlightened self interest. If I make bigoted hiring decisions and thereby exclude best-in-class employees it is *I* who will suffer, not society. This is a self-regulating problem. No one in their right mind wants to run a business with anything less than the best possible employees (at the lowest possible salary, BTW). The Dirty Little Secret here is that EEOC rules do NOT promote Best in Class. The Best In Class already have jobs and are in demand because - nothwithstanding the whining of the social do-gooders - no one can afford to ignore them as a substantial asset in the workforce, no matter how petty or bigoted any single person might otherwise be. No, EEOC laws are designed to give substandard candidates jobs they are not qualified for, do not deserve, and cannot perform well. This has the horrible secondary effect of having people quietly musing \"\"Did he get the job because he's Black/Jewish/Asian/Gay/ ..... or is he really good at it?\"\" It's not fair, but that's what tampering with meritocracy does.\"" }, { "docid": "176777", "title": "", "text": "In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate." }, { "docid": "456526", "title": "", "text": "\"You're confusing between \"\"individual\"\" 401k (they're called \"\"Solo-401k\"\" and are intended for self-employed), and Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You can't open a solo-401k without being self employed. You can open an IRA and roll over money from your old 401k to it. You cannot get a loan from IRA. You can ask the 401k plan manager to reissue the checks to the new trust, shouldn't be a problem. Make sure the checks are issued to the trust, not to you, to avoid withholding and tax complications. This is what is called a \"\"direct\"\" rollover. You might be able to roll the money over to the 401k of your new employer, it is not always allowed and you should check. You can probably then take a loan from that 401k. However, it diminishes the value of your retirement savings and you should only do it if you have no other choice (being evicted from your home, your children are starving, can't pay for your chemo, etc... this kind of disasters). Otherwise, I'd suggest rolling over to IRA, investing in funds with significantly lower fees (Vanguard target retirements funds for example, or index funds/ETF's), and reassessing your spending and budgeting habits so that you won't need loans from your 401k. Re companies - ETrade is nice, consider also Scottrade, TDAmeriTrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Sharebuilder, and may be others. These are all discount brokers with relatively low fees, but each has its own set of \"\"no-fee\"\" funds.\"" }, { "docid": "584218", "title": "", "text": "To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee." } ]

[ { "docid": "397329", "title": "", "text": "In the current economy there is no upside to working for yourself. Get in a salaried position as soon as you can, and sacrifice to whatever gods you worship that you don't get made redundant. If you're already working for yourself, and wouldn't give it up for anything, hire someone, and get them off the street." } ]

[ { "docid": "510373", "title": "", "text": "When getting a mortgage it always depends on the bank and each bank may be more or less strict. With that being said there are rules and general guidelines which can help you understand how you fit in the world of mortgage approvals. If you can provide the same paper work as an employee of your company that you would normally provide from any other company then a bank may just accept that alone. However to me it seems like you will be looking at a new variation of what was known as a Self-certification mortgage A self-certification mortgage is basically a mortgage for those who cannot prove their income. As a result of the housing collapse, the rules on a traditional self-cert mortgages have changed. As someone who is self employed, it is more difficult today to get a mortgage but is still possible. This article provides some good information: Can the self employed still get a mortgage? I advise doing some research on this topic and speaking with a professional mortgage broker. Some Resources: Compare Self Cert Mortgages How to beat the mortgage famine in 2012 Can the self employed still get a mortgage?" }, { "docid": "456526", "title": "", "text": "\"You're confusing between \"\"individual\"\" 401k (they're called \"\"Solo-401k\"\" and are intended for self-employed), and Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You can't open a solo-401k without being self employed. You can open an IRA and roll over money from your old 401k to it. You cannot get a loan from IRA. You can ask the 401k plan manager to reissue the checks to the new trust, shouldn't be a problem. Make sure the checks are issued to the trust, not to you, to avoid withholding and tax complications. This is what is called a \"\"direct\"\" rollover. You might be able to roll the money over to the 401k of your new employer, it is not always allowed and you should check. You can probably then take a loan from that 401k. However, it diminishes the value of your retirement savings and you should only do it if you have no other choice (being evicted from your home, your children are starving, can't pay for your chemo, etc... this kind of disasters). Otherwise, I'd suggest rolling over to IRA, investing in funds with significantly lower fees (Vanguard target retirements funds for example, or index funds/ETF's), and reassessing your spending and budgeting habits so that you won't need loans from your 401k. Re companies - ETrade is nice, consider also Scottrade, TDAmeriTrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Sharebuilder, and may be others. These are all discount brokers with relatively low fees, but each has its own set of \"\"no-fee\"\" funds.\"" }, { "docid": "166245", "title": "", "text": "\"It doesn't generally matter, and I'm not sure if it is in fact in use by the IRS other than for general statistics (like \"\"this year 20% of MFJ returns were with one spouse being a 'homemaker'\"\"). They may be able to try and match the occupation and the general levels and types of income, but for self-employed there's a more precise and reliable field on Schedule C and for employees they don't really need to do this since everything is reported on W2 anyway. So I don't think they even bother or give a lot of value to such a metric. So yes, I'm joining the non-authoritative \"\"doesn't matter\"\" crowd.\"" }, { "docid": "174025", "title": "", "text": "You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer." }, { "docid": "65407", "title": "", "text": "\"While the other answers try to quantify the value of health care the question you ask is about employee vs contractor. The delta between those regarding benefits goes way beyond health care. In fact because almost every full time employee must have health care offered by their employer the option of \"\"you can have X with healthcare, or Y with no healthcare\"\" is no longer an option. I have seen situations in the last few years where employees who had no need for healthcare coverage (retired military) were offered additional vacation days to compensate for their lower cost to the employer. For employee vs contractor what is different isn't just healthcare. It also includes holidays, vacation days, sick days, employer portion of social security, education benefits, and 401k. Insurance benefits include not just healthcare but also dental, vision, short term and long term disability, and life insurance. The rule of thumb to cover all these benefits that are lost when you are a contractor is an amount equal to your income. Of course some of these benefits depend on single vs married and kids or not. But unless the rate they are paying the contractors is approaching twice the rate they are paying employees the contractor will be hard pressed to cover the missing benefits.\"" }, { "docid": "151311", "title": "", "text": "Part of 'consideration', I imagine, would be the obligation of either party to follow through on an agreement, not only fair market value. Look at the thought experiment from the opposite perspective. If you did not pay him $150 (maybe just $50 or even $0), would you be breaking a contractual obligation to him? If he left after 2 hours because he forgot about a family event and did not finish your move, would he be breaking a contractual obligation to you even if you gave him $150? It seems it can be considered a gift (Update: in all cases) There was no agreement of what either party viewed as full consideration in a mutual exchange. To put it another way: From your examples, there is no evidence that the performance of either party hinged on receiving mutual consideration from the other. More Updates from comments: Patterns Matter Similarly to how the IRS may determine W2 employee vs independent contractor, patterns do matter. If your friend has a pattern of helping people move in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars in gifts every year, the IRS would view that in a different light. A waitress/waiter has a pattern of accepting 'gifts' of tips in exchange for good service as a part of their established job duties. If you gifted your friend with $150/week when they watched your kids every Monday-Wednesday, that would be different. You are establishing a pattern, and I would suggest you may be establishing mutual consideration. In that case, consult a professional if you are worried. Amounts Matter This is why the gift tax exemption was created. The IRS does not care about the amounts in question here. It is too much of a burden to track and account for transactions that are this questionable and this small. You gift your friend with a $20k car? Now you need to pay attention. Consult your CPA. You gift your friend $1k for helping build your new deck? The IRS does not care. Intent Matters Even in the first case, it is not necessarily true that your friend considers $150 to be mutual consideration for his services. Would he open a business where he offers that rate to the general public? I doubt it. He intends to gift you services out of his own free will, not because there will be an equitable exchange of value. The intent of both parties is to give a gift. There is no evidence that would suggest otherwise to the IRS, it seems, even if they cared in the first place." }, { "docid": "489898", "title": "", "text": "\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \"\"hurdle\"\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \"\"independent contractor\"\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\"" }, { "docid": "240556", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; I think the primary reason you're being down voted I find the right obnoxious and the left repulsive. Virtually every foolish thing in our society was born from the left and they should be roundly shown the distain their ideas deserve. Now the right has joined the party and is using the exact same thug tactics to try to instantiate THEIR tyranny by government force. It's revolting, but the left wins on just pure malice and stupidity. &gt; all too often better candidates for a job are excluded in favor for those who are of similar religion or race as the employe So what? It's the employer's money and his/her company. If they make these kinds of decision too often or too long, they will lose out competitively to people who do hire Best In Class. &gt; Employing people to help create your master vision fundamentally incorporates compromise, for the betterment of society. But I don't exist for the \"\"betterment of society\"\". I exist to promote my interests, my family - my enlightened self interest. If I make bigoted hiring decisions and thereby exclude best-in-class employees it is *I* who will suffer, not society. This is a self-regulating problem. No one in their right mind wants to run a business with anything less than the best possible employees (at the lowest possible salary, BTW). The Dirty Little Secret here is that EEOC rules do NOT promote Best in Class. The Best In Class already have jobs and are in demand because - nothwithstanding the whining of the social do-gooders - no one can afford to ignore them as a substantial asset in the workforce, no matter how petty or bigoted any single person might otherwise be. No, EEOC laws are designed to give substandard candidates jobs they are not qualified for, do not deserve, and cannot perform well. This has the horrible secondary effect of having people quietly musing \"\"Did he get the job because he's Black/Jewish/Asian/Gay/ ..... or is he really good at it?\"\" It's not fair, but that's what tampering with meritocracy does.\"" }, { "docid": "495076", "title": "", "text": "Note too that being a contractor means that you will unavoidably have periods between contracts; you tend to be out of work more often than a salaried employee would. You need to set your rates so your average income, including those down times, adds up to a living wage including all those benefits that aren't being covered. If a company hires a contractor, they understand that this is part of the trade-off. They avoid making a long-term commitment when they don't have a long-term need, and they accept that this convenience may cost a bit more in the short term." }, { "docid": "382384", "title": "", "text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"" }, { "docid": "244518", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/851066/almost-all-the-10-million-jobs-created-since-2005-are-temporary/) reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Survey research conducted by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that from 2005 to 2015, the proportion of Americans workers engaged in what they refer to as &amp;quot;Alternative work&amp;quot; jumped from 10.7% to 15.8%. Alternative work is characterized by being temporary or unsteady-such as work as an independent contractor or through a temporary help agency. &gt; &amp;quot;And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.&amp;quot; In other words, nearly all of the 10 million jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were not traditional nine-to-five employment. &gt; Katz and Krueger found that each of the common types of alternative work increased from 2005 to 2015-with the largest changes in the number of independent contractors and workers provided by contract firms, such as janitors that work full-time at a particular office, but are paid by a janitorial services firm. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79k7gc/almost_all_the_10_million_jobs_created_since_2005/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~237356 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **work**^#1 **Alternative**^#2 **job**^#3 **Krueger**^#4 **full-time**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "392503", "title": "", "text": "Have you found a general contractor to rebuild your home? I would imagine that someone with a bit of expertise in the area is used to dealing with insurance companies, floating the money for a rebuild, and hitting the gates to receive payment for work accomplished. Business are used to not receiving payment when work is accomplished and it is part of the risk of being in business. They have to buy materials and pay employees with the expectation of payment in the future. Much like workers go to work on a Monday for the work that day, three Friday's later, business often have to float costs but for longer periods of time. If you are looking to be your own general contractor then you will have to float the money on your own. The money should not be used for living expenses or mortgage payments, it should be used for down payments in order to get the work of rebuilding started." }, { "docid": "194090", "title": "", "text": "You can find a lot of information at the HRMC website at http://hmrc.gov.uk. If you don't want to work as an employee, you can register as self-employed (basically a one-man band), which is quite simple, you can start your own company, which is more work but can have tax advantages, or you can find umbrella companies which will officially employ you while in reality you are a freelancer and only do your billing through them. Umbrella companies can be anywhere from totally legal to extremely dodgy. If they promise you that you pay only five percent tax on your income through ingenious tricks, that's only until the tax office finds out and they will make you pay. Between self-employed and your own company, the big difference is whether you are actually working independently or not. If you work like an employee (take someone else's orders) and claim you are a company, the tax office doesn't like that. And if you pay very little taxes, they don't like that either. So self-employed is the safer choice but you will pay more taxes, close to what a normal employee would pay. Obviously you will have to pay tax on your income and NHS insurance. Obviously you are required to tell the government (actually HMRC) about your income. Not doing so would be tax evasion and get you into deep trouble when you are caught. I don't think you have to tell them the source of your income, but not telling them might look very suspicious and might get your accounts checked carefully. And unless you design a website for the mafia, why wouldn't you tell them? The bill payer will try to deduct your bill from their profits anyway, so it's no secret. Most important to remember: When you send out a bill and receive payment, you'll have to pay tax on it. When self employed, as a rule of thumb put one third away into a savings account for your tax bill. Don't spend it all or you will find yourself in deep trouble when your taxes need paying. Plus put some more away for times when you can't find work." }, { "docid": "239294", "title": "", "text": "&gt; my only argument is that the degree alone doesn't define competence. Of course! But degrees determine interests. And it seems that you are trying extremely hard to not understand what I said: if someone has degrees in music and has proven skill and knowledge in security, I will hire them. But not as Chief Information Security Officer. For this, you need someone who took many specialized training and got their end dirty working, designing, planning and setting security systems. So we BOTH agree, mainly based on the stupid things that Susan said, that Susan was not qualified for her job. &gt; I also never agreed that she got the job due to connections: So give me a possible way how Susan got her job. &gt; HR ... Contractors, on the other hand, perfectly fine. OMG! Contractor, or temps, or outsourcing is not fine, especially by the HR department, because it all means trying to save money on workers, not giving any benefits or security and shoddy work. Contractors, except IT, are paid less than permanent employees. All I can wish for you that you will work as a Contractor all your life and you will see how great it is yourself." }, { "docid": "277820", "title": "", "text": "What city are you in? &gt; I got a call for contract work and it only lasted two weeks. This can happen. Sometimes contracts don't work out. &gt; With that contract I was finally getting paid what I was getting paid at my last permanent position, but again I did not receive the same benefits as a full time employee. That contract let me go after 18 months due to policy that they couldn't string contractors along. This is very common. Unfortunately due to a court case involving Microsoft contractors 25-30 years ago, many firms limit contracts to a hard stop at 18 months - 2 years. Not all firms have this policy. I am interested what city you are in. My career has taken me throughout flyover country, and finding 6 figure contracts has always been reasonably achievable. Most cities appeared to have a shortage of workers with 5+ years experience in most specializations. Fellow IT contractors have felt that IT unemployment insurance is $45 per hour jobs where you compete with H1B body shops, since those almost never get filled. It sounds like you are in an economically depressed area." }, { "docid": "464821", "title": "", "text": "\"I was on a form of a retainer for a little over a year. My situation kind of sucked but there's ways in which it would be favourable. I was pretty green at the time and just agreed to what they wanted. I worked for them as an employee for over a year, but they didn't pay overtime so I asked to work part time for them instead. They bait and switched me to work contractor. I renegotiated pay to be higher to fit that. I was paid minimum 22.5 hours a week, on a monthly schedule, plus any extra hours I worked. In reality a retainer would pay in advance and you wouldn't have to actually be present for the minimum hours like I was. Still was better than being an employee. I worked as an \"\"application developer\"\". But this isn't an unheard of thing in the tech sector; former employees that built your systems to be contracted at a later date to provide their expertise at a higher rate because they are the most familiar with the system and/or have a track record of being very good at satisfying the business' specifications or needs.\"" }, { "docid": "176777", "title": "", "text": "In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate." }, { "docid": "582864", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"" }, { "docid": "432221", "title": "", "text": "\"None taken. Good thoughts: it would be making the same mistake to blindly accept my criticism as many will make blindly accepting this journalist's graphs. Let's see if I can address your concerns. The reason the scale is problematic to me is exactly what you said &gt; I hope people would be looking at more than just a convex line And I don't think that they do. The scales were adjusted so that the lines were nearly identical on someone's computer screen, but that implies a false equivalency between the debts of households, corporations, state and local gov, and the fed. I think the author has left leaning sympathies (read the accompanied article that outlines \"\"who you will vote for\"\", link on the last slide). Not necessarily a bad thing, but he frames all of this from the idea that his *statistics cannot be skewed, and he is therefore presenting fact*. Central to the left's argument is that the Federal Government's size is not of the biggest concern, and if you got the average American thinking that 15 trillion is no big deal because households have a huge debt too, or corporations do too, or states do too, I believe that to be dangerous. I think I identified his bias, and that his graphs are slightly manipulated to coerce less discerning individuals to his side. Happens all the time, but all of those facts are dead on in regards to the data. Again, trying to keep my politics out of this, simply criticizing the graphs and the subtle message they are sending under the guise of being neutral. I would agree with your point *normally*: since contractors are temporary and often, as you pointed out, cost efficient from a benefits standpoint. They also tend to be more efficient, but this is not central to our point. The problem is that the government has the longest war in our history going, but we aren't really fighting anyone for the scale of our spending. Trillions of dollars have gone into this effort, and one of the results has been *the development of a quasi-economy in Iraq, and now Afghanistan*. The numbers are staggering of how many of these people are employed, or make a living, off of this war effort. But this is not like most contractors: where you would add them to the DOD's budget, as you astutely pointed out. And the difference, I would purport, is the permanent status of the \"\"employment\"\". After what length of time would you say a contractor for the DOD working on computer programs in the Pentagon is the equivalent of an employee (and therefore must be counted in statistics such as the one the graph in question purports to depict)? 2 years? 5 Years? Certainly after a decade, right? Remember, the graph is trying to show that the number of government employees *is not a problem, or at least not a significant one*. But calling an apple a banana doesn't make it yellow; I think political slight in hand with statistics as important as these should be criminal. Sorry I got long winded, but I hope I addressed your concerns. It sounds like you are one of the few people who thinks critically when presented with data such as that which is in these 64 slides. But remember: for every one of you there may be a thousand people who are brainwashed by any \"\"data\"\" you put in front of them.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "132678", "title": "", "text": "\"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which \"\"checks\"\" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid \"\"checks\"\" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a \"\"check\"\" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "397679", "title": "", "text": "Many U.S. banks now support POPMoney, which allows recurring electronic transfers between consumer accounts. Even if your bank doesn't support it, you can still use the service. See popmoney.com." }, { "docid": "22268", "title": "", "text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"" }, { "docid": "303685", "title": "", "text": "You could talk to them, but (assuming you're in the U.S.), it's highly doubtful any bank would honor a check from 26 years ago. Most checks in the U.S. are only valid for 180 days, mainly to help companies and banks keep accounting simple. I would suggest talking to your late husband's former employer. Explain the situation and ask if they'd be willing to research it and perhaps honor his memory and contribution to their company by issuing a new check. They might do it as a gesture of good will. Are they legally bound to do this? To my knowledge, the answer is no. The check was issued and never cashed, which is not all that unusual for companies in business for a long time. A good example of this would be rebate checks, which (you'd be surprised) quite frequently end up in a drawer and forgotten about. There has to be some closure for the issuing company in its accounting, else they'd have money in their bank accounts that doesn't properly show in their ledgers. This is an interesting question, though. I hope others will reply, and perhaps they have a more informed take than me. I'm going to upvote it simply because I'd like to see this discussion continue. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "520182", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-21/ecb-sees-trump-administration-as-key-risk-to-global-economy) reduced by 68%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The European Central Bank cited the government of U.S. President Donald Trump as a key reason why the risks to the global economy remain tilted to the downside. &gt; &amp;quot;Since the U.S. election, pressures for more inward-looking policies have risen,&amp;quot; it said. &gt; &amp;quot;In particular, there is significant policy uncertainty surrounding the intentions of the new U.S. administration regarding fiscal and, especially, trade policies, the latter entailing potentially significant negative effects on the global economy.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6imebn/ecb_sees_trump_administration_as_key_risk_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~149467 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **policy**^#1 **U.S.**^#2 **economy**^#3 **global**^#4 **ECB**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "362790", "title": "", "text": "\"You're asking an intensely debatable question. You'll have some people believe that the short-term effects on tax cuts will be an increase in the deficit, but long-term provide more economic prosperity that then eventually translates into higher tax revenue (the Laffer Curve). You'll have others state that it'll simply increase government debt and make us even more indebted, and the benefits of tax cuts will be marginal at best. Large enough shocks, such as a war, cause market downturns due to heightened uncertainty. These are pretty unavoidable (we had a small shock with North Korea's nuke test). &gt; I ask because the economic fundamentals of U.S/Western Europe are strong. Why do you think this? &gt; B. What will be the geopolitical result? Does China back NK to prevent a immigration crisi/power vacuum or do they side with the UN/U.S and allow military destruction of NK in the event of a NK-started war? Also intensely debatable. Does China grow too tired of NK and simply acquire it itself? Does it keep it separate as a distraction to pin down U.S. attention? Does the U.S. pre-emptively strike NK leadership? Does it leave a vacuum there, close enough that China can keep an eye on it, or does it \"\"surge\"\" like Iraq? Would South Korea get it? These are extremely open-ended questions that could have debates rage around them for years.\"" }, { "docid": "2981", "title": "", "text": "\"What is the best way that I can invest money so that I can always get returns? Would it be to set up an FD in a bank, to buy land, to buy a rental house, to buy a field, or maybe to purchase gold? Forever is a long time. Of the options you listed, the only one guaranteed to generate returns is a bank account. The returns may well be very small, but (absent an economy-wide financial failure) you will get the stated return. Land doesn't always retain its value, nor do rental houses or fields. Gold clearly fluctuates. But you would be better served to think about goals and how you can attain them. What do you want to do with the \"\"returns\"\"? If you are trying to set yourself up for purchasing a home, paying for college, or retirement, then the small returns on a bank account may be insufficient. And in that case you might be better served by worrying more about the size of the returns you need than the certainty of them. There may be many \"\"better investments\"\" if you more clearly define what you expect to achieve by your investment.\"" }, { "docid": "293446", "title": "", "text": "There is empirical evidence of a correlation between independence of central banks and lower unemployment, lower inflation, and more stable prices. The argument as to why this is comes from when govts control central banking more stongly, then politicians get involved, and they vote for more/easier money, which looks good in the short run, thereby getting them votes, but causes inflation/unemployment/price volatility in the long run. When governments control banking you sometimes end up with Zimbabwe stlye inflation (well, not as bad as Zimbabwe often, but without the govt able to add money at will it is much harder). A significant feature of most successful modern central banks is to remove the control from the hands of ametuers, i.e., politicians, and put control into the hands of skilled economists. Ever notice the Fed chairman (and many of the board) are actually very well trained economists? Full transparency is also bad since some areas of monetary policy need knowledge to be kept from the markets in order to be effective, otherwise the Fed loses some of the tools they need to try and target inflation. Finally, there are quite a lot of regulations that the Fed does follow, including regular outside audits, that keep them in check." }, { "docid": "526477", "title": "", "text": "\"So you work, and give a small irregular amount to you parents. You live with very low expenses. Assuming you make a bit below the average salary in the UK, you should be able to save around £1000. If you found a part time job could you save double? I bet you could. So why do you need credit? Why do you need a credit score? Having poor or no credit can be remedied by having a large down payment. Essentially the bank asks, if this person could afford the payment of this loan why have they not been saving the money? You could save the money and either buy the thing(s) you desire with cash (the smartest), or put 50% down. Putting 50% or more down turns you into a good credit risk despite having no credit history. In case you missed it: why not just save the money and buy it for cash? Why have compounding interest working against you? Why do you want to work for the bank? Making the interest payments on loans in order to build a credit score is just silly. It is an instance of a \"\"tail wagging the dog\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "473957", "title": "", "text": "Savings accounts have lower fees. If you don't anticipate doing many transactions per month, e.g. three or fewer withdrawals, then I would suggest a savings account rather than a checking account. A joint account that requires both account holder signatures to make withdrawals will probably require both account holders' signature endorsements, in order to make deposits. For example, if you are issued a tax refund by the U.S. Treasury, or any check that is payable to both parties, you will only be able to deposit that check in a joint account that has both persons as signatories. There can be complications due to multi-party account ownership if cashing versus depositing a joint check and account tax ID number. When you open the account, you will need to specify what your wishes are, regarding whether both parties or either party can make deposits and withdrawals. Also, at least one party will need to be present, with appropriate identification (probably tax ID or Social Security number), when opening the account. If the account has three or more owners, you might be required to open a business or commercial account, rather than a consumer account. This would be due to the extra expense of administering an account with more than two signatories. After the questioner specified interest North Carolina in the comments, I found that the North Carolina general banking statutes have specific rules for joint accounts: Any two or more persons may establish a deposit account... The deposit account and any balance shall be as joint tenants... Unless the persons establishing the account have agreed with the bank that withdrawals require more than one signature, payment by the bank to, or on the order of (either person on) the account satisfys the bank's obligation I looked for different banks in North Carolina. I found joint account terms similar to this in PDF file format, everywhere, Joint Account: If an item is drawn so that it is unclear whether one payee’s endorsement or two is required, only one endorsement will be required and the Bank shall not be liable for any loss incurred by the maker as a result of there being only one endorsement. also Joint accounts are owned by you individually or jointly with others. All of the funds in a joint account may be used to repay the debts of any co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a co-owner, jointly with other co-owners, or jointly with other persons or entities having no interest in your account. You will need to tell the bank specifically what permissions you want for your joint account, as it is between you and your bank, in North Carolina." }, { "docid": "543921", "title": "", "text": "There is nothing conceptually wrong with it. If you like it that way, go ahead. The only thing to watch out for is bank policies that effectively penalize having many small accounts. For instance, some banks charge you a fee for checking accounts with a balance below a certain minimum, but will waive the fees for accounts with a higher balance. You may be able to avoid such fees by judicious management of your funds (or by switching to a different bank), but it's something to be aware of. (The interest rates on savings accounts also often vary with the balance, making many small balances less efficient than one big balance. However, right now, at least in the US, interest rates on savings accounts are so low that the difference here is likely to be minimal.)" }, { "docid": "30090", "title": "", "text": "There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is." }, { "docid": "588327", "title": "", "text": "The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?" }, { "docid": "147163", "title": "", "text": "Personal finances are not intuitive for everyone, and it can be a challenge to know what to do when you haven't been taught. Congratulations on recognizing that you need to make a change. The first step that I would recommend is what you've already done: Assemble your bank statements so you can get an accurate picture of what money you currently have. Keep organized folders so you can find your bank statements when you need them. In addition to the bank statements for your checking and savings accounts, you also need to assess any debt that you have. Have you taken out any loans that need to be paid back? Do you have any credit card debt? Make a list of all your debts, and make sure that you have folders for these statements as well. Hopefully, you don't have any debts. But if you are like most people, you owe money to someone, and you may even owe more money than you currently have in your bank accounts. If you have debts, fixing this problem will be one of your goals. No matter what your debt is, you need to make sure that from now on, you don't spend more money than you take in as income. To do this, you need to make a budget. A budget is a plan for spending your money. To get started with a budget, make a list of all the income you will receive this month. Add it up, and write that amount at the top of a page. Next, you want to make a list of all the expenses you will have this month. Some of these expenses are more or less fixed: rent, utility bills, etc. Write those down first. Some of the expenses you have more control over, such as food and entertainment. Give yourself some money to spend on each of these. You may also have some larger expenses that will happen in the future, such as a tuition or insurance payment. Allocate some money to those, so that by the time that payment comes around, you will have saved enough to pay for those expenses. If you find that you don't have enough income to cover all of your expenses in a month, you need to either reduce your expenses somewhere or increase your income until your budget is at a point where you have money left over at the end of each month. After you've gotten to this point, the next step is figuring out what to do with that extra money left over. This is where your goals come into play. If you have debt, I recommend that one of your first goals is to eliminate that debt as fast as possible. If you have no money saved, you should make one of your goals saving some money as an emergency fund. See the question Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing for some ideas on what order you should place your goals. Doing the budget and tracking all of your spending on paper is possible, but many people find that using the right software to help you do this is much easier. I have written before on choosing budgeting software. All of the budgeting software packages I mentioned in that post are from the U.S., but many of them can successfully be used in Europe. YNAB, the program I use, even has an unofficial German users community that you might find useful. One of the things that budgeting software will help you with is the process of reconciling your bank statements. This is where you go through the bank statement each month and compare it to your own record of spending transactions in your budget. If there are any transactions that appear in the statement that you don't have recorded, you need to figure out why. Either it is an expense that you forgot to record, or it is a charge that you did not make. Record it if it is legitimate, or dispute the expense if it is fraudulent. For more information, look around at some of the questions tagged budget. I also recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey, which will provide more help in making a budget and getting out of debt." }, { "docid": "10098", "title": "", "text": "To a certain extent, small cap companies will in general follow the same trends as large cap companies. The extent of this cointegration depends on numerous factors, but a prime reason is the presence of systemic risk, i.e. the risk to the entire market. In simple terms, sthis is the risk that your portfolio will approach asymptotically as you increase its diversification, and it's why hedging is also important. That being said, small cap businesses will, in general, likely do worse than large cap stocks, for several reasons. This was/is certainly the case in the Great Recession. Small cap businesses have, on average, higher betas, which is a measure of a company's risk compared to the overall market. This means that small cap companies, on average outperform large cap companies during boom times, but it also means that they suffer more on average during bear times. The debate over whether or not the standard beta is still useful for small cap companies continues, however. Some economists feel that small cap companies are better measured against the Russell 2000 or similar indexes instead of the S&P 500. Small cap companies may face problems accessing or maintaining access to lines of credit. During the Great Recession, major lenders decreased their lending to small businesses, which might make it harder for them to weather the storm. On a related point, small businesses might not have as large an asset base to use as collateral for loans in bad times. One notable large cap company that used its asset base to their advantage was Ford, which gave banks partial ownership of its factories during hard times. This a) gave Ford a good amount of cash with which to continue their short-term operations, and b) gave the banks a vested interest in keeping Ford's lines of credit open. Ford struggled, but it never faced the financial problems of GM and Chrysler. Despite political rhetoric about Main Street vs. Wall Street, small businesses don't receive as much government aid in times of crisis as some large cap companies do. For example, the Small Business Lending Fund, a brilliant but poorly implemented idea in 2010, allocated less than $30 billion to small businesses. (The actual amount loaned was considerably less). Compare that to the amounts loaned out under TARP. Discussions about corporate lobbying power aside, small businesses aren't as crucial to the overall stability of the financial system Small businesses don't always have the manpower to keep up with changes in regulation. When the Dodd-Frank Act passed, large banks (as an example), could hire more staff to understand it and adapt to it relatively easily; small banks, however, don't always have the resources to invest in such efforts. There are other reasons, some of which are industry-specific, but these are some of the basic ones. If you want visual confirmation that small cap businesses follow a similar trend, here is a graph of the Russell 2000 and S&P 500 indexes: Here is a similar graph for the Russell 2000 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If you wanted to confirm this technically and control for the numerous complicated factors (overlap between indexes, systemic risk, seasonal adjustment, etc.), just ask and I'll try to run some numbers on it when I have a chance. Keep in mind, too, that looking at a pretty picture is no substitute for rigorous financial econometrics. A basic start would be to look at the correlation between the indexes, which I calculate as 0.9133 and 0.9526, respectively. As you can see, they're pretty close. Once again, however, the reality is more complicated technically, and a sufficiently detailed analysis is beyond my capabilities. Just a quick side note. These graphs show the logarithm of the values of the indexes, which is a common statistical nuance that is used when comparing time series with radically different magnitudes but similar trends. S&P500 and Russell 2000 data came from Yahoo! Finance, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average data came from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) Per usual, I try to provide code whenever possible, if I used it. Here is the Stata code I used to generate the graphs above. This code assumes the presence of russell2000.csv and sp500.csv, downloaded from Yahoo! Finance, and DJIA.csv, downloaded from FRED, in the current directory. Fidelity published an article on the subject that you might find interesting, and Seeking Alpha has several pieces related to small-cap vs. large-cap returns that might be worth a read too." }, { "docid": "152027", "title": "", "text": "It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk." }, { "docid": "104857", "title": "", "text": "\"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not \"\"new debt\"\"; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks. It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself \"\"on the hook\"\" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a \"\"loan modification\"\" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a \"\"streamlining\"\" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these \"\"toxic assets\"\". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date.\"" }, { "docid": "361580", "title": "", "text": "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?" }, { "docid": "132693", "title": "", "text": "First, you'll need to find a service that can handle transferring that amount of money, whether it's using a bank, or wire transferring service. Any major Wall Street bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) should be able to handle it. You could also use services such as Western Union. As for your legal and tax obligations, according to Western Union: Individuals in Canada and the U.K. don’t have any tax considerations, unless international payments are received as income or in the form of capital gains. Only then must they report it on their income taxes, says Ilyas Patel, director at Ilyas Patel Chartered Certified Accountants based in Preston, U.K., and the director of Tax Expert, a tax advice website. To that end, when considering their tax obligations, individuals should take care to look into the reporting requirements on foreign income or gifts ranging up to a certain amount. For example, in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires individuals who receive more than $100,000 U.S. dollars from a foreign source to report it on a Form 3520. “You may not owe taxes on the money, but it informs the IRS that you received it,” Gragg says, stressing the importance of consulting with a professional. “They’re looking for certain terrorist activities and other illegal activity.” Due to the large sum of money your transferring, it would be in your best interest to speak with a banker (maybe even a lawyer or CPA) about this." }, { "docid": "300896", "title": "", "text": "If you're exchanging cash, then the rule of thumb is generally that it's better to buy currency in the country that issues the currency. In your case that would mean buy INR in India and buy USD in the U.S. The rationale is that supply of foreign currency is generally smaller, so you get a little better price if you're holding the foreign currency. There are, of course, exceptions, like if you're going to a country with little foreign trade. (That wouldn't seem to apply to the U.S. or India.) If you are doing an electronic transfer through a bank, however, I doubt that it matters which end initiates the transfer. You're going to get their wholesale exchange rate plus fees. It seems more likely to matter what fees are charged, and that may vary more by bank than by country." } ]

[ { "docid": "124427", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a good summary: Historically, branch banking in the United States - especially interstate branch banking - was viewed unfavorably by regulatory authorities, and this was codified with the enactment of the McFadden Act of 1927, which specifically prohibited interstate banking. Over the next few decades, some banks attempted to circumvent McFadden's provisions by establishing bank holding companies that operated so-called independent banks in multiple states. To address this, The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from having branches in any other state. Most interstate banking prohibitions were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Research has also found that anticompetitive state provisions restricted out-of-state growth when those provisions were more restrictive than the provisions set by the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act or by neighboring states. Some states have also had restrictive bank branch laws; for example, Illinois outlawed branches (other than the main office) until 1967, and did not allow an unlimited number until 1993." } ]

[ { "docid": "550303", "title": "", "text": "\"Small community banks are absolutely vital to our economy. Plenty of people these days talk about \"\"buying local,\"\" but you never hear them talking about banking local. My friends, for the most part, lean left of center politically, so they constantly complain about Wal-Mart and other large brick and mortar chains, but when I called them out on their banking by asking them to pull out their debit cards, they all banked with larger banks; Chase, PNC, Key; the only person (beside myself) who didn't bank with a large national/multi - national bank uses Huntington, which is still a very large regional bank with over $100 billion in assets. They said they didn't want to have to pay ATM fees, to which I responded that many community banks will reimburse the customer for those fees up to a certain amount (like my bank does.) They just shrugged and said they liked the convenience of it, so I asked them why do they think people shop at Wal-Mart? I didn't really get a good answer to that; they just said \"\"it's different.\"\" The best way to invest in your community is to bank with a local community bank. Those mom and pop shops you love so much; the plumber who lives down the street; the micro brewery that just opened up all do their banking with the local community bank.\"" }, { "docid": "424215", "title": "", "text": "Because a couple of relatively small scandals in terms of one of the largest banks in the US isn't enough to sink one of the largest banks in the US. To flip the question, why do you think a scandal on the scale of millions of dollars would have a lasting impact on the operations of a bank that brings in billions of profit every year?" }, { "docid": "123535", "title": "", "text": "It's not unusual/undesirable. If everyone prepaid their mortgage, banks would not like this, but we're in no danger of that :). Also, the amount you are pre-paying is not so significant as to make them pay special attention. In many cases when a borrower pre-pays, they will not continue to do so over the life of the loan since it's so easy to stop at any time, and the extra payments are voluntary. Depending on who originated the mortgate, it might be sold even more often than in your case. It's no longer commonplace for a bank to hold a mortgage to maturity, now that banks and other institutions have separated the origination of the loan from its servicing. It's likely that your mortgage was bundled with others through a process called securitization, and will be bought/sold based on the bank's need for liquitity or to balance out the maturity of its assets and liabilities (whether they need more cash now versus later), or based on the types of ways your bank has decided that it wants to make money versus farming out other types of business to others. What would substantially change the value of your mortgage to a bank is if it were performing (ie you are paying on time) but then became non-performing (ie you fall behind in your payments). It's also possible that if you have a very small mortgage or principal balance, that there is very little risk to the bank, and little difference between the present and future values of your loan, but banks don't typically make these types of transactions based on the characteristics of an individual loan." }, { "docid": "458485", "title": "", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"" }, { "docid": "12655", "title": "", "text": "\"A very interesting topic, as I am moving to the US in a month. I realise this thread is old but its been helpful to me. My observations from my home country \"\"Before we judge anyone who doesn't use direct deposit or who prefers to be paid in cold hard cash, consider that direct deposit is a luxury of stability. Steady job, home, etc. Direct deposit doesn't make sense for a contractor or day labourer who expect to work for a different person each day or week\"\" --- well here a contractor would still be paid by a direct deposit, even if he was working for many different people. On the invoice the contractor provides Bank account details, and customer logs onto their internet banking and pays electronically. It is a a very simple process and is the preferred method of payment by most businesses even small contractors. Many accounting software programs are linked to bank accounts and can quickly reconcile accounts for small business. Many businesses will not accept a cheque in Australia anymore as they are considered to be a higher risk. I started work in 1994 and have never received any payment except via direct deposit.\"" }, { "docid": "65458", "title": "", "text": "&gt;We should expect the courts to be less corruptible because their proceedings take place in public, Why would we expect that? Reality doesn't really suggest that. You also completely ignore how money can (without actually corrupting the court) 'win' you a case. Money allows you to bury a litigant in the law itself. You see it time and time again in environmental lawsuits. Sheer wealth alone is enough to win many cases and avoid prosecution to begin with in many other cases. Dragging it out for years. The average person will have little chance (as they already do) in tackling the larger issues via the court system. And in fact many of the larger cases in this country *don't* happen completely in public. And removing the government won't change that. As for the banks and banksters...the *banks* may have been broke by now without government involvement. The *bankers* themselves would still be wealthier than most of humanity. &gt;Small government that debates everything in the open It's the transparency that's the issue. A big government that debated everything in the open would have most of the same positives and negatives. So would a medium government." }, { "docid": "144698", "title": "", "text": "A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account. If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it." }, { "docid": "362790", "title": "", "text": "\"You're asking an intensely debatable question. You'll have some people believe that the short-term effects on tax cuts will be an increase in the deficit, but long-term provide more economic prosperity that then eventually translates into higher tax revenue (the Laffer Curve). You'll have others state that it'll simply increase government debt and make us even more indebted, and the benefits of tax cuts will be marginal at best. Large enough shocks, such as a war, cause market downturns due to heightened uncertainty. These are pretty unavoidable (we had a small shock with North Korea's nuke test). &gt; I ask because the economic fundamentals of U.S/Western Europe are strong. Why do you think this? &gt; B. What will be the geopolitical result? Does China back NK to prevent a immigration crisi/power vacuum or do they side with the UN/U.S and allow military destruction of NK in the event of a NK-started war? Also intensely debatable. Does China grow too tired of NK and simply acquire it itself? Does it keep it separate as a distraction to pin down U.S. attention? Does the U.S. pre-emptively strike NK leadership? Does it leave a vacuum there, close enough that China can keep an eye on it, or does it \"\"surge\"\" like Iraq? Would South Korea get it? These are extremely open-ended questions that could have debates rage around them for years.\"" }, { "docid": "552887", "title": "", "text": "My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more." }, { "docid": "286992", "title": "", "text": "\"Is there a solution here that would allow me to provide him with a debit card in his name that I could fund, that wouldn't have foreign transaction fees associated with it (I'd probably be okay with a small fixed ATM fee). There are separate issues here. There is no law limiting bank accounts to U.S. citizens, but most banks will not open an account for a non-citizen outside their declared service area. There are substantial legal liabilities to the bank in allowing it, whether a citizen or non-citizen. The difficulty will be compliance with the Patriot Act. This is an extension of the older \"\"Know Your Customer\"\" doctrine. It is improbable that the bank could comply with the Act without the potential customer being physically present. You would have to check with your bank in advance as to their policies. Banks are not required to accept a customer outside their policies. As to waiving the foreign transaction fee, that is very improbable. Although a handful of institutions do this in specific cases it is uncommon because the bank isn't actually charging the fee, they are passing it along. With a credit card they collect interest and waiving the fee can be thought of as a reduction in interest income, that isn't possible on a debit card. You would want to make sure you have a scrupulously honest nephew. You could be held criminally liable for any actions he takes at both the state and the federal level. U.S. law is global. A citizen who commits a crime in any country of the world can be charged for it in the United States. By being on the account you can acquire any liabilities that are created as an accomplice. This is a bigger issue at the federal level because 4,000 federal laws do not require criminal intent. Some do not require you to even know the action happened. Unlike state law which generally requires you intended to commit a crime and had to be aware of it, federal law often does not. It is also not adequate that the action is legal in Russia if it would be illegal in the United States. If I get a card in my name, and give it to him to use to withdraw money from ATMs, is that legal? What problems might that cause? It is legal, but you are now strictly liable for its use. See the above answer. It would probably get shut down anyway when they phone you and asked: \"\"are you in Russia right now?\"\" The bank is still liable for you giving away the card. The bank may close out all your accounts and submit a currency transaction report on you to the Treasury for possible money laundering. Wire the money. Plan out how much and when, but just wire it.\"" }, { "docid": "503421", "title": "", "text": "\"Quote from the article: \"\"The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion.\"\" Please explain to me how you read that and why you think it is correct. Does it read as the banks made 3.7T? Are the values of the banks 3.7T? Did they steal 3.7T? Did the bonds return 3.7T? Or is it just that the total value of the bonds over many, many more years than this entire fraud took place total to 3.7, including the value that really was owned by bond holders and had nothing to do with the profits or theft? (Hint #1: 3.7 trillion is not the worth of *any* of those businesses, not even the sum of all their market caps probably reaches that value. Hint #2: Matt Taibbi is smart enough to know this, yet writes it that way anyways because sloppy thinkers will buy his crap, find that the value of an entire class of assets is 3.7T, even though it is not the value of any business. It's like saying Citibank is worth the sum of all the deposits it holds, when that is nonsense).\"" }, { "docid": "506233", "title": "", "text": "\"Money in a U.S. checking account is FDIC insured, so it's \"\"safe\"\" in the sense that you don't have to worry about a run on the bank or going out of business. Purchase fraud is something else entirely -- you need to check with your bank and see what their policy is for unauthorized charges made with your debit card. Federal rules apply: report fraud within two days and your liability is limited to $50. The maximum liability rises to $500 after that. But many banks have a $0 fraud policy. Look at their web site and see what the policy is for your bank. source: http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/05/19/fraud-worries-debit-vs-credit-cards/\"" }, { "docid": "172567", "title": "", "text": "\"ACH transfers are the evolution of paper check clearing houses. Transactions are conducted in bulk and do not immediately settle -- the drawer and drawee still retain liability for a period of days or weeks after the transaction date. (I'd suggest looking to the legal definition of a check or draft to understand this better.) A for-fee wire transfer still goes through an intermediary, but settle immediately and irrevocably. Wire transfers are analogous to handing cash to someone. In the US, the various Federal Reserve banks are involved because they are the central banks of the the United States. In the past, bank panics were started or exacerbated when banks would refuse to honor drafts drawn on other banks of questionable stability. Imagine what would happen today if your electric company refused to accept Bank of America or Citibank's check/ACH transactions? Wouldn't you get withdraw every penny you could from BoA? During the 1907 banking panic, many solvent banks collapsed when the system of bank \"\"subscriptions\"\" (ie. arrangements where small town banks would \"\"subscribe\"\" to large commercial banks for check clearing, etc) broke down. Farmers, small business people and individuals lost everything, all because the larger banks would not (or could not) risk holding drafts/checks from the smaller banks.\"" }, { "docid": "218045", "title": "", "text": "\"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \"\"small\"\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \"\"haircuts\"\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \"\"erase\"\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\"" }, { "docid": "303685", "title": "", "text": "You could talk to them, but (assuming you're in the U.S.), it's highly doubtful any bank would honor a check from 26 years ago. Most checks in the U.S. are only valid for 180 days, mainly to help companies and banks keep accounting simple. I would suggest talking to your late husband's former employer. Explain the situation and ask if they'd be willing to research it and perhaps honor his memory and contribution to their company by issuing a new check. They might do it as a gesture of good will. Are they legally bound to do this? To my knowledge, the answer is no. The check was issued and never cashed, which is not all that unusual for companies in business for a long time. A good example of this would be rebate checks, which (you'd be surprised) quite frequently end up in a drawer and forgotten about. There has to be some closure for the issuing company in its accounting, else they'd have money in their bank accounts that doesn't properly show in their ledgers. This is an interesting question, though. I hope others will reply, and perhaps they have a more informed take than me. I'm going to upvote it simply because I'd like to see this discussion continue. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "30090", "title": "", "text": "There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is." }, { "docid": "441163", "title": "", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them." }, { "docid": "597571", "title": "", "text": "First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them." }, { "docid": "300896", "title": "", "text": "If you're exchanging cash, then the rule of thumb is generally that it's better to buy currency in the country that issues the currency. In your case that would mean buy INR in India and buy USD in the U.S. The rationale is that supply of foreign currency is generally smaller, so you get a little better price if you're holding the foreign currency. There are, of course, exceptions, like if you're going to a country with little foreign trade. (That wouldn't seem to apply to the U.S. or India.) If you are doing an electronic transfer through a bank, however, I doubt that it matters which end initiates the transfer. You're going to get their wholesale exchange rate plus fees. It seems more likely to matter what fees are charged, and that may vary more by bank than by country." } ]

[ { "docid": "571625", "title": "", "text": "\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \"\"localness\"\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "275838", "title": "", "text": "Because a wire transfer requires the individual bank to bank process, it is usually more expensive than an automated clearing house, which requires minimal involvement by individuals at financial institutions. Many ACH transactions come with only a small fee, or even no fee at all, since they are run with more efficiency. However, if you want a better guarantee that your money will arrive on time, it might be worth it to pay the wire transfer fee. With both cases, it is possible for errors to be made. However, since you often get to review the information before it is sent with a wire transfer, the method is a little more secure. Also, because identities are verified with wire transfers that take place between bank accounts, there is less chance of fraud. Wire transfers that take place between financial institutions are generally considered quite secure. from http://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/difference-between-wire-transfer-and-ach.html" }, { "docid": "458485", "title": "", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"" }, { "docid": "43216", "title": "", "text": "\"If banks really controlled house prices, then why do banks now own a shitload of houses that are no longer being paid for? So many that they can't sell them now because that would drive prices down even more, and they'd lose more. Sigh... go ahead and continue to blame \"\"them\"\" for everything. It's easier that way, because then you will never have to take responsibility for any of your mistakes.\"" }, { "docid": "597571", "title": "", "text": "First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them." }, { "docid": "543921", "title": "", "text": "There is nothing conceptually wrong with it. If you like it that way, go ahead. The only thing to watch out for is bank policies that effectively penalize having many small accounts. For instance, some banks charge you a fee for checking accounts with a balance below a certain minimum, but will waive the fees for accounts with a higher balance. You may be able to avoid such fees by judicious management of your funds (or by switching to a different bank), but it's something to be aware of. (The interest rates on savings accounts also often vary with the balance, making many small balances less efficient than one big balance. However, right now, at least in the US, interest rates on savings accounts are so low that the difference here is likely to be minimal.)" }, { "docid": "362790", "title": "", "text": "\"You're asking an intensely debatable question. You'll have some people believe that the short-term effects on tax cuts will be an increase in the deficit, but long-term provide more economic prosperity that then eventually translates into higher tax revenue (the Laffer Curve). You'll have others state that it'll simply increase government debt and make us even more indebted, and the benefits of tax cuts will be marginal at best. Large enough shocks, such as a war, cause market downturns due to heightened uncertainty. These are pretty unavoidable (we had a small shock with North Korea's nuke test). &gt; I ask because the economic fundamentals of U.S/Western Europe are strong. Why do you think this? &gt; B. What will be the geopolitical result? Does China back NK to prevent a immigration crisi/power vacuum or do they side with the UN/U.S and allow military destruction of NK in the event of a NK-started war? Also intensely debatable. Does China grow too tired of NK and simply acquire it itself? Does it keep it separate as a distraction to pin down U.S. attention? Does the U.S. pre-emptively strike NK leadership? Does it leave a vacuum there, close enough that China can keep an eye on it, or does it \"\"surge\"\" like Iraq? Would South Korea get it? These are extremely open-ended questions that could have debates rage around them for years.\"" }, { "docid": "205585", "title": "", "text": "\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"" }, { "docid": "249831", "title": "", "text": "\"Ditto mhoran_psprep. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Where does the money come from? When someone starts a bank, they normally get together a bunch of investors -- perhaps people they know personally, perhaps they sell stock -- to raise initial capital. But most of the money in the bank comes from depositors. Fundamentally, what a bank does is take money from depositors and loan it to borrowers. (Banks also borrow money from other banks and from the government.) They charge the borrowers interest on the loan, and they pay depositors interest on their deposits. The difference between those two interest rates is where the bank gets their profit. Where does the money go when you pay it back? As mhoran_psprep said, some of it goes to pay interest to the depositors; some of it goes to pay the bank's expenses like employee salaries, cost of the building, etc; and some of it goes as profit to the owners or stockholders of the bank. If you're thinking, \"\"Wow, I'm paying back a whole lot more than I borrowed\"\", well, yes. But remember you're borrowing that money for 20 or 30 years. The bank isn't making very much money on the loan each year that you have it -- these days something like 4 or 5% in the U.S., I don't know what the going rates are in other countries.\"" }, { "docid": "143057", "title": "", "text": "Is there any instance in which a large company whose corporate bonds are investment grade, find it more attractive to take out a bank loan to raise finance rather than underwrite bonds? To my knowledge (I’m a first year at university so I’m not 100% sure) bonds are comparatively cheaper (lower effective interest rate), does not have the same caveats and regulations involved with usage of the loan (I.e. no need to buy insurance) and allow them to raise far more than most banks would be willing to risk (I know loan syndication exists but it’s still rare to my knowledge). Why would a such a company have ANY bank loan debt whatsoever if issuing bonds are objectively better? The only one I can fathom is if the loan is so incredibly small that It’s more time consuming to underwrite bonds but 1.) I don’t know if that’s the case, 2.) Why would a large company do this if they could simply pay out less dividends and reinvest a slightly larger portion of profits?" }, { "docid": "60829", "title": "", "text": "For some reason, I've always had a negative feeling about Chase; I don't really know why, but I think I'll continue to avoid them. :) My banks seem to be West Coast banks, mainly Wells Fargo who I've used since the 70s (because they had a small branch in Yosemite Valley, a place I frequented at that time). I haven't had as much luck with other banks, mainly HSBC which I used briefly. Maybe the west coast banks are more laid back or something. Or maybe it's just Chase being incompetent. Banks like that deserve to fail." }, { "docid": "427032", "title": "", "text": "First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all." }, { "docid": "3466", "title": "", "text": "You must consider the different levels of risk associated with each loan. When the bank loans you money, it does so based on a high degree of information about your financial situation (through your credit report + additional information gathered at the time of granting your request). It feels quite confident that you will repay them, and therefore considers you to be low risk. In order to make a profit off of all its low risk clients, the bank only needs to charge a small rate of interest - competitive with the market but enough to cover the losses from clients who will default. When you loan money through a peer-to-peer program, you are at two distinct disadvantages from the bank: (1) Your loan portfolio will not be diversified; that is, you may have only a single person or a small handful of people owing you money. Any catastrophic event in their lives may wipe out their loan to you. Whereas the bank can play the averages with a broader client base. (2) You have less information, and ultimately less (effective) power to reclaim your losses. Would you feel confident walking behind the desk at a bank today, and deciding whether to approve someone's loan based on the information that the bank's back-end has already determined is necessary to make that decision? Now how about when you are doing it on your own? Because of this, you take on more risk from a peer-to-peer loan than a bank takes on from you. That's why the person is willing (or, required due to market availability) to pay a higher rate; they know they are higher risk. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea, just that there is a specific reason that the difference in rates exists, and it implies that you should consider carefully whether the risks outweigh the benefits. Note that the concept of taking a buy/sell position on two theoretically identical assets while earning a net profit at no risk is known as 'arbitrage'. Arbitrage situations rarely exist, and never for long. Whenever you see a position that appears to be arbitrage, consider what might make it not so. ie: you could buy inventory in location A, and sell it at 10% higher margin in location B - but have you considered transportation, carrying costs, and interest for the period that you physically held the inventory? The appearance of arbitrage may (in my opinion) be a sign that you have incomplete information." }, { "docid": "397679", "title": "", "text": "Many U.S. banks now support POPMoney, which allows recurring electronic transfers between consumer accounts. Even if your bank doesn't support it, you can still use the service. See popmoney.com." }, { "docid": "520182", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-21/ecb-sees-trump-administration-as-key-risk-to-global-economy) reduced by 68%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The European Central Bank cited the government of U.S. President Donald Trump as a key reason why the risks to the global economy remain tilted to the downside. &gt; &amp;quot;Since the U.S. election, pressures for more inward-looking policies have risen,&amp;quot; it said. &gt; &amp;quot;In particular, there is significant policy uncertainty surrounding the intentions of the new U.S. administration regarding fiscal and, especially, trade policies, the latter entailing potentially significant negative effects on the global economy.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6imebn/ecb_sees_trump_administration_as_key_risk_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~149467 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **policy**^#1 **U.S.**^#2 **economy**^#3 **global**^#4 **ECB**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "75568", "title": "", "text": "Here's the real reason OKPay (actually the banks they interface with) won't accept US Citizens. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2010 without much fanfare. One reason the act was so quiet was its four-year long ramp up; FATCA did not really take effect until 2014. Never before had a single national government attempted, and so far succeeded in, forcing compliance standards on banks across the world. FATCA requires any non-U.S. bank to report accounts held by American citizens worth over $50,000 or else be subject to 30% withholding penalties and possible exclusion from U.S. markets. By mid-2015, more than 100,000 foreign entities had agreed to share financial information with the IRS. Even Russia and China agreed to FATCA. The only major global economy to fight the Feds is Canada; however it was private citizens, not the Canadian government, who filed suit to block FATCA under the International Governmental Agreement clause making it illegal to turn over private bank account information. Read more: The Tax Implications of Opening a Foreign Bank Account | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102915/tax-implications-opening-foreign-bank-account.asp#ixzz4TzEck9Yo Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook" }, { "docid": "589539", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have noted, in the U.S. a checking account gives you the ability to write a check, while a savings account does not. I think you know what a check is even if you don't use them, right? Let me know if you need an explanation. Personally, I rarely write paper checks any more. I have an account for a small side business, and I haven't bothered to get new checks printed since I moved 6 years ago even though the checks still have my old address, because I've only written I think 3 paper checks on that account in that time. From the bank's point of view, there are all sorts of government regulations that are different for the two types of accounts. But that is probably of little concern to you unless you own a bank. If the software you have bought allows you to do the things you need to do regardless of whether you call the account \"\"savings\"\" or \"\"checking\"\", then ... who cares? I doubt that the banking software police will come to your house and beat you into unconsciousness and arrest you because you labeled an account \"\"checking\"\" that you were supposed to label \"\"savings\"\". If one account type does what you need to do and the other doesn't, then use the one that works.\"" }, { "docid": "245355", "title": "", "text": "\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"" }, { "docid": "426324", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming that you accept the premise that technical analysis is legitimate and useful, it makes sense that it might not work for a small market, or at the very least that it wouldn't be the same for a small market as it is for a large market. The reason for this is that a large stock market like the U.S. stock market is as close to a perfect market as you will find: Compare this to a small market in a small country. Market information is harder to get, because there are not as many media outlets covering the news. There aren't as many participants. And possibly it might be more expensive to participate in, and there might be more regulatory intervention than with the large market. All of these things can affect the prices. The closer you get to a perfect market, the closer you get to a point where the prices of the stocks reflect the \"\"true value\"\" of the companies, without external forces affecting prices.\"" }, { "docid": "361580", "title": "", "text": "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?" } ]

[ { "docid": "498146", "title": "", "text": "Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank." } ]

[ { "docid": "3466", "title": "", "text": "You must consider the different levels of risk associated with each loan. When the bank loans you money, it does so based on a high degree of information about your financial situation (through your credit report + additional information gathered at the time of granting your request). It feels quite confident that you will repay them, and therefore considers you to be low risk. In order to make a profit off of all its low risk clients, the bank only needs to charge a small rate of interest - competitive with the market but enough to cover the losses from clients who will default. When you loan money through a peer-to-peer program, you are at two distinct disadvantages from the bank: (1) Your loan portfolio will not be diversified; that is, you may have only a single person or a small handful of people owing you money. Any catastrophic event in their lives may wipe out their loan to you. Whereas the bank can play the averages with a broader client base. (2) You have less information, and ultimately less (effective) power to reclaim your losses. Would you feel confident walking behind the desk at a bank today, and deciding whether to approve someone's loan based on the information that the bank's back-end has already determined is necessary to make that decision? Now how about when you are doing it on your own? Because of this, you take on more risk from a peer-to-peer loan than a bank takes on from you. That's why the person is willing (or, required due to market availability) to pay a higher rate; they know they are higher risk. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea, just that there is a specific reason that the difference in rates exists, and it implies that you should consider carefully whether the risks outweigh the benefits. Note that the concept of taking a buy/sell position on two theoretically identical assets while earning a net profit at no risk is known as 'arbitrage'. Arbitrage situations rarely exist, and never for long. Whenever you see a position that appears to be arbitrage, consider what might make it not so. ie: you could buy inventory in location A, and sell it at 10% higher margin in location B - but have you considered transportation, carrying costs, and interest for the period that you physically held the inventory? The appearance of arbitrage may (in my opinion) be a sign that you have incomplete information." }, { "docid": "458485", "title": "", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"" }, { "docid": "123535", "title": "", "text": "It's not unusual/undesirable. If everyone prepaid their mortgage, banks would not like this, but we're in no danger of that :). Also, the amount you are pre-paying is not so significant as to make them pay special attention. In many cases when a borrower pre-pays, they will not continue to do so over the life of the loan since it's so easy to stop at any time, and the extra payments are voluntary. Depending on who originated the mortgate, it might be sold even more often than in your case. It's no longer commonplace for a bank to hold a mortgage to maturity, now that banks and other institutions have separated the origination of the loan from its servicing. It's likely that your mortgage was bundled with others through a process called securitization, and will be bought/sold based on the bank's need for liquitity or to balance out the maturity of its assets and liabilities (whether they need more cash now versus later), or based on the types of ways your bank has decided that it wants to make money versus farming out other types of business to others. What would substantially change the value of your mortgage to a bank is if it were performing (ie you are paying on time) but then became non-performing (ie you fall behind in your payments). It's also possible that if you have a very small mortgage or principal balance, that there is very little risk to the bank, and little difference between the present and future values of your loan, but banks don't typically make these types of transactions based on the characteristics of an individual loan." }, { "docid": "148288", "title": "", "text": "I think about as close as you're going to get is to use a personal PayPal account, and set up a reminder to yourself to log in and send the money. (Because, as you said, setting up a recurring payment is a business account thing.) From PayPal's website: Sending money – Personal payments: It's free within the U.S. to send money to family and friends when you use only your PayPal balance or bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. ... Receiving money – Personal payments: It's free to receive money from friends or family in the U.S. when they send the money from the PayPal website using only their PayPal balance or their bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. You can automate the reminder to yourself with any of the gazillion task managers out there: Google Calendar, MS Outlook, Todoist, Remember the Milk, etc." }, { "docid": "132693", "title": "", "text": "First, you'll need to find a service that can handle transferring that amount of money, whether it's using a bank, or wire transferring service. Any major Wall Street bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) should be able to handle it. You could also use services such as Western Union. As for your legal and tax obligations, according to Western Union: Individuals in Canada and the U.K. don’t have any tax considerations, unless international payments are received as income or in the form of capital gains. Only then must they report it on their income taxes, says Ilyas Patel, director at Ilyas Patel Chartered Certified Accountants based in Preston, U.K., and the director of Tax Expert, a tax advice website. To that end, when considering their tax obligations, individuals should take care to look into the reporting requirements on foreign income or gifts ranging up to a certain amount. For example, in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires individuals who receive more than $100,000 U.S. dollars from a foreign source to report it on a Form 3520. “You may not owe taxes on the money, but it informs the IRS that you received it,” Gragg says, stressing the importance of consulting with a professional. “They’re looking for certain terrorist activities and other illegal activity.” Due to the large sum of money your transferring, it would be in your best interest to speak with a banker (maybe even a lawyer or CPA) about this." }, { "docid": "578941", "title": "", "text": "\"Change the password on your bank account immediately. This is certainly a scam, and while they have your login info they can cause you even bigger problems. As soon as possible, contact your bank and let them know what happened. If you look at the links in the \"\"Related\"\" list you'll see that this is a fairly common scam. It relies on the fact that some forms of fraudulent deposit take a while for the bank to detect. Sometime in the next month, the bank is going to find out that the deposit of $2500 is bogus, say from a bad check, forged money order, or some other fraudulent source. When that happens, the bank is going to undo the deposit, and demand that you make good any of the deposit that has been spent (including the $50 that has already gone to PayPal). The bank may also suspect you of being in cahoots with the depositor, so you may find yourself talking to the local police, accused of fraud. You've put yourself in a bad spot by giving your password out. Unless your can present other evidence, the bank will have a strong assumption that any activity conducted via the login is performed by you. This is why you should get in touch with your bank right away, to build up some evidence of good will on your part. More remote possibilities are that it is part of a 'long con', where somebody is trying to find out how credulous/greedy you are. This seems unlikely. Unless you are a plum target, few con artists would want to risk as much as $2500. Theoretically it could be some sort of money laundering set up, but amounts involved seem too small for that to be likely.\"" }, { "docid": "375170", "title": "", "text": "A few reasons make sense: They have a defined process for rentals, risk assessment, and customer credit. Especially for a large corporation, making changes to that process is not trivial, adds risk/uncertainty, and will be costly. Such changes for a relatively small customer base might not makes sense. Many rental companies DO allow you to rent with a debit card. Why do some businesses take cash only? With a debit card, there is no third party guarantee. With a credit card, the cash is coming from a well-established third party who will pay (assuming no disputes) and has a well-established history of paying. Even if the merchant holds your account, it is still your cash under the control of you and your bank until the deposit clears the merchants bank. It is not surprising they view that as more risk and potentially not worth hassling with debit." }, { "docid": "303685", "title": "", "text": "You could talk to them, but (assuming you're in the U.S.), it's highly doubtful any bank would honor a check from 26 years ago. Most checks in the U.S. are only valid for 180 days, mainly to help companies and banks keep accounting simple. I would suggest talking to your late husband's former employer. Explain the situation and ask if they'd be willing to research it and perhaps honor his memory and contribution to their company by issuing a new check. They might do it as a gesture of good will. Are they legally bound to do this? To my knowledge, the answer is no. The check was issued and never cashed, which is not all that unusual for companies in business for a long time. A good example of this would be rebate checks, which (you'd be surprised) quite frequently end up in a drawer and forgotten about. There has to be some closure for the issuing company in its accounting, else they'd have money in their bank accounts that doesn't properly show in their ledgers. This is an interesting question, though. I hope others will reply, and perhaps they have a more informed take than me. I'm going to upvote it simply because I'd like to see this discussion continue. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "60829", "title": "", "text": "For some reason, I've always had a negative feeling about Chase; I don't really know why, but I think I'll continue to avoid them. :) My banks seem to be West Coast banks, mainly Wells Fargo who I've used since the 70s (because they had a small branch in Yosemite Valley, a place I frequented at that time). I haven't had as much luck with other banks, mainly HSBC which I used briefly. Maybe the west coast banks are more laid back or something. Or maybe it's just Chase being incompetent. Banks like that deserve to fail." }, { "docid": "9425", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; A former Treasury official, who specialized in central bank reserves and asked not to be identified, says the official figure vastly understates Saudi Arabia&amp;#039;s investments in U.S. government debt, which may be double or more. &gt; Saudi Arabia&amp;#039;s situation has become so acute the kingdom is now selling a piece of its crown jewel-state oil company Saudi Aramco. &gt; In the first of many special arrangements, the U.S. allowed Saudi Arabia to bypass the normal competitive bidding process for buying Treasuries by creating &amp;quot;Add-ons.&amp;quot; Those sales, which were excluded from the official auction totals, hid all traces of Saudi Arabia&amp;#039;s presence in the U.S. government debt market. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6kzk9p/the_untold_story_behind_saudi_arabias_41year_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~158069 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Saudi**^#1 **Treasury**^#2 **U.S.**^#3 **Arabia**^#4 **oil**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "397679", "title": "", "text": "Many U.S. banks now support POPMoney, which allows recurring electronic transfers between consumer accounts. Even if your bank doesn't support it, you can still use the service. See popmoney.com." }, { "docid": "10098", "title": "", "text": "To a certain extent, small cap companies will in general follow the same trends as large cap companies. The extent of this cointegration depends on numerous factors, but a prime reason is the presence of systemic risk, i.e. the risk to the entire market. In simple terms, sthis is the risk that your portfolio will approach asymptotically as you increase its diversification, and it's why hedging is also important. That being said, small cap businesses will, in general, likely do worse than large cap stocks, for several reasons. This was/is certainly the case in the Great Recession. Small cap businesses have, on average, higher betas, which is a measure of a company's risk compared to the overall market. This means that small cap companies, on average outperform large cap companies during boom times, but it also means that they suffer more on average during bear times. The debate over whether or not the standard beta is still useful for small cap companies continues, however. Some economists feel that small cap companies are better measured against the Russell 2000 or similar indexes instead of the S&P 500. Small cap companies may face problems accessing or maintaining access to lines of credit. During the Great Recession, major lenders decreased their lending to small businesses, which might make it harder for them to weather the storm. On a related point, small businesses might not have as large an asset base to use as collateral for loans in bad times. One notable large cap company that used its asset base to their advantage was Ford, which gave banks partial ownership of its factories during hard times. This a) gave Ford a good amount of cash with which to continue their short-term operations, and b) gave the banks a vested interest in keeping Ford's lines of credit open. Ford struggled, but it never faced the financial problems of GM and Chrysler. Despite political rhetoric about Main Street vs. Wall Street, small businesses don't receive as much government aid in times of crisis as some large cap companies do. For example, the Small Business Lending Fund, a brilliant but poorly implemented idea in 2010, allocated less than $30 billion to small businesses. (The actual amount loaned was considerably less). Compare that to the amounts loaned out under TARP. Discussions about corporate lobbying power aside, small businesses aren't as crucial to the overall stability of the financial system Small businesses don't always have the manpower to keep up with changes in regulation. When the Dodd-Frank Act passed, large banks (as an example), could hire more staff to understand it and adapt to it relatively easily; small banks, however, don't always have the resources to invest in such efforts. There are other reasons, some of which are industry-specific, but these are some of the basic ones. If you want visual confirmation that small cap businesses follow a similar trend, here is a graph of the Russell 2000 and S&P 500 indexes: Here is a similar graph for the Russell 2000 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If you wanted to confirm this technically and control for the numerous complicated factors (overlap between indexes, systemic risk, seasonal adjustment, etc.), just ask and I'll try to run some numbers on it when I have a chance. Keep in mind, too, that looking at a pretty picture is no substitute for rigorous financial econometrics. A basic start would be to look at the correlation between the indexes, which I calculate as 0.9133 and 0.9526, respectively. As you can see, they're pretty close. Once again, however, the reality is more complicated technically, and a sufficiently detailed analysis is beyond my capabilities. Just a quick side note. These graphs show the logarithm of the values of the indexes, which is a common statistical nuance that is used when comparing time series with radically different magnitudes but similar trends. S&P500 and Russell 2000 data came from Yahoo! Finance, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average data came from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) Per usual, I try to provide code whenever possible, if I used it. Here is the Stata code I used to generate the graphs above. This code assumes the presence of russell2000.csv and sp500.csv, downloaded from Yahoo! Finance, and DJIA.csv, downloaded from FRED, in the current directory. Fidelity published an article on the subject that you might find interesting, and Seeking Alpha has several pieces related to small-cap vs. large-cap returns that might be worth a read too." }, { "docid": "43216", "title": "", "text": "\"If banks really controlled house prices, then why do banks now own a shitload of houses that are no longer being paid for? So many that they can't sell them now because that would drive prices down even more, and they'd lose more. Sigh... go ahead and continue to blame \"\"them\"\" for everything. It's easier that way, because then you will never have to take responsibility for any of your mistakes.\"" }, { "docid": "5219", "title": "", "text": "Most US banks don't allow you the ability to draft a foreign currency check from USD. Though, I know Canadian banks are more workable. For instance, TD allows you to do this from CAD to many other currencies for a small fee. I believe even as a US Citizen you can quite easily open a TD Trust account and you'd be good to go. Also, at one time Zions bank was one of the few which lets US customers do this add-hoc. And there is a fee associated. Even as a business, you can't usually do this without jumping thru hoops and proving your business dealings in foreign countries. Most businesses who do this often will opt to using a payment processor service from a 3rd party which cuts checks in foreign currencies at a monthly and per check base. Your other option, which may be more feasible if you're planning on doing this often, would be to open a British bank account. But this can be difficult if not impossible due to the strict money laundering anti-fraud regulations. Many banks simply won't do it. But, you might try a few of the newer British banks like Tesco, Virgin and Metro." }, { "docid": "520182", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-21/ecb-sees-trump-administration-as-key-risk-to-global-economy) reduced by 68%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The European Central Bank cited the government of U.S. President Donald Trump as a key reason why the risks to the global economy remain tilted to the downside. &gt; &amp;quot;Since the U.S. election, pressures for more inward-looking policies have risen,&amp;quot; it said. &gt; &amp;quot;In particular, there is significant policy uncertainty surrounding the intentions of the new U.S. administration regarding fiscal and, especially, trade policies, the latter entailing potentially significant negative effects on the global economy.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6imebn/ecb_sees_trump_administration_as_key_risk_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~149467 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **policy**^#1 **U.S.**^#2 **economy**^#3 **global**^#4 **ECB**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "362790", "title": "", "text": "\"You're asking an intensely debatable question. You'll have some people believe that the short-term effects on tax cuts will be an increase in the deficit, but long-term provide more economic prosperity that then eventually translates into higher tax revenue (the Laffer Curve). You'll have others state that it'll simply increase government debt and make us even more indebted, and the benefits of tax cuts will be marginal at best. Large enough shocks, such as a war, cause market downturns due to heightened uncertainty. These are pretty unavoidable (we had a small shock with North Korea's nuke test). &gt; I ask because the economic fundamentals of U.S/Western Europe are strong. Why do you think this? &gt; B. What will be the geopolitical result? Does China back NK to prevent a immigration crisi/power vacuum or do they side with the UN/U.S and allow military destruction of NK in the event of a NK-started war? Also intensely debatable. Does China grow too tired of NK and simply acquire it itself? Does it keep it separate as a distraction to pin down U.S. attention? Does the U.S. pre-emptively strike NK leadership? Does it leave a vacuum there, close enough that China can keep an eye on it, or does it \"\"surge\"\" like Iraq? Would South Korea get it? These are extremely open-ended questions that could have debates rage around them for years.\"" }, { "docid": "125847", "title": "", "text": "\"**Are you nuts?** &gt;*\"\"Are you talking about TARP because that was paid back early and at 6.2% interest, the gov't made money on that bailout. The auto bailout however lost the gov't billions at the taxpayers expense and the bondholders got screwed over and the unions made out like bandits. Your title just shows how bias and uneducated you are on the subject. \"\"* I'm talking about the GFC/Global Financial Crisis. In 2008. -------------QUOTED TEXT-------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 This article is about the financial crisis that peaked in 2008. *For the global recession triggered by the financial crisis, see [Great Recession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession).* The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[2][3] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing \"\"a complete evaporation of liquidity\"\".[4] The bursting of the U.S. (United States) housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for (lending) borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[8][9][10][11] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (continued- thats just the first two paragraphs)\"" }, { "docid": "20987", "title": "", "text": "1) The easy way is to find a job and they will assign you an SSN. 2) Here's the hard way. If you're Canadian, open a TD Boarderless account in the U.S. Put a small investment into any investment that would generate some type of income, such as capital gain, dividends, interest and etc... Then you will need to file a US tax return to declare your income if you receive U.S. tax slips (although you're likely below the min filing requirement) at year end. To file a U.S. tax return, you may need what's called an ITIN or individual tax id number. With the ITIN, you can get credit from the US TD boarderless account (only). Consider getting a prepaid US credit card with the TD account to futher build credit at that specific bank. It's not much credit, but you do start with creating a history." }, { "docid": "275838", "title": "", "text": "Because a wire transfer requires the individual bank to bank process, it is usually more expensive than an automated clearing house, which requires minimal involvement by individuals at financial institutions. Many ACH transactions come with only a small fee, or even no fee at all, since they are run with more efficiency. However, if you want a better guarantee that your money will arrive on time, it might be worth it to pay the wire transfer fee. With both cases, it is possible for errors to be made. However, since you often get to review the information before it is sent with a wire transfer, the method is a little more secure. Also, because identities are verified with wire transfers that take place between bank accounts, there is less chance of fraud. Wire transfers that take place between financial institutions are generally considered quite secure. from http://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/difference-between-wire-transfer-and-ach.html" } ]

[ { "docid": "24994", "title": "", "text": "In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around." } ]

[ { "docid": "104857", "title": "", "text": "\"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not \"\"new debt\"\"; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks. It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself \"\"on the hook\"\" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a \"\"loan modification\"\" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a \"\"streamlining\"\" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these \"\"toxic assets\"\". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date.\"" }, { "docid": "393925", "title": "", "text": "Many of the major indices retreated today because of this news. Why? How do the rising budget deficits and debt relate to the stock markets? It does seem strange that there is a correlation between government debt and the stock market. But I could see many reasons for the reaction. The downgrade by S&P may make it more expensive for the government to borrow money (i.e. higher interest rates). This means it becomes more expensive for the government to borrow money and the government will probably need to raise taxes to cover the cost of borrowing. Rising taxes are not good for business. Also, many banks in the US hold US government debt. Rising yields will push down the value of their holdings which in turn will reduce the value of US debt on the businesses' balance sheets. This weakens the banks' balance sheets. They may even start to unload US bonds. Why is there such a large emphasis on the S&P rating? I don't know. I think they have proven they are practically useless. That's just my opinion. Many, though, still think they are a credible ratings agency. What happens when the debt ceiling is reached? Theoretically the government has to stop borrowing money once the debt ceiling is reached. If this occurs and the government does not raise the debt ceiling then the government faces three choices:" }, { "docid": "293446", "title": "", "text": "There is empirical evidence of a correlation between independence of central banks and lower unemployment, lower inflation, and more stable prices. The argument as to why this is comes from when govts control central banking more stongly, then politicians get involved, and they vote for more/easier money, which looks good in the short run, thereby getting them votes, but causes inflation/unemployment/price volatility in the long run. When governments control banking you sometimes end up with Zimbabwe stlye inflation (well, not as bad as Zimbabwe often, but without the govt able to add money at will it is much harder). A significant feature of most successful modern central banks is to remove the control from the hands of ametuers, i.e., politicians, and put control into the hands of skilled economists. Ever notice the Fed chairman (and many of the board) are actually very well trained economists? Full transparency is also bad since some areas of monetary policy need knowledge to be kept from the markets in order to be effective, otherwise the Fed loses some of the tools they need to try and target inflation. Finally, there are quite a lot of regulations that the Fed does follow, including regular outside audits, that keep them in check." }, { "docid": "144698", "title": "", "text": "A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account. If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it." }, { "docid": "252762", "title": "", "text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\"" }, { "docid": "276831", "title": "", "text": "\"Instead of getting into complex economic theories, here are the few places I can tell you where the cash has disappeared to: 1. Apple - holding over 100b cash in their vault more than any banks have in their reserves in the world and more than enough to pay off all of the debts of the U.S. 2. Real Estates.........in developing countries, that is :p. You may keep hearing how real estates are de-valuing in the U.S., but in developing countries like the BRICs, they are going higher. Think Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. Yes, it's a proven bubble there. If you have access to their regional news, just listen to how many people in Asia have to borrow from loan sharks to keep their finances afloat. 3. Gold - go see for yourself on goldprice.org, that's where the wealthy individuals put their cash in the so-called \"\"safe haven\"\" next to shotguns. Yes, it's ridiculous and is totally out of anyone's league beyond basic things like air, water, and food. 4. Commodities (gas, food, basic materials) - enough said, check out your local gas pumps and grocery stores.\"" }, { "docid": "543921", "title": "", "text": "There is nothing conceptually wrong with it. If you like it that way, go ahead. The only thing to watch out for is bank policies that effectively penalize having many small accounts. For instance, some banks charge you a fee for checking accounts with a balance below a certain minimum, but will waive the fees for accounts with a higher balance. You may be able to avoid such fees by judicious management of your funds (or by switching to a different bank), but it's something to be aware of. (The interest rates on savings accounts also often vary with the balance, making many small balances less efficient than one big balance. However, right now, at least in the US, interest rates on savings accounts are so low that the difference here is likely to be minimal.)" }, { "docid": "597571", "title": "", "text": "First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them." }, { "docid": "125847", "title": "", "text": "\"**Are you nuts?** &gt;*\"\"Are you talking about TARP because that was paid back early and at 6.2% interest, the gov't made money on that bailout. The auto bailout however lost the gov't billions at the taxpayers expense and the bondholders got screwed over and the unions made out like bandits. Your title just shows how bias and uneducated you are on the subject. \"\"* I'm talking about the GFC/Global Financial Crisis. In 2008. -------------QUOTED TEXT-------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 This article is about the financial crisis that peaked in 2008. *For the global recession triggered by the financial crisis, see [Great Recession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession).* The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[2][3] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing \"\"a complete evaporation of liquidity\"\".[4] The bursting of the U.S. (United States) housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for (lending) borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[8][9][10][11] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (continued- thats just the first two paragraphs)\"" }, { "docid": "79410", "title": "", "text": "On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage." }, { "docid": "427032", "title": "", "text": "First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all." }, { "docid": "147163", "title": "", "text": "Personal finances are not intuitive for everyone, and it can be a challenge to know what to do when you haven't been taught. Congratulations on recognizing that you need to make a change. The first step that I would recommend is what you've already done: Assemble your bank statements so you can get an accurate picture of what money you currently have. Keep organized folders so you can find your bank statements when you need them. In addition to the bank statements for your checking and savings accounts, you also need to assess any debt that you have. Have you taken out any loans that need to be paid back? Do you have any credit card debt? Make a list of all your debts, and make sure that you have folders for these statements as well. Hopefully, you don't have any debts. But if you are like most people, you owe money to someone, and you may even owe more money than you currently have in your bank accounts. If you have debts, fixing this problem will be one of your goals. No matter what your debt is, you need to make sure that from now on, you don't spend more money than you take in as income. To do this, you need to make a budget. A budget is a plan for spending your money. To get started with a budget, make a list of all the income you will receive this month. Add it up, and write that amount at the top of a page. Next, you want to make a list of all the expenses you will have this month. Some of these expenses are more or less fixed: rent, utility bills, etc. Write those down first. Some of the expenses you have more control over, such as food and entertainment. Give yourself some money to spend on each of these. You may also have some larger expenses that will happen in the future, such as a tuition or insurance payment. Allocate some money to those, so that by the time that payment comes around, you will have saved enough to pay for those expenses. If you find that you don't have enough income to cover all of your expenses in a month, you need to either reduce your expenses somewhere or increase your income until your budget is at a point where you have money left over at the end of each month. After you've gotten to this point, the next step is figuring out what to do with that extra money left over. This is where your goals come into play. If you have debt, I recommend that one of your first goals is to eliminate that debt as fast as possible. If you have no money saved, you should make one of your goals saving some money as an emergency fund. See the question Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing for some ideas on what order you should place your goals. Doing the budget and tracking all of your spending on paper is possible, but many people find that using the right software to help you do this is much easier. I have written before on choosing budgeting software. All of the budgeting software packages I mentioned in that post are from the U.S., but many of them can successfully be used in Europe. YNAB, the program I use, even has an unofficial German users community that you might find useful. One of the things that budgeting software will help you with is the process of reconciling your bank statements. This is where you go through the bank statement each month and compare it to your own record of spending transactions in your budget. If there are any transactions that appear in the statement that you don't have recorded, you need to figure out why. Either it is an expense that you forgot to record, or it is a charge that you did not make. Record it if it is legitimate, or dispute the expense if it is fraudulent. For more information, look around at some of the questions tagged budget. I also recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey, which will provide more help in making a budget and getting out of debt." }, { "docid": "20987", "title": "", "text": "1) The easy way is to find a job and they will assign you an SSN. 2) Here's the hard way. If you're Canadian, open a TD Boarderless account in the U.S. Put a small investment into any investment that would generate some type of income, such as capital gain, dividends, interest and etc... Then you will need to file a US tax return to declare your income if you receive U.S. tax slips (although you're likely below the min filing requirement) at year end. To file a U.S. tax return, you may need what's called an ITIN or individual tax id number. With the ITIN, you can get credit from the US TD boarderless account (only). Consider getting a prepaid US credit card with the TD account to futher build credit at that specific bank. It's not much credit, but you do start with creating a history." }, { "docid": "139526", "title": "", "text": "NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income. Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began telling their workers that their companies intended to move to Mexico unless the workers lowered the cost of their labor. In the midst of collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico. The same threats were used to fight union organizing efforts. The message was: “If you vote in a union, we will move south of the border.” With NAFTA, corporations also could more easily blackmail local governments into giving them tax reductions and other subsidies. Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor. Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. The U.S. governing class—in alliance with the financial elites of its trading partners—applied NAFTA’s principles to the World Trade Organization, to the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and to the deal under which employers of China’s huge supply of low-wage workers were allowed access to U.S. markets in exchange for allowing American multinational corporations the right to invest there. Please thank Bill Clinton." }, { "docid": "96791", "title": "", "text": "\"See my comment below about the official exchange rate. There is no \"\"official\"\" exchange rate to apply as far as I'm aware. However the bank is already applying the same exchange rate you can find in the forex markets. They are simply applying a spread (meaning they will add some amount to the exchange rate whichever way you are exchanging currency). You will almost certainly not find a bank that doesn't apply a spread. Of course, their spread might be large, so that's why it is good to compare rates. By the way, 5 GBP/month seems reasonable for a foreign currency (or any) acct. The transaction fees might be cheaper in a different \"\"package\"\" so check. You should consider trying PayPal. Their spread is quite small - and publicly disclosed - and their per-transaction fees are very low. Of course, this is not a bank account. But you can easily connect it to your bank account and transfer the money between accounts quickly. They also offer free foreign currency accounts that you can basically open and close in a click. Transfers are instantaneous. I am based in Germany but I haven't had a problem with clients from various English-speaking countries using PayPal. They actually seem to prefer it in many instances.\"" }, { "docid": "22268", "title": "", "text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"" }, { "docid": "132693", "title": "", "text": "First, you'll need to find a service that can handle transferring that amount of money, whether it's using a bank, or wire transferring service. Any major Wall Street bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) should be able to handle it. You could also use services such as Western Union. As for your legal and tax obligations, according to Western Union: Individuals in Canada and the U.K. don’t have any tax considerations, unless international payments are received as income or in the form of capital gains. Only then must they report it on their income taxes, says Ilyas Patel, director at Ilyas Patel Chartered Certified Accountants based in Preston, U.K., and the director of Tax Expert, a tax advice website. To that end, when considering their tax obligations, individuals should take care to look into the reporting requirements on foreign income or gifts ranging up to a certain amount. For example, in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires individuals who receive more than $100,000 U.S. dollars from a foreign source to report it on a Form 3520. “You may not owe taxes on the money, but it informs the IRS that you received it,” Gragg says, stressing the importance of consulting with a professional. “They’re looking for certain terrorist activities and other illegal activity.” Due to the large sum of money your transferring, it would be in your best interest to speak with a banker (maybe even a lawyer or CPA) about this." }, { "docid": "60829", "title": "", "text": "For some reason, I've always had a negative feeling about Chase; I don't really know why, but I think I'll continue to avoid them. :) My banks seem to be West Coast banks, mainly Wells Fargo who I've used since the 70s (because they had a small branch in Yosemite Valley, a place I frequented at that time). I haven't had as much luck with other banks, mainly HSBC which I used briefly. Maybe the west coast banks are more laid back or something. Or maybe it's just Chase being incompetent. Banks like that deserve to fail." }, { "docid": "111871", "title": "", "text": "The reason I don't know of any banks who would offer this to you (even if you held the investment account with their bank) is that there is no upside to the bank. It is a good idea for you, but what would they have to gain from this arrangement? The reason banks require a down payment is underwriting quality. If you can afford a significant down payment, they know that there is a significantly lower chance that you will default. However, if you were to provide an investment account as collateral, you would receive all the upside, and any downside would reduce their collateral as a percent of the amount loaned. This sort of idea could potentially work along the lines of a margin call (ie you have to provide additional capital if your asset value drops), but this would have the effective of leveraging the bank's risk, when their objective is to lower their risk through requiring a down payment. I don't see a reason why the bank would take on the risk that you would need to provide additional capital down the road with no upside for them. Additionally, many banks have backed away from the kinds of zero-down-payment and negative-amortization-ARM loans that got them (or the people they sold them to) in trouble over the last few years in an effort to reduce how much risk they take on. I think that in theory, you'd have to offer a lot more benefit to the bank, and that in practice it's probably a non-starter right now." } ]

[ { "docid": "24344", "title": "", "text": "\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "22268", "title": "", "text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"" }, { "docid": "144698", "title": "", "text": "A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account. If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it." }, { "docid": "506233", "title": "", "text": "\"Money in a U.S. checking account is FDIC insured, so it's \"\"safe\"\" in the sense that you don't have to worry about a run on the bank or going out of business. Purchase fraud is something else entirely -- you need to check with your bank and see what their policy is for unauthorized charges made with your debit card. Federal rules apply: report fraud within two days and your liability is limited to $50. The maximum liability rises to $500 after that. But many banks have a $0 fraud policy. Look at their web site and see what the policy is for your bank. source: http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/05/19/fraud-worries-debit-vs-credit-cards/\"" }, { "docid": "597571", "title": "", "text": "First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them." }, { "docid": "293446", "title": "", "text": "There is empirical evidence of a correlation between independence of central banks and lower unemployment, lower inflation, and more stable prices. The argument as to why this is comes from when govts control central banking more stongly, then politicians get involved, and they vote for more/easier money, which looks good in the short run, thereby getting them votes, but causes inflation/unemployment/price volatility in the long run. When governments control banking you sometimes end up with Zimbabwe stlye inflation (well, not as bad as Zimbabwe often, but without the govt able to add money at will it is much harder). A significant feature of most successful modern central banks is to remove the control from the hands of ametuers, i.e., politicians, and put control into the hands of skilled economists. Ever notice the Fed chairman (and many of the board) are actually very well trained economists? Full transparency is also bad since some areas of monetary policy need knowledge to be kept from the markets in order to be effective, otherwise the Fed loses some of the tools they need to try and target inflation. Finally, there are quite a lot of regulations that the Fed does follow, including regular outside audits, that keep them in check." }, { "docid": "426324", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming that you accept the premise that technical analysis is legitimate and useful, it makes sense that it might not work for a small market, or at the very least that it wouldn't be the same for a small market as it is for a large market. The reason for this is that a large stock market like the U.S. stock market is as close to a perfect market as you will find: Compare this to a small market in a small country. Market information is harder to get, because there are not as many media outlets covering the news. There aren't as many participants. And possibly it might be more expensive to participate in, and there might be more regulatory intervention than with the large market. All of these things can affect the prices. The closer you get to a perfect market, the closer you get to a point where the prices of the stocks reflect the \"\"true value\"\" of the companies, without external forces affecting prices.\"" }, { "docid": "294212", "title": "", "text": "Stop defending banks. At the time of the 08 melt down, they opened up multiple ways for large financial institutions to borrow money either for collateral (usually shit assets) or with interest rates akin to free or near free. Do you know what that means? Free money. Borrow money for free, buy treasuries and profit. Who didn't have access? Those that didn't have the inside track in the Fed and in the upper levels of the U.S. government. That's why Lehman went under and Goldman, JPM, even GE (due to finance division) didn't go under. Far far too many people upvote pro corporate comments when they aren't even remotely accurate just because their worldview is that the world is just. How silly." }, { "docid": "588327", "title": "", "text": "The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?" }, { "docid": "361646", "title": "", "text": "\"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?\"" }, { "docid": "88196", "title": "", "text": "\"In the US, usury is complicated and depends on the type of account, the bank charter and the where the bank makes credit decisions. Most major US credit cards are issued by entities in Utah, South Dakota and Delaware. None of these states have usury limits. Many states have usury limits. In New York, for example a loan may not exceed 16% interest, if the institution is supervised by the State. Credit card issuers are usually chartered as \"\"National Associations\"\" (ie Federally chartered banks regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency). There is no Federal usury statute, and Federally chartered banks are allowed to \"\"export\"\" many of the regulations of the state where credit decisions are made. Small states like South Dakota basically design their banking regulations to meet the needs of the banks, which are major employers.\"" }, { "docid": "493438", "title": "", "text": "A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart. Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons" }, { "docid": "300896", "title": "", "text": "If you're exchanging cash, then the rule of thumb is generally that it's better to buy currency in the country that issues the currency. In your case that would mean buy INR in India and buy USD in the U.S. The rationale is that supply of foreign currency is generally smaller, so you get a little better price if you're holding the foreign currency. There are, of course, exceptions, like if you're going to a country with little foreign trade. (That wouldn't seem to apply to the U.S. or India.) If you are doing an electronic transfer through a bank, however, I doubt that it matters which end initiates the transfer. You're going to get their wholesale exchange rate plus fees. It seems more likely to matter what fees are charged, and that may vary more by bank than by country." }, { "docid": "143057", "title": "", "text": "Is there any instance in which a large company whose corporate bonds are investment grade, find it more attractive to take out a bank loan to raise finance rather than underwrite bonds? To my knowledge (I’m a first year at university so I’m not 100% sure) bonds are comparatively cheaper (lower effective interest rate), does not have the same caveats and regulations involved with usage of the loan (I.e. no need to buy insurance) and allow them to raise far more than most banks would be willing to risk (I know loan syndication exists but it’s still rare to my knowledge). Why would a such a company have ANY bank loan debt whatsoever if issuing bonds are objectively better? The only one I can fathom is if the loan is so incredibly small that It’s more time consuming to underwrite bonds but 1.) I don’t know if that’s the case, 2.) Why would a large company do this if they could simply pay out less dividends and reinvest a slightly larger portion of profits?" }, { "docid": "132693", "title": "", "text": "First, you'll need to find a service that can handle transferring that amount of money, whether it's using a bank, or wire transferring service. Any major Wall Street bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) should be able to handle it. You could also use services such as Western Union. As for your legal and tax obligations, according to Western Union: Individuals in Canada and the U.K. don’t have any tax considerations, unless international payments are received as income or in the form of capital gains. Only then must they report it on their income taxes, says Ilyas Patel, director at Ilyas Patel Chartered Certified Accountants based in Preston, U.K., and the director of Tax Expert, a tax advice website. To that end, when considering their tax obligations, individuals should take care to look into the reporting requirements on foreign income or gifts ranging up to a certain amount. For example, in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires individuals who receive more than $100,000 U.S. dollars from a foreign source to report it on a Form 3520. “You may not owe taxes on the money, but it informs the IRS that you received it,” Gragg says, stressing the importance of consulting with a professional. “They’re looking for certain terrorist activities and other illegal activity.” Due to the large sum of money your transferring, it would be in your best interest to speak with a banker (maybe even a lawyer or CPA) about this." }, { "docid": "20987", "title": "", "text": "1) The easy way is to find a job and they will assign you an SSN. 2) Here's the hard way. If you're Canadian, open a TD Boarderless account in the U.S. Put a small investment into any investment that would generate some type of income, such as capital gain, dividends, interest and etc... Then you will need to file a US tax return to declare your income if you receive U.S. tax slips (although you're likely below the min filing requirement) at year end. To file a U.S. tax return, you may need what's called an ITIN or individual tax id number. With the ITIN, you can get credit from the US TD boarderless account (only). Consider getting a prepaid US credit card with the TD account to futher build credit at that specific bank. It's not much credit, but you do start with creating a history." }, { "docid": "172567", "title": "", "text": "\"ACH transfers are the evolution of paper check clearing houses. Transactions are conducted in bulk and do not immediately settle -- the drawer and drawee still retain liability for a period of days or weeks after the transaction date. (I'd suggest looking to the legal definition of a check or draft to understand this better.) A for-fee wire transfer still goes through an intermediary, but settle immediately and irrevocably. Wire transfers are analogous to handing cash to someone. In the US, the various Federal Reserve banks are involved because they are the central banks of the the United States. In the past, bank panics were started or exacerbated when banks would refuse to honor drafts drawn on other banks of questionable stability. Imagine what would happen today if your electric company refused to accept Bank of America or Citibank's check/ACH transactions? Wouldn't you get withdraw every penny you could from BoA? During the 1907 banking panic, many solvent banks collapsed when the system of bank \"\"subscriptions\"\" (ie. arrangements where small town banks would \"\"subscribe\"\" to large commercial banks for check clearing, etc) broke down. Farmers, small business people and individuals lost everything, all because the larger banks would not (or could not) risk holding drafts/checks from the smaller banks.\"" }, { "docid": "552887", "title": "", "text": "My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more." }, { "docid": "96791", "title": "", "text": "\"See my comment below about the official exchange rate. There is no \"\"official\"\" exchange rate to apply as far as I'm aware. However the bank is already applying the same exchange rate you can find in the forex markets. They are simply applying a spread (meaning they will add some amount to the exchange rate whichever way you are exchanging currency). You will almost certainly not find a bank that doesn't apply a spread. Of course, their spread might be large, so that's why it is good to compare rates. By the way, 5 GBP/month seems reasonable for a foreign currency (or any) acct. The transaction fees might be cheaper in a different \"\"package\"\" so check. You should consider trying PayPal. Their spread is quite small - and publicly disclosed - and their per-transaction fees are very low. Of course, this is not a bank account. But you can easily connect it to your bank account and transfer the money between accounts quickly. They also offer free foreign currency accounts that you can basically open and close in a click. Transfers are instantaneous. I am based in Germany but I haven't had a problem with clients from various English-speaking countries using PayPal. They actually seem to prefer it in many instances.\"" }, { "docid": "125847", "title": "", "text": "\"**Are you nuts?** &gt;*\"\"Are you talking about TARP because that was paid back early and at 6.2% interest, the gov't made money on that bailout. The auto bailout however lost the gov't billions at the taxpayers expense and the bondholders got screwed over and the unions made out like bandits. Your title just shows how bias and uneducated you are on the subject. \"\"* I'm talking about the GFC/Global Financial Crisis. In 2008. -------------QUOTED TEXT-------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 This article is about the financial crisis that peaked in 2008. *For the global recession triggered by the financial crisis, see [Great Recession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession).* The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[2][3] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing \"\"a complete evaporation of liquidity\"\".[4] The bursting of the U.S. (United States) housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for (lending) borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[8][9][10][11] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (continued- thats just the first two paragraphs)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "280056", "title": "", "text": "Competition, or actually lack of competition, mostly due to a demand curve that has minimal change due to price. You would buy the equivalent, cheaper option if it was available, but the store has little interest in offering multiple, competing options that would drive their same store revenue down. And the competing stores (Grocery, Department, Drug, Card) have similar overhead costs (floor space, lights, personnel). Most carry the cards for incremental revenue, and observe little advantage to lower price for a card (customers seldom buy more cards due to a lower price). Thus they mark the price to what (most) customers are willing to pay. You may choose to shop the various stores and find the one that has a (slightly) better pricing for cards, and then stop at that store when you want to buy a card. But many cards are sold as an incremental purchase as part of a larger shopping trip (convenience), as the customer combines trips (reduce the time spent shopping, albeit not reducing the money spent)." } ]

[ { "docid": "245447", "title": "", "text": "\"For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the \"\"refund\"\" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a \"\"don't ask, don't tell\"\" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this \"\"loophole\"\". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a \"\"donation\"\" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash.\"" }, { "docid": "345712", "title": "", "text": "My wife and I use a digital form of the envelope system. We call it a budget; we record how much we want to allocate each month to spend--for each category of expense--in a spread sheet. Why use prepaid cards? Why not open a bunch of bank accounts and use debit cards from each if you want to separate the money? You could also keep a ledger for each account that you spend from on a smart phone or even in a physical ledger. The reason for the envelope method is that it psychologically hurts some people to physically part with cash. Once you digitize it in some factor, you lose what is the primary touted benefit, and it's no longer the envelope system. The secondary benefit that--once the budget for one category is gone, it's gone--is only as good as the discipline you have to not rob cash from another envelope; why is this any easier than the discipline of not debiting beyond the bottom of the ledger? So a budget IS a digital version of the envelope system; once the physical cash is removed from the equation, it's definitely not the envelope system. Sorry for the contrarian take on this question, but I've never been a fan of the envelope system for many of the reasons you have described. I guess I'm too young for the cash psychology to work for me." }, { "docid": "167492", "title": "", "text": "\"They say that banks earn 4 - 5% on deposits, so with lower costs they can give away 2-4%. They cite [this article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banking-industry-annual-profit-hit-record-in-2016-1488295836) which says that \"\"return on equity [for banks] up at 9.32%, the highest level since 2013\"\". But [net interest margin](https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/qbp/2017mar/chart4.html) is lower (2.5%-4.5%). And that's in a good year. They elaborate in a blog post: \"\"Fed Funds rates are supposed to affect deposit rates that banks pay to their customers, as, after all, deposit is a form of short term loan from depositor to the bank (see the explanation in our recent blog). However, as WalletHub notes in their recent report, it has not actually happened recently. As the report notes, for traditional branch-based banks, savings and checking account rates are virtually unchanged. You are probably getting the same 0.01% in your checking or savings account? Meanwhile, rates on your credit card went up by 0.53% since December 2015.\"\" \"\"So why aren’t deposit rates increasing? One reason often cited, is actually the relative decrease in the levels of competition in the U.S. market (as we described in our earlier blog). While there are still thousands of banks in the U.S., 4 control ~40% of the assets and close to half of the assets (loans). The other reason could be, perhaps, that after almost 10 years of getting close to zero in your bank account, you will forget that it could be any different. In fact, bank executives are puzzled why consumers are not “demanding” more on their deposits. You can walk to the branch and “demand” more money from your bank, but you may end up in county jail. The only other viable option is to take your deposits elsewhere, or vote with your feet.\"\" (https://blog.meetbeam.com/draft-why-are-lending-rates-going-up-but-deposit-rates-are-not-76e050b382af) \"\"Beam makes money by providing value-added services to our partnering bank and other financial service partners in the banking ecoysystem.\"\" That sounds like they might be selling your data?\"" }, { "docid": "141973", "title": "", "text": "Couple of thoughts... Opposition research is valuable to campaigns. They spend millions of dollars developing it. So it definitely has value. I don't believe it has to be cash or equivalents to be illegal. Foreign governments could just buy air time for candidates. It's the same thing. Don Jr may *not* have actually gotten anything of value. That is uncertain. No one knows what happened in the room. He *did* demonstrate an intent to get that thing, and collude in the process. We don't know, so that's why you investigate. It's entirely possible that Don Jr tried to collude, but failed. I also think there's reason for suspicion about the content of the meeting. First it was about adoption. Then it was something else (I can't remember the exact timeline of explanations). If it was innocuous, there would have been one unchanging story." }, { "docid": "278071", "title": "", "text": "\"I strongly suggest you look at CreditKarma and see how each aspect of what you are doing impacts your score. Here's my take - There's an anti-credit approach that many have which, to me, is over the top. \"\"Zero cards, zero credit\"\" feels to me like one step shy of \"\"off the grid.\"\" It's so far to the right that it actually is more of an effort than just playing the game a bit. You are depositing to the card frequently to do what you are doing. That takes time and effort. Why not just pay the bill in full each month, and just track purchases so you move the cash to the account in advance, whether that's physical or on paper? In your case, it's the same as charging one item every few months to keep the card active. If that's what you'd like to do, that's fine. I'd just avoid having the card take up too much of your time and thought. (Disclaimer - I've used and written about Credit Karma. I have no business relationship with them, my articles are to help readers, and not paid placement.) mhoran's response is in line with my thinking. His advice to use the card to build your score is what the zero-credit folk criticize as \"\"a great debt score.\"\" Nonsense. If you use debt wisely, you'll never pay interest (except for a mortgage, perhaps) and you may gain rewards with no cost to you.\"" }, { "docid": "292748", "title": "", "text": "\"I really have to use the business card for personal expenses, please assume that in your answer. This is very hard to believe. You must do that? Why not just have the company pay you $1600 each month? Then you can use that money for whatever you want. Why can't you do this? (I cannot think of a legitimate reason...) How to integrate the personal expenses in company? Anyway, to answer your question, what I've done when I accidentally used my corporate card for a personal expense is to code the expense as a payment to me similar to if a check had been written to me. If you aren't ever paying yourself, then you should just pay the company back the $1600 every month. As a side note, I highly recommend you don't do this. By doing this on a regular basis you are opening the door for piercing the corporate veil. This means that the financial protections provided by the LLC could potentially be stripped away since personal and corporate funds are being mixed. The unfortunate end result is that personal assets could end up being fair game too in a judgement against the company. Even if you aren't an owner, your relative could be considered to be \"\"using business money for personal expenses\"\", namely, letting a relative spend business funds for personal use. How to show more expenses and lessen the profit? If you're referring to the personal expenses, then you absolutely do not want to do this! That's illegal and worthy of stiff penalties, which possibly include jail time for tax evasion. Better to just have the company pay you and then the entire payment is deductible and reduces the profit of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "134063", "title": "", "text": "Plus you already have money in a 529 plan that is meant for college expenses (and cannot be used to pay student loans) - use that money for what it's for. I disagree with @DStanley, as a current college student I would say to take out loans. Most of the time I am against loans though. So WHY? There are very few times you will receive loans at 0% interest (for 4+ years). You have money saved currently, but you do not know what the future entails. If you expend all of your money on tuition and your car breaks down, what do you do? You can not used student loans to pay for your broken car.Student loans, as long as they are subsidized, serve as a wonderful risk buffer. You can pay off your loans with summer internships and retain the initial cash you had for additional activities that make college enjoyable, i.e - Fraternity/ Sorority, clubs, dinners, and social nights. Another benefit to taking these loans would assist in building credit, with an additional caveat being to get a credit card. In general, debt/loans/credit cards are non-beneficial. But, you have to establish debt to allow others to know that you can repay. Establishing this credit rating earlier than later is critical to cheaper interest rates on (say) a mortgage. You have made it through, you have watched your expenses, and you can pay your debt. Finish It. If you do it right, you will not have loans when you graduate, you will have a stunning credit rating, and you will have enjoyed college to its fullest potential (remember, you only really go through it once.) But this is contingent on: Good luck, EDIT: I did not realize the implication of this penalty which made me edit the line above to include: (to the extent you can per year) For now, student loan repayment isn't considered a qualified educational expense. This means that if you withdraw from a 529 to pay your debts, you may be subject to income taxes and penalties.Source Furthermore, Currently, taxpayers who use 529 plan money for anything other than qualified education expenses are subject to a 10% federal tax penalty. Source My advice with this new knowledge, save your 529 if you plan on continuing higher education at a more prestigious school. If you do not, use it later in your undergraduate years." }, { "docid": "417862", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Because it's an interview piece I've read lots of those, never seen one this egregiously use a clickbait title then bait the reader to continue all the way to the second page to get the explanation. &gt;Not sure why this is bothering you so much? What does **so much** mean? You mean **so much** that I'd point it out? That's not a very high bar. I do find it odd that you care about my criticism of this trash article **so much** that you're vigorously defending it." }, { "docid": "125204", "title": "", "text": "I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)" }, { "docid": "273947", "title": "", "text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"" }, { "docid": "337669", "title": "", "text": "\"Couple of things to make sure you have going for you since you are not at a target school are as follows: 1. Make sure your GPA is amazing and if it isn't make sure you are in 3-4 professional organizations (not just join them, get involved). 2. Make sure you know technicals and how to talk about them, VERY IMPORTANT 3. Start applying to internships at all of the banks, Big 4 Accounting, PE, fund account firms in the city (there are many). You have to get an internship this year and next year, the more the better. get summer/fall/spring internships. 4. Network with any and every person you know in IB, working in M&amp;A, working for IB shops, working for PE shops, other finance alumni. 5. Do more networking, find out if there are any networking events, conferences, meet and greets, charity events, NFP events (there are a lot, just need to find them). Don't bombard people with the \"\"I'm at DePaul in Finance and want to be in IB.\"\" story line, perfect/hone/practice/perfect your elevator pitch. Remember, you don't need to tell why you need a job, you need to tell them why they need you to make money. 6. Find some industries that might interest you (and are valuable) and learn them. Learn the technicals to solar energy or some emerging markets. PS: I know you want to make a shit ton of money, but you'll fail in IB if that is all you want to do because the guys that get these roles love the job because of the chase and the deal. They fundamentally understand the markets they work in on another level, they make themselves valuable to the firm they work for. I think you should dive into what IB is first.\"" }, { "docid": "505467", "title": "", "text": "If everyone bought used cars, who would buy the new cars so that everyone else could buy them used? Rental car companies? Your rant expresses a misunderstanding of fundamental economics (as demand for used cars increases, so will prices) but economics is off-topic here, so let me explain why I bought a new car—that I am now in the 10th year of driving. When I bought the car I currently drive, I was single, I was working full-time, and I was going to school full-time. I bought a 2007 Toyota Corolla for about $16,500 cash out the door. I wanted a reliable car that was clean and attractive enough that I wouldn't be embarrassed in it if I took a girl out for dinner. I could have bought a much more expensive car, but I wanted to be real about myself and not give the wrong impression about my views on money. I've done all the maintenance, and the car is still very nice even after 105K miles. It will handle at least that many more miles barring any crashes. Could I have purchased a nice used car for less? Certainly, but because it was the last model year before a redesign, the dealer was clearly motivated to give me a good deal, so I didn't lose too much driving it off the lot. There are a lot of reasons why people buy new cars. I didn't want to look like a chump when out on a date. Real-estate agents often like to make a good impression as they are driving clients to see new homes. Some people can simply afford it and don't want to worry about what abuse a prior owner may have done. I don't feel defensive about my decision to buy a new car those years ago. The other car I've purchased in the last 10 years was a four year old used car, and it certainly does a good job for my wife who doesn't put too many miles on it. I will not rule out buying another new car in the future either. Some times the difference in price isn't significant enough that used is always the best choice." }, { "docid": "497764", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll start with a question... Is the 63K before or after taxes? The short answer to your question on how much is reasonable is: \"\"It depends.\"\" It depends on a lot more than where you live, it depends on what you want... do you want to pay down debt? Do you want to save? Are you trying to buy a house? Those will influence how much you \"\"can\"\" (should let yourselves) spend. It also depends on your actual salary... just because I spend 5% of my salary on something doesn't mean bonkers to you if you're making 63,000 and I'm only making 10,000. I also have a lot of respect for you trying to take this on. It's never easy. But I would also recommend you start by trying to see what you can do to track how much you are actually spending. That can be hard, especially if you mostly use cash. Once you're tracking what you spend, I still think you're coming at this a bit backwards though... rather than ask 'how much is reasonable' to spend on those other expenses, you basically need to rule out the bigger items first. This means things like taxes, your housing, food, transportation, and kid-related expenses. (I've got 2.5 kids of my own.) I would guess that you're listing your pre-tax salaries on here... so start first with whatever it costs you to pay taxes. I'm a US citizen living in Berlin, haven't filed UK taxes, but uktaxcalculators.co.uk says that on 63,000 a year with 3 deductions your net earnings will actually be 43,500. That's 3,625/month. Then what does it cost you each month for rent/utilities/etc. to put a house over your family's head? The rule of thumb they taught in my home-economics class was 35-40%, but that's not for Europe... you'll know what it costs. Let's say its 1,450 a month (40%) for rent and utilities and maybe insurance. That leaves 2,175. The next necessity after housing is food. My current food budget is about 5-6% of my after-tax salary. But that may not compare... the cost to feed a family of 3 is a fairly fixed number, and our salaries aren't the same. As I said, I am a US expat living in Berlin, so I looked at this cost of living calculator, and it looks like groceries are about 7-10% higher there around Cardiff than here in Germany. Still, I spend about 120 € per week on food. That has a fair margin in it for splurging on ice cream and a couple brewskies. It feeds me (I'm almost 2m and about 100 kilos) and my family of four. Let's say you spend 100£ a week on groceries. For budgeting, that's 433£ a month. (52 weeks / 12 months == 4.333 weeks/month) But let's call it 500£. That leaves 1,675. From here, you'll have to figure out the details of where your own money is going--that's why I said you should really start tracking your expenses somehow... even just for a short time. But for the purposes of completing the answers to your questions, the next step is to look at saving before you try spending anything else. A nice target is to aim for 10% of your after-tax pay going into a savings account... this is apart from any other investments. Let's say you do that, you'll be putting away 363£ per month. That leaves 1,300£. As far as other expenses... you need some money for transport. You haven't mentioned car(s) but let's say you're spending another 500£ there. That would be about enough to cover one with the petrol you need to get around town. That leaves 800£ As far as a clothing budget and entertainment, I usually match my grocery budget with what I call \"\"mad money\"\". That's basically money that goes towards other stuff that I would love to categorize, but that my wife gets annoyed with my efforts to drill into on a regular basis. That's another 500£, which leaves 300£. You mentioned debts... assuming that's a credit card at around 20% interest, you probably pay 133£ a month just in interest... (20% = 0.20 / 12 = 0.01667 x 8,000 = 133) plus some nominal payment towards principal. So let's call it 175£. That leaves you with 125£ of wiggle room, assuming I have even caught all of your expenses. And depending on how they're timed, you are probably feeling a serious squeeze in between paychecks. I recognize that you're asking specific questions, but I think that just based on the questions you need a bit more careful backing into the budget. And you REALLY need to track what you're spending for the time being, until you can say... right, we usually spend about this much on X... how can we cut it out? From there the basics of getting your financial house in order are splattered across the interwebs. Make a budget... stick to it... pay down debts... save. Develop goals and mini incentives/rewards as a way to make sure your change your psyche about following a budget.\"" }, { "docid": "145220", "title": "", "text": "If you've got the money to pay off your credit cards, do it. Today, if possible. There is no need to pay another penny of interest to them. They may or may not cancel your cards. That is up to them. We can't know what will trigger an individual bank to cancel your card. The answers you got on your other question offer some speculation on why some banks might cancel, but this is not something banks reveal. Anything you do on your own to try to keep the cards open is just a guess, and may or may not succeed. But ask yourself: why do you want to keep these cards? Is it for the convenience of the card? I agree that credit cards (paid in full monthly) are convenient, but when they start costing you money, they aren't worth it anymore, in my opinion. Debit cards have most of the same conveniences of credit cards, and are free. If it is for emergencies, I recommend instead building up an emergency cash fund. That way, if an emergency arises, you won't be forced to borrow money at high credit card interest rates. If the reason you want to hang on to the credit card is so you can spend more than you have, then you will find yourself in the same situation again. If I were you, I would pay off the cards ASAP. If the banks cancel your cards, just switch to a debit card and be thankful that you are no longer continuously leaking money to the banks." }, { "docid": "374063", "title": "", "text": "This is an organization with a strong Christian atmosphere that actively employs fellow believers and hosts a bible study every morning. If that isn't a church, then what *do* you consider a church? Also, it wasn't an analogy. It was an explanation of why certain organizations may choose to hire like-minded people. EDIT: No clue why this is getting downvotes. Equal opportunity employment is not without its practical limitations." }, { "docid": "446167", "title": "", "text": "\"What a great explanation! I was familiar with many of the concepts, but I've learnt quite a lot. Do you happen to know any sources for further reading that are just as understandable to a non-economist? And/Or would you mind continuing / expanding this into whichever direction you find worth exploring? I would love to see this explanation \"\"connected\"\" to the debt crisis and how/why the US and europe seem to be in different situations there. Maybe that would be too complex to explain in more detail using your model, but maybe it is possible..?\"" }, { "docid": "507870", "title": "", "text": "Tax cuts do lead to economic growth, and why not? More money circulating in the private economy is good for everybody. It’s why the stock market is up big on the prospect for tax cuts. The problem is the rosy growth projections that accompany these plans. The growth will occur, but the pace of growth is a big question and very hard to model. So a prudent policy proposal would be to cut spending as well while the growth materializes. Then (hopefully) that spending cut becomes permanent as the economy grows so the private economy grows at the expense of the state." }, { "docid": "564983", "title": "", "text": "\"Several people here have highlighted the incentive/agency problems that tend to naturally arise when securitizing mortgages. However, the market for mortgage-backed securities has existed for decades, and during most of that time these agency problems were held in check. Moreover, academics knew about this problem even before the credit crisis and actually *recommended* the use of trenching in order to avoid the moral hazard problems associated with securitization (see DeMarzo 2005). So, to give a compelling historical explanation for why the crisis happened *when* it did, you need to explain what changed in the mortgage securitization market to enable these previously unproblematic agency relationships to breakdown. So what changed? In short, the growth of the market for CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) composed of mortgage-backed securities), and not the MBS market itself. This market grew so rapidly in the mid-2000s because the ratings agencies created an opportunity for banks to take low-rated MBS debt and give it a higher rating by merely repackaging it into a CDO. It was ratings arbitrage, through and through. Explanations that place the brunt of the blame on the GSAs (i.e. Fannie and Freddie) cannot adequately explain why the majority of mortgage-related losses during the credit crisis were concentrated in CDOs of MBSs, and not in the vanilla MBS market. Here's what happened. Back in the day -- say, pre-early 2000s -- the agency/incentive problems that naturally arise in mortgage securitization were held in check by careful institutional investors who would rigorously assess the default risk of the higher-risk MBS tranches. They had a deep knowledge of the mortgage business. Sometimes they would even go so far as manually examining the loan documentation, the profile of the borrowers, the quality of the collateral, and so on. There were a lot of indiscriminating buyers who were happy to purchase the AAA and AA tranches, but they could afford to be indiscriminating because the banks who were securitizing MBSs knew that without selling to the discriminating buyers of higher-risk debt, they wouldn't be able to break even. It worked a bit like a market for fine wines. I don't know much about wine, but when I walk into a shop that sells fine wines, I can be reasonably certain that there will be a reasonably strong relationship between price and the quality of the wine. Basically, I get to free-ride off the superior discrimination of the wine connoisseurs who regularly visit the shop. Once the ratings agencies created the now infamous \"\"ratings arbitrage\"\" between the MBS and CDO markets, the market for CDOs on MBSs expanded. As this market grew, these \"\"discriminating\"\" buyers became a proportionally smaller part of the MBS market. The folks building CDOs of MBSs didn't know very much about the mortgage business itself; instead, they tended to rely on statistical default models provided by the ratings agencies that predicted the probability of mortgage default based on quantitative variables such as borrowers' credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, etc. The problem is that these models used historical data that was collected back when the \"\"discriminating\"\" institutional investors kept the agency problems in the MBS market in check. The growth of the CDO market spurred even more mortgage securitization, which led lending standards to deteriorate because firms like Countrywide knew that the CDO buyers only cared about credit scores, LTV ratios, etc. However, undiscriminating buyers of MBS were unable to detect these changes in default risk because the models they were using to \"\"see\"\" those changes were becoming invalidated by the growth of the CDO market itself If you want to read more about this, I'd highly recommend MacKenzie's 2011 paper in the American Journal of Sociology [see here]( http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/36082/CrisisRevised.pdf). It's a detailed historical account of the changes in valuation practices/models used within the MBS and CDO markets, and how these practices became invalidated as the CDO market grew in size. **TL;DR: the credit ratings created a \"\"ratings arbitrage\"\" that the banks took advantage of. They are as much, if not more, at fault as the GSAs.** For more info on the deterioration in mortgage quality in the mid-2000s, check out: Keys, Benjamin, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. Did Securitization Lead to Lax Screening? Evidence from Subprime Loans. Rajan, Uday, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. “The Failure of Models That Predict Failure: Distance, Incentives and Defaults.” SSRN eLibrary (December). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1296982. Also, the citation I mentioned above: DeMarzo, P. (2005) \"\"The pooling and tranching of securities: a model of informed intermediation\"\" Review of Economic Studies, 18(1):1-35, 2005\"" }, { "docid": "117661", "title": "", "text": "You are using interchangeably borrow/loan and gift. They are very different. For the mortgage company, they would prefer that the money from friends and family be a gift. If it is a loan, then you have an obligation to pay it back. If they see money added to your bank accounts in the months just before getting the loan, they will ask for the source of the money. Anything you claim as a gift will be required to be documented by you and the person making the gift. You don't want to lie about it, and have the other person lie about it. They will make you sign documents, if they catch you in a lie you can lose the loan, or be prosecuted for fraud. If the money from friends and family is a loan, the payments for the loan will impact the amount of money you can borrow. From the view of the IRS the gift tax only comes into play if during one calendar year a person makes a gift to somebody else of 14,000 or more. There are two points related to this. It is person-to-person. So if your dad gives you 14K, and your mom gives you 14K, and your dad gives your wife 14k and your mom gives your wife 14K; everything is fine. So two people can give 2 people 56K in one year. Please use separate checks to make it clear to the IRS. If somebody gives a gift above the exclusion limit for the year, they will have to complete IRS form 709. This essentially removes the excess amount from their life time exclusion, in other words from their estate. Nothing to worry about from the IRS. The bank wants to see the documentation. Also you are not a charity, so they can't claim it as a donation. Why do you have 6,000 in cash sitting around. The mortgage company will want an explanation for all large deposits so you better have a good explanation. From the IRS FAQ on Gift Taxes: What can be excluded from gifts? The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts. Number 3 on the list is the one you care about." } ]

[ { "docid": "4066", "title": "", "text": "Why do people buy them when they would be cheap to make for themselves? Convenience. While you could easily find some pictures and lay them out with a sentiment, buy some card stock, print in colour, trim it, and perhaps glue on some glitter or whatnot, and then find an envelope that fits it, it's likely to take you an hour or more to do so. And you'll invest far more than $6 on your printer and various inventories. I made cards for my kids- we had construction paper, glitter, coloured markers etc and there was no need for an envelope. But most people will find it quicker and simpler to buy one fully assembled. The cost of the online ones is weird I agree. Perhaps people are also not confident they can compose a good greeting? Why do stores stock $6 cards that they buy for $3 (retail markup is 50-100% and I'm sure it's closer to 100% for cards) when a different supplier might provide them for $2? Well, even if such a supplier existed, I'm sure the store would be happy to sell for $6 still (see: people buy them) so there would be no consumer impact. A store that sells cards for $5 isn't going to siphon customers from elsewhere because most of us just don't buy cards often enough for it to matter. Why does nobody become that supplier who will sell them cheaper? Selling stuff is more expensive than making stuff, and getting your product into retail stores is hard. Hard means time and time means money and all of that contributes more to the card price than the ink and paper do. That said, dollar stores sell cards, for a dollar typically, and people do buy them. I find they have less colours and the artwork is cruder. Perhaps you even get what you pay for when it comes to design, layout, printing etc." } ]

[ { "docid": "345712", "title": "", "text": "My wife and I use a digital form of the envelope system. We call it a budget; we record how much we want to allocate each month to spend--for each category of expense--in a spread sheet. Why use prepaid cards? Why not open a bunch of bank accounts and use debit cards from each if you want to separate the money? You could also keep a ledger for each account that you spend from on a smart phone or even in a physical ledger. The reason for the envelope method is that it psychologically hurts some people to physically part with cash. Once you digitize it in some factor, you lose what is the primary touted benefit, and it's no longer the envelope system. The secondary benefit that--once the budget for one category is gone, it's gone--is only as good as the discipline you have to not rob cash from another envelope; why is this any easier than the discipline of not debiting beyond the bottom of the ledger? So a budget IS a digital version of the envelope system; once the physical cash is removed from the equation, it's definitely not the envelope system. Sorry for the contrarian take on this question, but I've never been a fan of the envelope system for many of the reasons you have described. I guess I'm too young for the cash psychology to work for me." }, { "docid": "192811", "title": "", "text": "\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \"\"emergencies\"\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\"" }, { "docid": "219181", "title": "", "text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month." }, { "docid": "85382", "title": "", "text": "\"Realize that some friends are a bad influence, and maybe aren't really \"\"friends\"\". Don't be afraid to say \"\"sorry, I can't make it tonight\"\". Don't be afraid to go out shopping and not buy anything. Make sure they know why (Too much Credit Card Debit, saving for a house, etc). If your habits suddenly change with no explanation, they may think you are dissing them. But if you explain your reasons, they will probably support you (if they are real friends). In fact, they probably have the same money issues. Suggest lower-cost alternatives to hanging out. Instead of going out, suggest they come over to your place and watch a movie, play board games, Wii, etc. You can have snacks at your place. Alcohol is a lot cheaper when you pour it yourself!\"" }, { "docid": "529313", "title": "", "text": "\"There's a lot wrong with your explanation and analogy. I believe you are trying to refute otherwiseyep but you haven't really. You have described the \"\"work\"\" or the \"\"step in the money-building process,\"\" that was happening *before* otherwiseyep's scenario. otherwiseyep's scenario begins at \"\"the apple farmer wants to get some meat but the orchard hasn't matured yet,\"\" implying that apples have in fact been traded for meat in real time. Secondly, I would much prefer a person build their own explanation and analogy than build onto someone else's while thinking it insightful in any way. Lastly, you went all Paul Krugman on us and used the word \"\"costs of production\"\" which I *think* you mean to be \"\"work\"\" but you did not build that analogy. When you went \"\"Paul Krugman,\"\" you jumped a HUGE boat. Krugman talks about very advanced economics and some of his stuff is political in nature. At no point did you build any specific analogies to Paul Krugman's many theories. You so completely lost me with that, I almost went into negative integers. Edit: otherwiseyep had been misspelled as otherwiseyes. Slightly laughable.\"" }, { "docid": "449439", "title": "", "text": "\"Current is another word for Checking, as it is called in the US. Savings account is an interest-bearing account with certain limitations. For example, in the US you cannot withdraw money from it more than 6 times a month. Here is the explanation why. Current account is a \"\"general-use\"\" account on which you can write checks, use ATM/Debit cards and have unlimited transactions. It can also have negative balance (if your bank agrees to let you overdraft, they usually charge huge fees for that though). Checking accounts can have interest as well, but they usually don't, and if they do - it's much lower than the savings account interest.\"" }, { "docid": "145220", "title": "", "text": "If you've got the money to pay off your credit cards, do it. Today, if possible. There is no need to pay another penny of interest to them. They may or may not cancel your cards. That is up to them. We can't know what will trigger an individual bank to cancel your card. The answers you got on your other question offer some speculation on why some banks might cancel, but this is not something banks reveal. Anything you do on your own to try to keep the cards open is just a guess, and may or may not succeed. But ask yourself: why do you want to keep these cards? Is it for the convenience of the card? I agree that credit cards (paid in full monthly) are convenient, but when they start costing you money, they aren't worth it anymore, in my opinion. Debit cards have most of the same conveniences of credit cards, and are free. If it is for emergencies, I recommend instead building up an emergency cash fund. That way, if an emergency arises, you won't be forced to borrow money at high credit card interest rates. If the reason you want to hang on to the credit card is so you can spend more than you have, then you will find yourself in the same situation again. If I were you, I would pay off the cards ASAP. If the banks cancel your cards, just switch to a debit card and be thankful that you are no longer continuously leaking money to the banks." }, { "docid": "37823", "title": "", "text": "What sort of emergency requires payment up front for which 2-3 days processing of a stock sale would pose a problem? In my case, the sudden and unexpected death of my wife. Back in 2011, my wife was struck and killed in a traffic incident. I had to immediately (not in 2 - 3 days) cover 50% of the entire costs of the funeral. The balance was due shortly after, though I now forget if the balance was due in 7 days or in 30. I suspect the latter. The life insurance paid out in approximately 4 months for this simple case. Even if your mortgage is insured, you still have to pay the entire balance, along with living expenses, until the paperwork is resolved. And, again in simple cases, assume this will take months rather than days or weeks. My point is, the funeral is only one of the expenses you'll have to cover in such a situation, though generally you'll have sufficient lead time for the other expenses, where your investments would likely be sufficiently liquid. Yes, a credit card would (and did) help in this situation, but if you have no credit card (as your question poses), you need ready access to thousands of dollars to cover this sort of eventuality. My bank told me that many people in such a situation have to take out an emergency loan the very day their spouse dies. Let me assure you this would be... emotionally difficult. Funerals vary widely in price. The Motley Fool indicates the median cost of a funeral with a vault was $8,343 in 2014. Crematory fees, a headstone, flowers, food, obituaries, all add to this cost. My total cost was closer to three times the median, though some of the expenses (headstone, primarily) came later. I'm sure I could have gone for a cheaper funeral, though it's hard to make rational economic decisions at that sort of time. I don't recall the exact amount I had to put down, but it was somewhere around $6000 - $8000. (No need to leave a comment expressing condolences; thanks, but I've already had plenty and now my goal is to help share knowledge. :) )" }, { "docid": "531504", "title": "", "text": "It looks like your visa being refused is entirely irrelevant. What happens in bankruptcy is that all the assets of the bankrupt entity are taken over, liquidated, and the proceeds are distributed to the creditors. You're one of the creditors, and as you've been told - the proceeds are not enough to pay all the creditors in full. This is quite common in bankruptcies. What you can do is sue in court and demand priority over other creditors, but... a. You're exactly the same as many other creditors (rest of the students), so why would you get a priority? b. Suing costs money and even if you get more, you'll pay way more for legal fees and expenses. What else can you do? If you paid with a credit card - your credit card company may be able to reverse charges. Sometimes that works, depending on how fast you move. If you paid with a check - your bank may similarly be able to stop payment on the check. This provided it hasn't been settled yet." }, { "docid": "2018", "title": "", "text": "\"As i see it, with a debit card, they are taken kinda out of the game. They are not lending money, it seems really bad for them. Not exactly. It is true that they're not lending money, but they charge a hefty commission from the retailers for each swipe which is pure profit with almost no risk. One of the proposals considered (or maybe approved already, don't know) in Congress is to cap that hefty commission, which will really make the debit cards merely a service for the checking account holder, rather than a profit maker for the bank. On the other hand, it's definitely good for individuals. I disagree with that. Debit cards are easier to use than checks, but they provide much less protection than credit cards. Here's what I had to say on this a while ago, and seems like the community agrees. But, why do we really need a credit history to buy some of the more expensive stuff Because the system is broken. It rewards people in debt by giving them more opportunities to get into even more debts, while people who owe nothing to noone cannot get a credit when they do need one. With the current system the potential creditor can only asses the risk of someone who has debt already, they have no way of assessing risks of someone with no debts. To me, all this credit card system seems like an awfully nice way to make loads of money, backed by governments as well. Well, credit cards have nothing to do with it. It's the credit scores system that is broken. If we replace the \"\"card\"\" with \"\"score\"\" in your question - then yes, you're thinking correctly. That of course is true for the US, in other countries I have no knowledge on how the creditors assess the risks.\"" }, { "docid": "481822", "title": "", "text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you." }, { "docid": "355592", "title": "", "text": "\"There absolutely is a specific model that makes this so popular with so many credit card companies, and that model is \"\"per transaction fees\"\". Card companies also receive cost-sharing incentives from certain merchants. There is also a psychological reasoning as an additional incentive. When you want to accept credit cards as a source of payment as a business, you generally have three kinds of fees to pay: monthly/yearly subscription fees, percentage of transaction fee, and per transaction fee. The subscription fees can be waived and sometimes are expressed as a \"\"minimum cost\"\", so the business pays a certain amount whether you actually have people use credit cards or not. Many of these fees don't actually make it to the credit card companies, as they just pay the service providers and middle-men processing companies. The percentage of transaction fee means that the business accepting payment via credit card must pay a percentage usually ranging from 1-3% of the total transactions they accept. So if they get paid $10,000 a month by customers in the form of credit cards, the business pays out $100-300 a month to the credit card processor - a good portion of which will make it back to the credit card issuing company, and is a major source of income for them. The per transaction fee means that every time a transaction is run involving a card, a set fee is incurred by the business (which is commonly anywhere from $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction). If that $10,000 a month business mentioned previously had 10 customers paying $1,000 each at $0.10 a transaction, that's only $1 in fees to the credit card processors/companies. But if instead that business was a grocery store with an average transaction of $40, that's $25 in fees. This system means that if you are a credit card company and want to encourage people to make a specific kind of purchase, you should encourage purchases that people make many times for relatively small amounts of money. In a perfect world you'd want them to buy $1 bottles of water 5 times a day with their credit card. If the card company had 50,000 card holders doing this, at the end of 1 year the company would have $91,250,000 spread across 91,250,000 transactions. The card company might reasonably make $0.05 per transaction and %1 of the purchase total. The Get Rewarded For Drinking More campaign might earn the card company $912,500 in percentage fees and over $4.5 million in transaction fees. Yet the company would only have to pay 3% in rewards from the percentage fees, or $2.7 million, back to customers. If the card company had encouraged using your credit card for large once-yearly purchases, they would actually pay out more money in rewards than they collect in card-use fees. Yet by encouraging people to make small transactions very often the card company earns a nice net-income even if absolutely every customer pays their balance in full, on time, and pays no annual/monthly fees for their card - which obviously does not happen in the real world. No wonder companies try so hard to encourage you to use your card all the time! For card companies to make real money they need you to use your credit card. As discussed above, the more often you use the card the better (for them), and there can be a built-in preference for small repeated transactions. But no matter what the size of transaction, they can't make the big bucks if you don't use the card at all! Selling your personal information isn't as profitable if they don't have in-depth info on you to sell, either. So how do they get you to make that plastic sing? Gas and groceries are a habit. Most people buy one or the other at least once a weak, and a very large number of us make such purchases multiple times a week. Some people even make such purchases multiple times a day! So how do people pay for such transactions? The goal of the card companies is to have you use their product to pay as much as possible. If you pay for something regularly you'll keep that card in your wallet with you, rather than it getting lost in a drawer at home. So the card companies want you to use your card as a matter of habit, too. If you use a card to buy for gas and groceries, why wouldn't you use it for other things too? Lunch, dinner, buying online? If the card company pays out more and makes less for large, less-regular purchases, then the ideal for them is to have you use the card for small regular purchase and yet still have you use the card for larger infrequent purchases even if you get reduced/no rewards. What better way to achieve all these goals than to offer special rewards on gas and groceries? And because it's not a one-time purchase, you aren't so likely to game the system; no getting that special 5% cash-back card, booking your once-per-decade dream vacation, then paying it off and cancelling it soon after - which would actually make the card company lose money on the deal. In the end, credit card companies as a whole have a business model that almost universally prefers customers who use their products regularly and preferably for small amounts a maximum number of times. They want to reduce their expenses (like rewards paid out) while maximizing their revenue. They haven't figured out a better way to do all of this so well as to encourage people to use their cards for gas and groceries - everything else seems like a losing proposition in comparison. The only time this preference differs is when they can avoid paying some or all of the cost of rewards, such as when the merchants themselves honor the rewards in exchange for reduced or zero payment from the card companies. So if you use an airline card that seems to give you 10% back in airline rewards? Well, that's probably a great deal for the card company if the airline provides that reward at their own expense to try to boost business. The card company keeps the transaction-related fees and pays out almost nothing in rewards - the perfect offer (for them)! And this assumes no shenanigans like black-out periods, \"\"not valid with any other offers\"\" rewards like on cars where only a fool pays full MSRP (and sometimes the rewards are tagged in this sort of way, like not valid on sale/clearance items, etc), expiring rewards, the fact that they know not everyone uses their rewards, annual fees that are greater than the rewards you'll actually be obtaining after accounting for all the other issues, etc. And credit card industries are known for their shenanigans!\"" }, { "docid": "70109", "title": "", "text": "\"Without divulging too many specifics. Net income is 73k. Total income is 136k. Filed as an S-Corp. Using Quickbooks to classify expenses etc. I know its not much information but I don't know what to look out for, like \"\"whoa, net income is 73k, you gotta spend that!\"\" I have a CPA but isn't offering much in the terms of \"\"help\"\" and \"\"explanation\"\". Thanks for your time!\"" }, { "docid": "564983", "title": "", "text": "\"Several people here have highlighted the incentive/agency problems that tend to naturally arise when securitizing mortgages. However, the market for mortgage-backed securities has existed for decades, and during most of that time these agency problems were held in check. Moreover, academics knew about this problem even before the credit crisis and actually *recommended* the use of trenching in order to avoid the moral hazard problems associated with securitization (see DeMarzo 2005). So, to give a compelling historical explanation for why the crisis happened *when* it did, you need to explain what changed in the mortgage securitization market to enable these previously unproblematic agency relationships to breakdown. So what changed? In short, the growth of the market for CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) composed of mortgage-backed securities), and not the MBS market itself. This market grew so rapidly in the mid-2000s because the ratings agencies created an opportunity for banks to take low-rated MBS debt and give it a higher rating by merely repackaging it into a CDO. It was ratings arbitrage, through and through. Explanations that place the brunt of the blame on the GSAs (i.e. Fannie and Freddie) cannot adequately explain why the majority of mortgage-related losses during the credit crisis were concentrated in CDOs of MBSs, and not in the vanilla MBS market. Here's what happened. Back in the day -- say, pre-early 2000s -- the agency/incentive problems that naturally arise in mortgage securitization were held in check by careful institutional investors who would rigorously assess the default risk of the higher-risk MBS tranches. They had a deep knowledge of the mortgage business. Sometimes they would even go so far as manually examining the loan documentation, the profile of the borrowers, the quality of the collateral, and so on. There were a lot of indiscriminating buyers who were happy to purchase the AAA and AA tranches, but they could afford to be indiscriminating because the banks who were securitizing MBSs knew that without selling to the discriminating buyers of higher-risk debt, they wouldn't be able to break even. It worked a bit like a market for fine wines. I don't know much about wine, but when I walk into a shop that sells fine wines, I can be reasonably certain that there will be a reasonably strong relationship between price and the quality of the wine. Basically, I get to free-ride off the superior discrimination of the wine connoisseurs who regularly visit the shop. Once the ratings agencies created the now infamous \"\"ratings arbitrage\"\" between the MBS and CDO markets, the market for CDOs on MBSs expanded. As this market grew, these \"\"discriminating\"\" buyers became a proportionally smaller part of the MBS market. The folks building CDOs of MBSs didn't know very much about the mortgage business itself; instead, they tended to rely on statistical default models provided by the ratings agencies that predicted the probability of mortgage default based on quantitative variables such as borrowers' credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, etc. The problem is that these models used historical data that was collected back when the \"\"discriminating\"\" institutional investors kept the agency problems in the MBS market in check. The growth of the CDO market spurred even more mortgage securitization, which led lending standards to deteriorate because firms like Countrywide knew that the CDO buyers only cared about credit scores, LTV ratios, etc. However, undiscriminating buyers of MBS were unable to detect these changes in default risk because the models they were using to \"\"see\"\" those changes were becoming invalidated by the growth of the CDO market itself If you want to read more about this, I'd highly recommend MacKenzie's 2011 paper in the American Journal of Sociology [see here]( http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/36082/CrisisRevised.pdf). It's a detailed historical account of the changes in valuation practices/models used within the MBS and CDO markets, and how these practices became invalidated as the CDO market grew in size. **TL;DR: the credit ratings created a \"\"ratings arbitrage\"\" that the banks took advantage of. They are as much, if not more, at fault as the GSAs.** For more info on the deterioration in mortgage quality in the mid-2000s, check out: Keys, Benjamin, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. Did Securitization Lead to Lax Screening? Evidence from Subprime Loans. Rajan, Uday, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. “The Failure of Models That Predict Failure: Distance, Incentives and Defaults.” SSRN eLibrary (December). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1296982. Also, the citation I mentioned above: DeMarzo, P. (2005) \"\"The pooling and tranching of securities: a model of informed intermediation\"\" Review of Economic Studies, 18(1):1-35, 2005\"" }, { "docid": "593681", "title": "", "text": "Just common courtesy. It seems to me that some people bring their extremely rough social skills from their home life and apply it to work. There does not seem to be any training at all on how to greet people and what is appropriate behavior. A lot of this, I'm sure, is regional. When I visit other parts of the country I do notice a marked difference. The retail drones in NY are *particularly* awful." }, { "docid": "402757", "title": "", "text": "&gt;In the economic sense, investments really has nothing to do with capital or business investments then does it? Congratulations, you just figured out why monetarists and Keynesians are wrong. What actually matters is the quality of the investments that the money is making. An excess of currency won't create growth if the currency is invested in a derivative contract, since this is a zero-growth investment. A shortfall in currency won't always kill the economy, if rational investments are made (2nd half of the 19th century in the United States). On the other hand, [infrastructure](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/060320a/forum.cfm) generally offers a much higher return on invested capital than the private market. So you see China's economy growing quickly for several decades due to investing in the right class of assets. This is the same thing the United States did to become an economic superpower: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-American-school-of-economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)" }, { "docid": "337669", "title": "", "text": "\"Couple of things to make sure you have going for you since you are not at a target school are as follows: 1. Make sure your GPA is amazing and if it isn't make sure you are in 3-4 professional organizations (not just join them, get involved). 2. Make sure you know technicals and how to talk about them, VERY IMPORTANT 3. Start applying to internships at all of the banks, Big 4 Accounting, PE, fund account firms in the city (there are many). You have to get an internship this year and next year, the more the better. get summer/fall/spring internships. 4. Network with any and every person you know in IB, working in M&amp;A, working for IB shops, working for PE shops, other finance alumni. 5. Do more networking, find out if there are any networking events, conferences, meet and greets, charity events, NFP events (there are a lot, just need to find them). Don't bombard people with the \"\"I'm at DePaul in Finance and want to be in IB.\"\" story line, perfect/hone/practice/perfect your elevator pitch. Remember, you don't need to tell why you need a job, you need to tell them why they need you to make money. 6. Find some industries that might interest you (and are valuable) and learn them. Learn the technicals to solar energy or some emerging markets. PS: I know you want to make a shit ton of money, but you'll fail in IB if that is all you want to do because the guys that get these roles love the job because of the chase and the deal. They fundamentally understand the markets they work in on another level, they make themselves valuable to the firm they work for. I think you should dive into what IB is first.\"" }, { "docid": "495832", "title": "", "text": "&gt;where does Keynesian economics say that there is no demand? Keynesian economists, like Paul Krugman, say so. If the correct application of Keynesian economics says the US has insufficient demand, while the country's balance of payments has a deficit of several hundred billion dollars a year, then the theory is seriously wrong. OTOH, if there is no lack of demand while unemployment is high then the theory is also wrong. Where is the right interpretation of Keynesian economics that would account for both a sluggish economy and a big balance of payments deficit? The only explanation I can imagine is that production costs are too high." }, { "docid": "399199", "title": "", "text": "I'm a CPA and former IRS agent and manager. Whether you are a cash or accrual basis taxpayer, you get to deduct the expense when your card is charged. Think of it this way: You are borrowing from the credit card company or bank that issued the credit card. You take that money to make a purchase of a product or service. You now have an expense and a liability to a third party. When you pay off the liability, you do not get to take a deduction. Your deduction is when you pay for the expense. Depending on what you purchased, you may have to capitalize it." } ]

[ { "docid": "174363", "title": "", "text": "I actually have a bit of experience with the supplier side of this. Having worked with other people attempting to get the business launched, I can shed a bit of insight. The primary reason for the pricing is that there simply isn't enough competition to warrant dropping the price any lower than it already is. Large companies such as Hallmark will typically buy card designs at 5% of the card's selling price. With their existing distribution network, this makes bringing in new and varied designs much easier for large companies that are already well established. Having talked with such designers in the past, someone working full time producing designs makes on average 30-60k annually from this, which is worth it to someone who doesn't want to jump through the hoops of actually getting into the business independently. The primary issue stifling competition is actually getting your product into stores. There are topics here that I cannot discuss due to NDA, but I can break down the overall outline for you: You need to start with a large number of designs, with enough variety that companies think could sell well. If you bring a handful of designs with you, no company is going to take your business venture seriously enough. You need to find a company that can stamp out a large production process for you. The company is going to need to be nice enough to take smaller purchase orders on the magnitude of several hundred cards, but also be capable of scaling that production to several hundreds of thousands of cards very quickly. For cards specifically, most companies want you to ship custom racks with your cards. Some companies may provide their own racks for stocking your product, but not all of them will. This will also cost a lot of money up front. You need to find a buyer for a company you want to sell your product to. This is important, and what killed our original business plans. Think Wal-Mart, Target, or even CVS Pharmacy. These big companies are going to have people who's entire job is to buy new products to put on their shelves. This is where networking is key, you need to find people with connections to these buyers if you're not already well established with them. You will also likely fail several times, either getting outright ignored, or through a broker that can't meet expectations. For example, we had a broker that introduced us to a buyer for a large store chain, and after several months of work we found out that this broker was just pulling our strings. Typically a company will want to test your product in a handful of stores to see if it will sell. For example, Target may want to test your product in 100-200 stores over 3 months and expect your product to sell at a minimum rate. Finally, you need to be able to scale your production. Suddenly you'll be asked to go from supplying 100 stores to supplying 1,800 stores with a deadline in 2 weeks. Buyers will even turn you down at this point if they don't think you can meet the production. All of this work takes at least a year, and typically takes several years to go from an initial product to having your product in every store. Without breaking the numbers down too much, we could make a profit of ~$1.60 for every $3 card that sold. That number doesn't cover the cost of racks and other overhead, that's just the per-card profit. Even then, people are more likely to go view the Hallmark or other big-name cards over your offering. Only when another company becomes a big powerhouse to be competitive will these companies be forced to drop their prices." } ]

[ { "docid": "337669", "title": "", "text": "\"Couple of things to make sure you have going for you since you are not at a target school are as follows: 1. Make sure your GPA is amazing and if it isn't make sure you are in 3-4 professional organizations (not just join them, get involved). 2. Make sure you know technicals and how to talk about them, VERY IMPORTANT 3. Start applying to internships at all of the banks, Big 4 Accounting, PE, fund account firms in the city (there are many). You have to get an internship this year and next year, the more the better. get summer/fall/spring internships. 4. Network with any and every person you know in IB, working in M&amp;A, working for IB shops, working for PE shops, other finance alumni. 5. Do more networking, find out if there are any networking events, conferences, meet and greets, charity events, NFP events (there are a lot, just need to find them). Don't bombard people with the \"\"I'm at DePaul in Finance and want to be in IB.\"\" story line, perfect/hone/practice/perfect your elevator pitch. Remember, you don't need to tell why you need a job, you need to tell them why they need you to make money. 6. Find some industries that might interest you (and are valuable) and learn them. Learn the technicals to solar energy or some emerging markets. PS: I know you want to make a shit ton of money, but you'll fail in IB if that is all you want to do because the guys that get these roles love the job because of the chase and the deal. They fundamentally understand the markets they work in on another level, they make themselves valuable to the firm they work for. I think you should dive into what IB is first.\"" }, { "docid": "192811", "title": "", "text": "\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \"\"emergencies\"\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\"" }, { "docid": "261697", "title": "", "text": "I would say it depends on what your long term plans and goals are. If you are trying to get rid of credit cards and never use them again, then I would say to keep $1000 as an emergency fund, pay the cards off and then save to build your emergency fund up to 3-6 months expenses. However, if you are just going to run the balances back up, I would save save 3-6 months expenses out of the money you just received and pay down the higher interest cards with what is left over." }, { "docid": "167492", "title": "", "text": "\"They say that banks earn 4 - 5% on deposits, so with lower costs they can give away 2-4%. They cite [this article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banking-industry-annual-profit-hit-record-in-2016-1488295836) which says that \"\"return on equity [for banks] up at 9.32%, the highest level since 2013\"\". But [net interest margin](https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/qbp/2017mar/chart4.html) is lower (2.5%-4.5%). And that's in a good year. They elaborate in a blog post: \"\"Fed Funds rates are supposed to affect deposit rates that banks pay to their customers, as, after all, deposit is a form of short term loan from depositor to the bank (see the explanation in our recent blog). However, as WalletHub notes in their recent report, it has not actually happened recently. As the report notes, for traditional branch-based banks, savings and checking account rates are virtually unchanged. You are probably getting the same 0.01% in your checking or savings account? Meanwhile, rates on your credit card went up by 0.53% since December 2015.\"\" \"\"So why aren’t deposit rates increasing? One reason often cited, is actually the relative decrease in the levels of competition in the U.S. market (as we described in our earlier blog). While there are still thousands of banks in the U.S., 4 control ~40% of the assets and close to half of the assets (loans). The other reason could be, perhaps, that after almost 10 years of getting close to zero in your bank account, you will forget that it could be any different. In fact, bank executives are puzzled why consumers are not “demanding” more on their deposits. You can walk to the branch and “demand” more money from your bank, but you may end up in county jail. The only other viable option is to take your deposits elsewhere, or vote with your feet.\"\" (https://blog.meetbeam.com/draft-why-are-lending-rates-going-up-but-deposit-rates-are-not-76e050b382af) \"\"Beam makes money by providing value-added services to our partnering bank and other financial service partners in the banking ecoysystem.\"\" That sounds like they might be selling your data?\"" }, { "docid": "95337", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, so will I. Why let the bankers make all the money right? Good explanation, it'll be interesting to watch what happens with it all. What willl they do try to throw the Ali baba CEO in jail too like they did the megaupload guy" }, { "docid": "283657", "title": "", "text": "\"I have the same problem. The people above are right to an extent. You have to be more disciplined. But there is no reason why you can't get there in stages. If you try to do too much too fast you'll just give up. You need to find a system that removes some of the passive barriers affecting you. You need to think what in particular is overwhelming you. For me it was sitting down at the end of the month to write it all down. Writing it all down at the end of the week or even each day didn't work either because it was too much and I had forgotten what stuff was. I'm like you. The bank account is a record so why do I have to retype it or worse, hand write it out? Bleh. What I ended up doing was divide my expenses into four categories: food (to include all medical) shelter, transportation, spending -- with the first three being needs and the last being wants. Eating out is spending. I have four checking accounts with four debit cards. I saved up some money. I put a paycheck's worth of money in each because I didn't know how much I spent each month in each category, but knew I didn't spend an entire paycheck in any one category per month. Voila. No more work. At the store you just put things in the basket by category. At Target you pay for the food and toothpaste with the medical card and the DVD with the spending card. The cashiers don't care that you pay separately. And if you are buying so much crap that separating items by category is a problem, why the heck are you buying so much crap? At the end of the month you will now have a record of how much you spend on transportation, housing (electricity would be paid online from this account for example), medical and fun. That's all anyone needs to help you get started. You can then see if your housing is 35% or less (or whatever percentage you feel is right). The person trying to help the author above is right. A Target charge doesn't indicate whether you bought some oil for the car or cold medicine or a lock for the cabinet door that broke. But when you pay for each of these things under the right account, you do know how the money is allocated. Doing it this way requires little discipline. Before you put the item in the basket, you just ask yourself, is this a want or a need (which is something you should be doing anyway). If it's a need, is it for my car, house, or body. The house is what I use if i can't figure it out (like paying for the renewal of my professional license). that's it! You have to stand at the register for longer but so what. If you are spending all your salary and you stop when you have no more money (assuming you've run through all of your savings, which you will soon if you don't change), then you have no more money to spend. So if you are honest when you put things in the basket(need vs want), you are going to run out of spending money real quick. Your spending money account will be empty but you will still have food money. Set your debit card up so that it denies your charge if you dont have enough money. Once you realize how much you truly spend for needs in each category, yoy will only put that much in each account. Therefore, You can't use the house card to just \"\"borrow\"\" from it till next month. If you do, you won't be able to pay your bills. If you have so little discipline that you knowingly spend your bill money, then there is a deeper issue going on than just finding the right budgeting/cash flow system for you. Something is seriously wrong and you need to seek professional help. When someone is trying to help you, the first step is to determine what category you are spending too much in. Then when you realize it's the house category, for example, you will need to figure out why you are spending so much in that category. A bank statement wont tell you that. So you can do what we did. On every receipt --before you walk out of the store-- write down what each purchase is on the receipt. Then you can hand over the receipts to whoever is helping you. Most items are easily recognizable on the receipt so you wont have to write everything down. you should be doing this for insurance purposes anyway. Again, if your receipt is so blooming long that this is onerous, probably everything you just spent is not a need and maybe you need to turn right around and return stuff. Maybe you need to go to the store more often so there are only a few purchases on each receipt. Groceries are groceries. You don't need to detail that out. For Ikea when you have to purchase pieces to a set, we get a separate receipts for each. So the brackets and shelving for the bedroom will be on one receipt and the brackets and shelving for the other room will be on another receipt. Even at the store I cant figure out what all the little pieces are! But really, if you are making a decent enough salary, then you are probably spending too much on wants and are calling the items needs. So really your problem is correctly identifying needs from wants. Define a NEED. YOU. Make up your own definition of need Dwell on it. Let it become meaningful for you. Oranges are a need. Chocolate is not (no, really it's not! Lol!). So when you are putting the stuff in the basket, you dont even have to think about whether it's a need or not after a while. Wants go in the child seat if at all possible (to keep the number of items smaller). When you are ready to check out, add up the items roughly in the want pile. Ask yourself if you really want all that stuff. Then put some stuff back! At this point ask yourself is the 8 hours I will have to work to pay for this worth it? Am I really going to use it? Will using the item make me happy? Or is it the actual buying of the item that makes me feel powerful? Where will I put it? How much time will I need to maintain it? Then put some stuff back! Get some good goals, a kayaking trip or whatever. Ask yourself if the item is worth delaying the trip. How will I feel later? Will I have buyers remorse? If so, put it back! These are controls you can put into place that don't take a lot of discipline. Writing the items down on the receipt is a more advanced step you can take later. If you are with friends, go first so that you can write down the items while they are checking out. If you are private and don't want to share your method with your friends, go to the bathroom and in the stall write it down while they wait. Writing the items on the receipt while in the store is sort of a trigger mechanism for remembering to do so. That pulling out of the card triggers your memory to get out your pen or ask the cashier for one. The side benefit is catching someone using a cloned copy of your card. In the medical account if you see an Exxon charge, you know it's not yours. Also, while that one account is shut down, you have three others to rely on in the meantime. My spouse hated fumbling for the right card. They all look the same. Color code your cards. We have blue cross blue shield so it feels natural to have the food/medical account with a blue sticker (just buy a little circle sticker and place it on the edge so half is on the front and half is on the back -- nowhere near the strip). I've never been given a hard time about it. Our car is red so the car card is red, etc. If you think four cards is a lot to carry, ask yourself if you would rather carry four cards or keep track of every little thing? Good luck. I know you will find a system that works for you if you keep trying.\"" }, { "docid": "314339", "title": "", "text": "\"So it seems like a lot of people here aren't exactly sure about why this works and its financial implications. So what you are referring to is in Finance something called Funds Transfer Pricing or FTP (often referred to as just Transfer Pricing). Like anything else, FTP has its place. Most companies; however, don't use it properly. FTP, theoretically, has one primary purpose (although it's developed a second): to properly allocate opportunity costs across divisions. Let's say Company A produces widgets. They sell these widgets for $200 at a TOTAL COST of $150 and book profits of $50. Now to produce the widget Division 1 makes a computer chip at a cost of $50 that it then \"\"sells\"\" to Division 2 for $60. Division 1 then books a profit of $10. Division 2 then makes some plastic stuff and assembles the device. This is labor intensive so Division 2's costs are $100. Company A sells the completed device for $150. Division 2 subsequently books profits of $40, and appears much more profitable than Division 1, on the surface. The problem arises when Division 1 could sell the chip to the open market for $125. Now it costs them $50 to produce, and they could make a theoretical profit of $75. This is MORE than the company makes AS A WHOLE on the entire device. By having Division 2 pay effectively \"\"fair market price\"\" for that chip, you realize that Division 2 is really operating at a loss (the *opportunity cost* of not selling the chip to market is greater than producing the completed device). Company A would be better off getting rid of Division 2 and solely focusing on Division 1. In a good FTP system, Division 2 would pay the fair market price of $125. If done properly, management would hopefully realize it should divest Division 2. That's the ***fundamental premise*** behind FTP. In actuality things get much more complicated because of economics, the company itself, branding, IT, operations, management, PPE, labor laws, etc. Thats why most companies screw it up. All that other stuff falls under whats called cost allocation accounting. It gets VERY complex and entire masters courses are dedicated to it (different methods, etc.) The other thing you can do with FTP is get crazy tax breaks due to various tax laws. The simplified explanation is that divisions pay taxes on profits to the government ***that division*** is located in (this works on the state level, too btw.). GE does a lot of this and it's a big part of why they pay almost no-taxes. Again, it gets more complicated when you involve audits as there's some grey area legally. For simplicity, assume tax rates are 40% in the US and 10% in India. So let's say GE makes an airplane engine in the US but \"\"finishes\"\" manufacturing in India. These specific engines costs $5,000,000 for the US division to make, up to a certain point. The US division can then sell the engine at a break even to India. So India \"\"pays\"\" $5,000,000 for the engine. The US division then books no profit. India finishes the manufacturing with additional costs of $1,000,000. The India division then sells the engine to the open market for $9,000,000 . Therefore, the India division books a profit of $3,000,000 and pays taxes of $300,000. Now GE as a whole makes a profit of $3,000,000 less taxes of $300,000 = net profit of $2,700,00. Further, let's say the fair market value of the engine, as is, when the US sells to India is $7,000,000. That would mean US ***should*** book profits of $2,000,000 and India ***should*** book profits of $1,000,000. Total taxes by GE are now $800,000 (US) + $100,000 (India) = $900,000. However, what's important is that NET PROFIT is now $2,100,000. ***GE just saved $600,000 in taxes by doing this***. The beauty of this is, divisions are supposed to charge fair market value for products FTP'd internationally; however, it's REALLY hard for the IRS to say what the value of an unfinished product really is (heck, you could be offering bulk discounts, etc.)... The fact is, often, US divisions have skilled labor that is difficult to replicate elsewhere. They just show US divisions operating at losses to make the company as a whole better. The problem, again, arises when top management don't fully appreciate or understand the reasoning behind this stuff. They end up making cuts to US labor because it's \"\"unprofitable\"\" without thinking about the entire story. I know this is very long winded but hope it helps! ***tldr; companies FTP to recognizes profitability and opportunity costs of divisions as well as use it for overseas tax breaks.*** Side note: Politically speaking, people who know how this works are pissed off about it in the U.S. (don't worry though, most politicians on both sides don't have a clue). We have high corporate tax rates relative to other countries and IRS loopholes allow this kind of thing (lobbying $$). It's also why, economically, you can't just raise ***corporate*** tax rates to increase domestic tax reciepts as more companies will just implement this process (it's complicated to do properly). Also, please don't say 50 years ago tax rates were higher and raising taxes increased receipts. The fact is most companies couldn't even FATHOM doing this 50 years ago, no less even 20. edit: some clarification in wording\"" }, { "docid": "155880", "title": "", "text": "While there are lots of really plausible explanations for why the market moves a certain way on a certain day, no one really knows for sure. In order to do that, you would need to understand the 'minds' of all the market players. These days many of these players are secret proprietary algorithms. I'm not quibbling with the specifics of these explanations (I have no better) just pointing out that these are just really hypotheses and if the market starts following different patterns, they will be tossed into the dust bin of 'old thinking'. I think the best thing you can explain to your son is that the stock market is basically a gigantic highly complex poker game. The daily gyrations of the market are about individuals trying to predict where the herd is going to go next and then after that and then after that etc. If you want to help him understand the market, I suggest two things. The first is to find or create a simple market game and play it with him. The other would be to teach him about how bonds are priced and why prices move the way they do. I know this might sound weird and most people think bonds are esoteric but there are bonds have a much simpler pricing model based on fundamental financial logic. It's much easier then to get your head around the moves of the bond markets because the part of the price based on beliefs is much more limited (i.e. will the company be able pay & where are rates going.) Once you have that understanding, you can start thinking about the different ways stocks can be valued (there are many) and what the market movements mean about how people are valuing different companies. With regard to this specific situation, here's a different take on it from the 'priced in' explanation which isn't really different but might make more sense to your son: Pretend for a second that at some point these stocks did move seasonally. In the late fall and winter when sales went up, the stock price increased in kind. So some smart people see this happening every year and realize that if they bought these stocks in the summer, they would get them cheap and then sell them off when they go up. More and more people are doing this and making easy money. So many people are doing it that the stock starts to rise in the Summer now. People now see that if they want to get in before everyone else, they need to buy earlier in the Spring. Now the prices start rising in the Spring. People start buying in the beginning of the year... You can see where this is going, right? Essentially, a strategy to take advantage of well known seasonal patterns is unstable. You can't profit off of the seasonal changes unless everyone else in the market is too stupid to see that you are simply anticipating their moves and react accordingly." }, { "docid": "345712", "title": "", "text": "My wife and I use a digital form of the envelope system. We call it a budget; we record how much we want to allocate each month to spend--for each category of expense--in a spread sheet. Why use prepaid cards? Why not open a bunch of bank accounts and use debit cards from each if you want to separate the money? You could also keep a ledger for each account that you spend from on a smart phone or even in a physical ledger. The reason for the envelope method is that it psychologically hurts some people to physically part with cash. Once you digitize it in some factor, you lose what is the primary touted benefit, and it's no longer the envelope system. The secondary benefit that--once the budget for one category is gone, it's gone--is only as good as the discipline you have to not rob cash from another envelope; why is this any easier than the discipline of not debiting beyond the bottom of the ledger? So a budget IS a digital version of the envelope system; once the physical cash is removed from the equation, it's definitely not the envelope system. Sorry for the contrarian take on this question, but I've never been a fan of the envelope system for many of the reasons you have described. I guess I'm too young for the cash psychology to work for me." }, { "docid": "355592", "title": "", "text": "\"There absolutely is a specific model that makes this so popular with so many credit card companies, and that model is \"\"per transaction fees\"\". Card companies also receive cost-sharing incentives from certain merchants. There is also a psychological reasoning as an additional incentive. When you want to accept credit cards as a source of payment as a business, you generally have three kinds of fees to pay: monthly/yearly subscription fees, percentage of transaction fee, and per transaction fee. The subscription fees can be waived and sometimes are expressed as a \"\"minimum cost\"\", so the business pays a certain amount whether you actually have people use credit cards or not. Many of these fees don't actually make it to the credit card companies, as they just pay the service providers and middle-men processing companies. The percentage of transaction fee means that the business accepting payment via credit card must pay a percentage usually ranging from 1-3% of the total transactions they accept. So if they get paid $10,000 a month by customers in the form of credit cards, the business pays out $100-300 a month to the credit card processor - a good portion of which will make it back to the credit card issuing company, and is a major source of income for them. The per transaction fee means that every time a transaction is run involving a card, a set fee is incurred by the business (which is commonly anywhere from $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction). If that $10,000 a month business mentioned previously had 10 customers paying $1,000 each at $0.10 a transaction, that's only $1 in fees to the credit card processors/companies. But if instead that business was a grocery store with an average transaction of $40, that's $25 in fees. This system means that if you are a credit card company and want to encourage people to make a specific kind of purchase, you should encourage purchases that people make many times for relatively small amounts of money. In a perfect world you'd want them to buy $1 bottles of water 5 times a day with their credit card. If the card company had 50,000 card holders doing this, at the end of 1 year the company would have $91,250,000 spread across 91,250,000 transactions. The card company might reasonably make $0.05 per transaction and %1 of the purchase total. The Get Rewarded For Drinking More campaign might earn the card company $912,500 in percentage fees and over $4.5 million in transaction fees. Yet the company would only have to pay 3% in rewards from the percentage fees, or $2.7 million, back to customers. If the card company had encouraged using your credit card for large once-yearly purchases, they would actually pay out more money in rewards than they collect in card-use fees. Yet by encouraging people to make small transactions very often the card company earns a nice net-income even if absolutely every customer pays their balance in full, on time, and pays no annual/monthly fees for their card - which obviously does not happen in the real world. No wonder companies try so hard to encourage you to use your card all the time! For card companies to make real money they need you to use your credit card. As discussed above, the more often you use the card the better (for them), and there can be a built-in preference for small repeated transactions. But no matter what the size of transaction, they can't make the big bucks if you don't use the card at all! Selling your personal information isn't as profitable if they don't have in-depth info on you to sell, either. So how do they get you to make that plastic sing? Gas and groceries are a habit. Most people buy one or the other at least once a weak, and a very large number of us make such purchases multiple times a week. Some people even make such purchases multiple times a day! So how do people pay for such transactions? The goal of the card companies is to have you use their product to pay as much as possible. If you pay for something regularly you'll keep that card in your wallet with you, rather than it getting lost in a drawer at home. So the card companies want you to use your card as a matter of habit, too. If you use a card to buy for gas and groceries, why wouldn't you use it for other things too? Lunch, dinner, buying online? If the card company pays out more and makes less for large, less-regular purchases, then the ideal for them is to have you use the card for small regular purchase and yet still have you use the card for larger infrequent purchases even if you get reduced/no rewards. What better way to achieve all these goals than to offer special rewards on gas and groceries? And because it's not a one-time purchase, you aren't so likely to game the system; no getting that special 5% cash-back card, booking your once-per-decade dream vacation, then paying it off and cancelling it soon after - which would actually make the card company lose money on the deal. In the end, credit card companies as a whole have a business model that almost universally prefers customers who use their products regularly and preferably for small amounts a maximum number of times. They want to reduce their expenses (like rewards paid out) while maximizing their revenue. They haven't figured out a better way to do all of this so well as to encourage people to use their cards for gas and groceries - everything else seems like a losing proposition in comparison. The only time this preference differs is when they can avoid paying some or all of the cost of rewards, such as when the merchants themselves honor the rewards in exchange for reduced or zero payment from the card companies. So if you use an airline card that seems to give you 10% back in airline rewards? Well, that's probably a great deal for the card company if the airline provides that reward at their own expense to try to boost business. The card company keeps the transaction-related fees and pays out almost nothing in rewards - the perfect offer (for them)! And this assumes no shenanigans like black-out periods, \"\"not valid with any other offers\"\" rewards like on cars where only a fool pays full MSRP (and sometimes the rewards are tagged in this sort of way, like not valid on sale/clearance items, etc), expiring rewards, the fact that they know not everyone uses their rewards, annual fees that are greater than the rewards you'll actually be obtaining after accounting for all the other issues, etc. And credit card industries are known for their shenanigans!\"" }, { "docid": "347149", "title": "", "text": "Greetings! I’m bored to death at work so I decided to browse your site on my iphone during lunch break. I really like the info you provide here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m surprised at how quick your blog loaded on my mobile .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, very good site and posts too!" }, { "docid": "2018", "title": "", "text": "\"As i see it, with a debit card, they are taken kinda out of the game. They are not lending money, it seems really bad for them. Not exactly. It is true that they're not lending money, but they charge a hefty commission from the retailers for each swipe which is pure profit with almost no risk. One of the proposals considered (or maybe approved already, don't know) in Congress is to cap that hefty commission, which will really make the debit cards merely a service for the checking account holder, rather than a profit maker for the bank. On the other hand, it's definitely good for individuals. I disagree with that. Debit cards are easier to use than checks, but they provide much less protection than credit cards. Here's what I had to say on this a while ago, and seems like the community agrees. But, why do we really need a credit history to buy some of the more expensive stuff Because the system is broken. It rewards people in debt by giving them more opportunities to get into even more debts, while people who owe nothing to noone cannot get a credit when they do need one. With the current system the potential creditor can only asses the risk of someone who has debt already, they have no way of assessing risks of someone with no debts. To me, all this credit card system seems like an awfully nice way to make loads of money, backed by governments as well. Well, credit cards have nothing to do with it. It's the credit scores system that is broken. If we replace the \"\"card\"\" with \"\"score\"\" in your question - then yes, you're thinking correctly. That of course is true for the US, in other countries I have no knowledge on how the creditors assess the risks.\"" }, { "docid": "219181", "title": "", "text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month." }, { "docid": "578619", "title": "", "text": "\"It has little to do with money or finance. It's basic neuroscience. When we get money, our brains release dopamine (read Your Money and Your Brain), and receiving dividends is \"\"getting money.\"\" It feels good, so we're more likely to do it again. What you often see are rationalizations because the above explanation sounds ... irrational, so many people want to make their behavior look more rational. Ceteris paribus a solid growth stock is as good as a solid company that pays dividends. In value-investing terms, dividend paying stocks may appear to give you an advantage in that you can keep the dividends in cash and buy when the price of the security is low (\"\"underpriced\"\"). However, as you realize, you could just sell the growth stock at certain prices and the effect would be the same, assuming you're using a free brokerage like Robin Hood. You can easily sell just a portion of the shares periodically to get a \"\"stream of cash\"\" like dividends. That presents no problem whatsoever, so this cannot be the explanation to why some people think it is \"\"smart\"\" to be a dividend investor. Yes, if you're using a brokerage like Robin Hood (there may be others, but I think this is the only one right now), then you are right on.\"" }, { "docid": "382347", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, it took some effort to get an explanation from my bank. Turns out that some supermarkets use direct debit as a method of transferring money for purchases payed by so-called \"\"EC\"\" cards here. I was told that for some reason, a supermarket decided to reverse one of such transactions.\"" }, { "docid": "507870", "title": "", "text": "Tax cuts do lead to economic growth, and why not? More money circulating in the private economy is good for everybody. It’s why the stock market is up big on the prospect for tax cuts. The problem is the rosy growth projections that accompany these plans. The growth will occur, but the pace of growth is a big question and very hard to model. So a prudent policy proposal would be to cut spending as well while the growth materializes. Then (hopefully) that spending cut becomes permanent as the economy grows so the private economy grows at the expense of the state." }, { "docid": "512282", "title": "", "text": "You can't just emigrate from a country like Pakistan to the USA, Canada or Australia; they will refuse you entry to their country. E.g. for the USA, even if you're are skilled enough that an American company will hire you (which is obviously the first step – so called 'economic refugees' are sent back immediately), you're a long way from obtaining a green card. Right now, Pakistan isn't even allowed to participate in the Green Card Lottery. What you also need to consider is that the cost of living in those countries is a lot higher. There are websites, like this one which allows you to compare them between cities all over the world. So while you would earn a lot more money, you also need to spend a lot more." }, { "docid": "593681", "title": "", "text": "Just common courtesy. It seems to me that some people bring their extremely rough social skills from their home life and apply it to work. There does not seem to be any training at all on how to greet people and what is appropriate behavior. A lot of this, I'm sure, is regional. When I visit other parts of the country I do notice a marked difference. The retail drones in NY are *particularly* awful." }, { "docid": "111054", "title": "", "text": "\"Between 6 months and a year is normally regarded as the \"\"standard\"\". Plan out what your monthly expenses are and save that money away. One thing to consider is what extras can you give up. If you are currently eating steak and lobster every day can you live with switching to ramen noodles for a period of time? Can you switch from premium cable to basic cable (or cancel it altogether)? Questions like this can greatly impact the amount you have to set aside. I personally have my emergency fund in CDs that mature the first of every month. I know there is less liquidity in this approach but I'm ok with that. My emergency fund is a sum of cash I'll always have so I wanted to reap the benefits of a higher yield. If it comes down to it I can place an expense on a credit card and pay off the credit card when funds become available.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "424523", "title": "", "text": "\"We generally speak of the \"\"elasticity of demand\"\". Greeting cards are expensive because they can be. We buy them in a sentimentally weakened state, and we do not buy them by the tonne. There is also the concept of \"\"Market Segmentation\"\", but not so much. Essentially the price is determined by finding the \"\"point of pain\"\" and winding it back a little. So people will pay $5 for a card. They will not (generally) pay $5,000 unless there is a good reason (vanity ?). Why sell them for $2 ? The customers who baulk at $5 tend not to even have $2. (Market segmentation again). In short the price is always going to need to be set before the point where demand rolls off sharply, to maximise profit.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "399199", "title": "", "text": "I'm a CPA and former IRS agent and manager. Whether you are a cash or accrual basis taxpayer, you get to deduct the expense when your card is charged. Think of it this way: You are borrowing from the credit card company or bank that issued the credit card. You take that money to make a purchase of a product or service. You now have an expense and a liability to a third party. When you pay off the liability, you do not get to take a deduction. Your deduction is when you pay for the expense. Depending on what you purchased, you may have to capitalize it." }, { "docid": "389005", "title": "", "text": "This crisis just shows why the dollar has no chance in my lifetime of loding it's dominance. Russia is a major world player, were taking what seemed right steps to move forward economically, socially, politically. Yet this crisis shows the truth. Media controlled by the kremlin. Taking actions in other countries. No fear of economic hardships due to political issues. Who else could supplant the US dollar? China is in the same boat as Russia. Still not a free society. SO what's left? The Euro. But it's got a long way to go to show it can remain stable. Give it 50 years and get back to me." }, { "docid": "345712", "title": "", "text": "My wife and I use a digital form of the envelope system. We call it a budget; we record how much we want to allocate each month to spend--for each category of expense--in a spread sheet. Why use prepaid cards? Why not open a bunch of bank accounts and use debit cards from each if you want to separate the money? You could also keep a ledger for each account that you spend from on a smart phone or even in a physical ledger. The reason for the envelope method is that it psychologically hurts some people to physically part with cash. Once you digitize it in some factor, you lose what is the primary touted benefit, and it's no longer the envelope system. The secondary benefit that--once the budget for one category is gone, it's gone--is only as good as the discipline you have to not rob cash from another envelope; why is this any easier than the discipline of not debiting beyond the bottom of the ledger? So a budget IS a digital version of the envelope system; once the physical cash is removed from the equation, it's definitely not the envelope system. Sorry for the contrarian take on this question, but I've never been a fan of the envelope system for many of the reasons you have described. I guess I'm too young for the cash psychology to work for me." }, { "docid": "174941", "title": "", "text": "I came across such a situation and I am still facing it. My friend borrowed my credit card for his expenses as he had misplaced his debit card and for the time being had asked for my credit card to handle the expenses he does. He paid for initial 2 months and then was not able to make payments, mainly due to not being able to arrange money or if it was a contri party, he would collect cash from friends but again spend the same. Months passes by... the bill had come upto 65k and calls from bank and other respective organizations Finally my dad came into picture and slowly the issue is resolving he has paid 50K remaining is still pending. So basically, the reason I shared this part of story was he is my Best friend and in order to not spoil our friendship I did not want to take any such step which would later on affect our friendship. This completely depends on the individuals how they react to the situation. Keeping Ego, superiority, favour sort of feelings and words apart things can be resolved between friends. You do not know what is the situation on the other side. Probably you can connect with him ask him to explain you why is not able to pay the debts and take action accordingly. If he is not able to provide a proper reason then you may take some actions like mentioned in initial answers, run after the assets he own or anything else.Stay Calm and patient. Do not take any such step which you would regret later on...!" }, { "docid": "374063", "title": "", "text": "This is an organization with a strong Christian atmosphere that actively employs fellow believers and hosts a bible study every morning. If that isn't a church, then what *do* you consider a church? Also, it wasn't an analogy. It was an explanation of why certain organizations may choose to hire like-minded people. EDIT: No clue why this is getting downvotes. Equal opportunity employment is not without its practical limitations." }, { "docid": "155564", "title": "", "text": "\"With all due respect to economics everywhere and the armchair economist. I think they overlook one very basic fact. The alternative to buying popcorn at the cinema is buying it cheaper at the store, or making your own and bringing it to the cinema. Cinemagoing is something you tend to do with a date (and sometimes your friends) and who wants to look cheap to their date (and perhaps their spouse/friends) bringing popcorn to the cinema? This \"\"cheapo-gentlemens\"\" effect together with convenience is probably the reason why popcorn can remain so expensive at cinemas.\"" }, { "docid": "449439", "title": "", "text": "\"Current is another word for Checking, as it is called in the US. Savings account is an interest-bearing account with certain limitations. For example, in the US you cannot withdraw money from it more than 6 times a month. Here is the explanation why. Current account is a \"\"general-use\"\" account on which you can write checks, use ATM/Debit cards and have unlimited transactions. It can also have negative balance (if your bank agrees to let you overdraft, they usually charge huge fees for that though). Checking accounts can have interest as well, but they usually don't, and if they do - it's much lower than the savings account interest.\"" }, { "docid": "155880", "title": "", "text": "While there are lots of really plausible explanations for why the market moves a certain way on a certain day, no one really knows for sure. In order to do that, you would need to understand the 'minds' of all the market players. These days many of these players are secret proprietary algorithms. I'm not quibbling with the specifics of these explanations (I have no better) just pointing out that these are just really hypotheses and if the market starts following different patterns, they will be tossed into the dust bin of 'old thinking'. I think the best thing you can explain to your son is that the stock market is basically a gigantic highly complex poker game. The daily gyrations of the market are about individuals trying to predict where the herd is going to go next and then after that and then after that etc. If you want to help him understand the market, I suggest two things. The first is to find or create a simple market game and play it with him. The other would be to teach him about how bonds are priced and why prices move the way they do. I know this might sound weird and most people think bonds are esoteric but there are bonds have a much simpler pricing model based on fundamental financial logic. It's much easier then to get your head around the moves of the bond markets because the part of the price based on beliefs is much more limited (i.e. will the company be able pay & where are rates going.) Once you have that understanding, you can start thinking about the different ways stocks can be valued (there are many) and what the market movements mean about how people are valuing different companies. With regard to this specific situation, here's a different take on it from the 'priced in' explanation which isn't really different but might make more sense to your son: Pretend for a second that at some point these stocks did move seasonally. In the late fall and winter when sales went up, the stock price increased in kind. So some smart people see this happening every year and realize that if they bought these stocks in the summer, they would get them cheap and then sell them off when they go up. More and more people are doing this and making easy money. So many people are doing it that the stock starts to rise in the Summer now. People now see that if they want to get in before everyone else, they need to buy earlier in the Spring. Now the prices start rising in the Spring. People start buying in the beginning of the year... You can see where this is going, right? Essentially, a strategy to take advantage of well known seasonal patterns is unstable. You can't profit off of the seasonal changes unless everyone else in the market is too stupid to see that you are simply anticipating their moves and react accordingly." }, { "docid": "598428", "title": "", "text": "\"Paypal forbids using their credit card service to \"\"give yourself a cash advance or help others to do so\"\". For small ammounts you may get away with it but pushing $10K through a PayPal account is going to raise red flags. In the USA it seems that some cards allow balance transfers from other types of loan while others are restricted to credit cards only. So that is a possibility. Another option can be to find a card with a good deal on purchases. Then move your regular purchases to the card and use the money you would normally have spent on purchases to pay off the other loan. Remember credit cards can be either a very cheap way to borrow or a very expensive way. Which one they are depends on how good you are at negotiating the traps they set up for you. If you do use a credit card deal make sure you Is it overall a viable option? That depends on the details which are not specified in your hypothetical scenario incluing the persons credit rating , what the interest is like on the existing loan and what the expected time to repay the debt is.\"" }, { "docid": "70109", "title": "", "text": "\"Without divulging too many specifics. Net income is 73k. Total income is 136k. Filed as an S-Corp. Using Quickbooks to classify expenses etc. I know its not much information but I don't know what to look out for, like \"\"whoa, net income is 73k, you gotta spend that!\"\" I have a CPA but isn't offering much in the terms of \"\"help\"\" and \"\"explanation\"\". Thanks for your time!\"" }, { "docid": "245447", "title": "", "text": "\"For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the \"\"refund\"\" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a \"\"don't ask, don't tell\"\" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this \"\"loophole\"\". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a \"\"donation\"\" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash.\"" }, { "docid": "75616", "title": "", "text": "Excellent explanation. Upvote to you sir. I would like to add something: How do we know how many bushels of apples is worth a chunk of deer meat? You did not touch on the concept of value. The way I see it, value is related to the human energy required to procure a specific good. For example: it takes a man all day to find a nugget of gold, while it take another man all day to pick 20 bushels of apples. Because gold is scarce, it is worth a lot of apples: it has a high value. At it's core, value is assigned based on the amount of human labor required to acquire a good or service. For example: Many years ago there may have been an equal number of bears and skunks. However, it would take many brave hunters with bows and arrows to kill a bear, while any hunter could kill a skunk solo. Thus, even though they had the same scarcity, a bear hide would be more valuable because the human labor required was greater. Many economics classes simply say value depends on supply and demand. However, if something is in low supply and high demand, it is BECAUSE it takes so much human effort to procure. If it did not take large amounts of human labor, everyone would sell said item and the value would drop. What is your take on this? do you have a better explanation for value?" }, { "docid": "141973", "title": "", "text": "Couple of thoughts... Opposition research is valuable to campaigns. They spend millions of dollars developing it. So it definitely has value. I don't believe it has to be cash or equivalents to be illegal. Foreign governments could just buy air time for candidates. It's the same thing. Don Jr may *not* have actually gotten anything of value. That is uncertain. No one knows what happened in the room. He *did* demonstrate an intent to get that thing, and collude in the process. We don't know, so that's why you investigate. It's entirely possible that Don Jr tried to collude, but failed. I also think there's reason for suspicion about the content of the meeting. First it was about adoption. Then it was something else (I can't remember the exact timeline of explanations). If it was innocuous, there would have been one unchanging story." }, { "docid": "309909", "title": "", "text": "Are you allowed to have two personal current accounts with a debit card attached to each one? Yes, you may have as many current accounts you want, but you should ask why should I have more than one. It is cumbersome and time consuming to keep track of ongoing incoming credits and outgoing debits. Open to bank fraud too, if you aren't careful. If yes, can a sole trader in the UK use the second personal account for business transactions? Yes, but no payments to the business. At the end of the year you file you P11D, even if you have a business bank account. You would need to justify the expenses by keeping the bills and stuff. As it will be a personal account, you have to little more careful, not to mix personal and business expenses. If you are allowed to use a second personal account for business transactions, then why would someone choose to open a business bank account, where you have to pay? What are the benefits? First of all no company will pay into you personal account, for any transactions, they need to pay you. They will only pay to an account registered with the business, with whom they are dealing with. Benefits are you have your business expenses sorted out in one account and personal expenses in other. Pure business expenses comes out of the business account, rather than from your personal purse, keeps the accounts smooth. No need to sort out expenses at the end of each quarter or at the end of each month." }, { "docid": "183331", "title": "", "text": "\"Economics is not hard science. Economics is really just a study of what people do and why. The best book to read to understand why people protect their wealth when the government threatens it is \"\"[Human Action](http://mises.org/document/3250)\"\" by Ludwig von Mises. Check it out. It will answer all of your questions with a lot more logic than research. Economic research on macro subjects can prove any preconceived theorem, therefore it is worse than logic because it purports to \"\"prove\"\" what are, in the end, only opinions.\"" }, { "docid": "355592", "title": "", "text": "\"There absolutely is a specific model that makes this so popular with so many credit card companies, and that model is \"\"per transaction fees\"\". Card companies also receive cost-sharing incentives from certain merchants. There is also a psychological reasoning as an additional incentive. When you want to accept credit cards as a source of payment as a business, you generally have three kinds of fees to pay: monthly/yearly subscription fees, percentage of transaction fee, and per transaction fee. The subscription fees can be waived and sometimes are expressed as a \"\"minimum cost\"\", so the business pays a certain amount whether you actually have people use credit cards or not. Many of these fees don't actually make it to the credit card companies, as they just pay the service providers and middle-men processing companies. The percentage of transaction fee means that the business accepting payment via credit card must pay a percentage usually ranging from 1-3% of the total transactions they accept. So if they get paid $10,000 a month by customers in the form of credit cards, the business pays out $100-300 a month to the credit card processor - a good portion of which will make it back to the credit card issuing company, and is a major source of income for them. The per transaction fee means that every time a transaction is run involving a card, a set fee is incurred by the business (which is commonly anywhere from $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction). If that $10,000 a month business mentioned previously had 10 customers paying $1,000 each at $0.10 a transaction, that's only $1 in fees to the credit card processors/companies. But if instead that business was a grocery store with an average transaction of $40, that's $25 in fees. This system means that if you are a credit card company and want to encourage people to make a specific kind of purchase, you should encourage purchases that people make many times for relatively small amounts of money. In a perfect world you'd want them to buy $1 bottles of water 5 times a day with their credit card. If the card company had 50,000 card holders doing this, at the end of 1 year the company would have $91,250,000 spread across 91,250,000 transactions. The card company might reasonably make $0.05 per transaction and %1 of the purchase total. The Get Rewarded For Drinking More campaign might earn the card company $912,500 in percentage fees and over $4.5 million in transaction fees. Yet the company would only have to pay 3% in rewards from the percentage fees, or $2.7 million, back to customers. If the card company had encouraged using your credit card for large once-yearly purchases, they would actually pay out more money in rewards than they collect in card-use fees. Yet by encouraging people to make small transactions very often the card company earns a nice net-income even if absolutely every customer pays their balance in full, on time, and pays no annual/monthly fees for their card - which obviously does not happen in the real world. No wonder companies try so hard to encourage you to use your card all the time! For card companies to make real money they need you to use your credit card. As discussed above, the more often you use the card the better (for them), and there can be a built-in preference for small repeated transactions. But no matter what the size of transaction, they can't make the big bucks if you don't use the card at all! Selling your personal information isn't as profitable if they don't have in-depth info on you to sell, either. So how do they get you to make that plastic sing? Gas and groceries are a habit. Most people buy one or the other at least once a weak, and a very large number of us make such purchases multiple times a week. Some people even make such purchases multiple times a day! So how do people pay for such transactions? The goal of the card companies is to have you use their product to pay as much as possible. If you pay for something regularly you'll keep that card in your wallet with you, rather than it getting lost in a drawer at home. So the card companies want you to use your card as a matter of habit, too. If you use a card to buy for gas and groceries, why wouldn't you use it for other things too? Lunch, dinner, buying online? If the card company pays out more and makes less for large, less-regular purchases, then the ideal for them is to have you use the card for small regular purchase and yet still have you use the card for larger infrequent purchases even if you get reduced/no rewards. What better way to achieve all these goals than to offer special rewards on gas and groceries? And because it's not a one-time purchase, you aren't so likely to game the system; no getting that special 5% cash-back card, booking your once-per-decade dream vacation, then paying it off and cancelling it soon after - which would actually make the card company lose money on the deal. In the end, credit card companies as a whole have a business model that almost universally prefers customers who use their products regularly and preferably for small amounts a maximum number of times. They want to reduce their expenses (like rewards paid out) while maximizing their revenue. They haven't figured out a better way to do all of this so well as to encourage people to use their cards for gas and groceries - everything else seems like a losing proposition in comparison. The only time this preference differs is when they can avoid paying some or all of the cost of rewards, such as when the merchants themselves honor the rewards in exchange for reduced or zero payment from the card companies. So if you use an airline card that seems to give you 10% back in airline rewards? Well, that's probably a great deal for the card company if the airline provides that reward at their own expense to try to boost business. The card company keeps the transaction-related fees and pays out almost nothing in rewards - the perfect offer (for them)! And this assumes no shenanigans like black-out periods, \"\"not valid with any other offers\"\" rewards like on cars where only a fool pays full MSRP (and sometimes the rewards are tagged in this sort of way, like not valid on sale/clearance items, etc), expiring rewards, the fact that they know not everyone uses their rewards, annual fees that are greater than the rewards you'll actually be obtaining after accounting for all the other issues, etc. And credit card industries are known for their shenanigans!\"" }, { "docid": "2018", "title": "", "text": "\"As i see it, with a debit card, they are taken kinda out of the game. They are not lending money, it seems really bad for them. Not exactly. It is true that they're not lending money, but they charge a hefty commission from the retailers for each swipe which is pure profit with almost no risk. One of the proposals considered (or maybe approved already, don't know) in Congress is to cap that hefty commission, which will really make the debit cards merely a service for the checking account holder, rather than a profit maker for the bank. On the other hand, it's definitely good for individuals. I disagree with that. Debit cards are easier to use than checks, but they provide much less protection than credit cards. Here's what I had to say on this a while ago, and seems like the community agrees. But, why do we really need a credit history to buy some of the more expensive stuff Because the system is broken. It rewards people in debt by giving them more opportunities to get into even more debts, while people who owe nothing to noone cannot get a credit when they do need one. With the current system the potential creditor can only asses the risk of someone who has debt already, they have no way of assessing risks of someone with no debts. To me, all this credit card system seems like an awfully nice way to make loads of money, backed by governments as well. Well, credit cards have nothing to do with it. It's the credit scores system that is broken. If we replace the \"\"card\"\" with \"\"score\"\" in your question - then yes, you're thinking correctly. That of course is true for the US, in other countries I have no knowledge on how the creditors assess the risks.\"" }, { "docid": "179223", "title": "", "text": "Based upon what little is publicly known at this time, it doesn't look good for CAT, PWC or outside counsel. The economic substance they offered up sounds like *post hoc* reasoning. The tax court buying their current explanations would have to accept some exceptionally astute, long-range planning took place that accepted the initial costs exceeding the nascent parts revenue, as well as the risks of over-optimizing tax operations if the necessary revenue didn't materialize; and it doesn't seem they are yet offering any evidence to show that kind of foresight. It will be fascinating to follow, for sure." }, { "docid": "85382", "title": "", "text": "\"Realize that some friends are a bad influence, and maybe aren't really \"\"friends\"\". Don't be afraid to say \"\"sorry, I can't make it tonight\"\". Don't be afraid to go out shopping and not buy anything. Make sure they know why (Too much Credit Card Debit, saving for a house, etc). If your habits suddenly change with no explanation, they may think you are dissing them. But if you explain your reasons, they will probably support you (if they are real friends). In fact, they probably have the same money issues. Suggest lower-cost alternatives to hanging out. Instead of going out, suggest they come over to your place and watch a movie, play board games, Wii, etc. You can have snacks at your place. Alcohol is a lot cheaper when you pour it yourself!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "271514", "title": "", "text": "\"It'll all about the marketing. If you don't get a \"\"real\"\" greeting card for that important birthday or anniversary or whatever, the recipient may thing you're being cheap for using a card you printed out yourself. So you pay $6 for a card because you feel like you have to. Hallmark advertises with those sappy TV commercials for a very good reason. The margins on the product are sky-high, and they spend a good chunk of that money on marketing the product. Perfume is the same way: super cheap to make, low barrier to entry, and the popular ones command a high price.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "497764", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll start with a question... Is the 63K before or after taxes? The short answer to your question on how much is reasonable is: \"\"It depends.\"\" It depends on a lot more than where you live, it depends on what you want... do you want to pay down debt? Do you want to save? Are you trying to buy a house? Those will influence how much you \"\"can\"\" (should let yourselves) spend. It also depends on your actual salary... just because I spend 5% of my salary on something doesn't mean bonkers to you if you're making 63,000 and I'm only making 10,000. I also have a lot of respect for you trying to take this on. It's never easy. But I would also recommend you start by trying to see what you can do to track how much you are actually spending. That can be hard, especially if you mostly use cash. Once you're tracking what you spend, I still think you're coming at this a bit backwards though... rather than ask 'how much is reasonable' to spend on those other expenses, you basically need to rule out the bigger items first. This means things like taxes, your housing, food, transportation, and kid-related expenses. (I've got 2.5 kids of my own.) I would guess that you're listing your pre-tax salaries on here... so start first with whatever it costs you to pay taxes. I'm a US citizen living in Berlin, haven't filed UK taxes, but uktaxcalculators.co.uk says that on 63,000 a year with 3 deductions your net earnings will actually be 43,500. That's 3,625/month. Then what does it cost you each month for rent/utilities/etc. to put a house over your family's head? The rule of thumb they taught in my home-economics class was 35-40%, but that's not for Europe... you'll know what it costs. Let's say its 1,450 a month (40%) for rent and utilities and maybe insurance. That leaves 2,175. The next necessity after housing is food. My current food budget is about 5-6% of my after-tax salary. But that may not compare... the cost to feed a family of 3 is a fairly fixed number, and our salaries aren't the same. As I said, I am a US expat living in Berlin, so I looked at this cost of living calculator, and it looks like groceries are about 7-10% higher there around Cardiff than here in Germany. Still, I spend about 120 € per week on food. That has a fair margin in it for splurging on ice cream and a couple brewskies. It feeds me (I'm almost 2m and about 100 kilos) and my family of four. Let's say you spend 100£ a week on groceries. For budgeting, that's 433£ a month. (52 weeks / 12 months == 4.333 weeks/month) But let's call it 500£. That leaves 1,675. From here, you'll have to figure out the details of where your own money is going--that's why I said you should really start tracking your expenses somehow... even just for a short time. But for the purposes of completing the answers to your questions, the next step is to look at saving before you try spending anything else. A nice target is to aim for 10% of your after-tax pay going into a savings account... this is apart from any other investments. Let's say you do that, you'll be putting away 363£ per month. That leaves 1,300£. As far as other expenses... you need some money for transport. You haven't mentioned car(s) but let's say you're spending another 500£ there. That would be about enough to cover one with the petrol you need to get around town. That leaves 800£ As far as a clothing budget and entertainment, I usually match my grocery budget with what I call \"\"mad money\"\". That's basically money that goes towards other stuff that I would love to categorize, but that my wife gets annoyed with my efforts to drill into on a regular basis. That's another 500£, which leaves 300£. You mentioned debts... assuming that's a credit card at around 20% interest, you probably pay 133£ a month just in interest... (20% = 0.20 / 12 = 0.01667 x 8,000 = 133) plus some nominal payment towards principal. So let's call it 175£. That leaves you with 125£ of wiggle room, assuming I have even caught all of your expenses. And depending on how they're timed, you are probably feeling a serious squeeze in between paychecks. I recognize that you're asking specific questions, but I think that just based on the questions you need a bit more careful backing into the budget. And you REALLY need to track what you're spending for the time being, until you can say... right, we usually spend about this much on X... how can we cut it out? From there the basics of getting your financial house in order are splattered across the interwebs. Make a budget... stick to it... pay down debts... save. Develop goals and mini incentives/rewards as a way to make sure your change your psyche about following a budget.\"" }, { "docid": "111054", "title": "", "text": "\"Between 6 months and a year is normally regarded as the \"\"standard\"\". Plan out what your monthly expenses are and save that money away. One thing to consider is what extras can you give up. If you are currently eating steak and lobster every day can you live with switching to ramen noodles for a period of time? Can you switch from premium cable to basic cable (or cancel it altogether)? Questions like this can greatly impact the amount you have to set aside. I personally have my emergency fund in CDs that mature the first of every month. I know there is less liquidity in this approach but I'm ok with that. My emergency fund is a sum of cash I'll always have so I wanted to reap the benefits of a higher yield. If it comes down to it I can place an expense on a credit card and pay off the credit card when funds become available.\"" }, { "docid": "41112", "title": "", "text": "So why is the capital income a problem, I don't get it? It also seems to be confusing the issue with the separate concern of wealth inequality. I say this because the capital income is not money earned from doing nothing - to generate the income one must invest in assets, and if a decent return is desired then even riskier investments must be considered. This creates new products and services, businesses, jobs etc. Also it does beg the question can everyone earn a capital income, or is there always a need for labour income? What happens as employment becomes more difficult to obtain due to automation? It was a neat explanation but it's left me with more questions than answers." }, { "docid": "564983", "title": "", "text": "\"Several people here have highlighted the incentive/agency problems that tend to naturally arise when securitizing mortgages. However, the market for mortgage-backed securities has existed for decades, and during most of that time these agency problems were held in check. Moreover, academics knew about this problem even before the credit crisis and actually *recommended* the use of trenching in order to avoid the moral hazard problems associated with securitization (see DeMarzo 2005). So, to give a compelling historical explanation for why the crisis happened *when* it did, you need to explain what changed in the mortgage securitization market to enable these previously unproblematic agency relationships to breakdown. So what changed? In short, the growth of the market for CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) composed of mortgage-backed securities), and not the MBS market itself. This market grew so rapidly in the mid-2000s because the ratings agencies created an opportunity for banks to take low-rated MBS debt and give it a higher rating by merely repackaging it into a CDO. It was ratings arbitrage, through and through. Explanations that place the brunt of the blame on the GSAs (i.e. Fannie and Freddie) cannot adequately explain why the majority of mortgage-related losses during the credit crisis were concentrated in CDOs of MBSs, and not in the vanilla MBS market. Here's what happened. Back in the day -- say, pre-early 2000s -- the agency/incentive problems that naturally arise in mortgage securitization were held in check by careful institutional investors who would rigorously assess the default risk of the higher-risk MBS tranches. They had a deep knowledge of the mortgage business. Sometimes they would even go so far as manually examining the loan documentation, the profile of the borrowers, the quality of the collateral, and so on. There were a lot of indiscriminating buyers who were happy to purchase the AAA and AA tranches, but they could afford to be indiscriminating because the banks who were securitizing MBSs knew that without selling to the discriminating buyers of higher-risk debt, they wouldn't be able to break even. It worked a bit like a market for fine wines. I don't know much about wine, but when I walk into a shop that sells fine wines, I can be reasonably certain that there will be a reasonably strong relationship between price and the quality of the wine. Basically, I get to free-ride off the superior discrimination of the wine connoisseurs who regularly visit the shop. Once the ratings agencies created the now infamous \"\"ratings arbitrage\"\" between the MBS and CDO markets, the market for CDOs on MBSs expanded. As this market grew, these \"\"discriminating\"\" buyers became a proportionally smaller part of the MBS market. The folks building CDOs of MBSs didn't know very much about the mortgage business itself; instead, they tended to rely on statistical default models provided by the ratings agencies that predicted the probability of mortgage default based on quantitative variables such as borrowers' credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, etc. The problem is that these models used historical data that was collected back when the \"\"discriminating\"\" institutional investors kept the agency problems in the MBS market in check. The growth of the CDO market spurred even more mortgage securitization, which led lending standards to deteriorate because firms like Countrywide knew that the CDO buyers only cared about credit scores, LTV ratios, etc. However, undiscriminating buyers of MBS were unable to detect these changes in default risk because the models they were using to \"\"see\"\" those changes were becoming invalidated by the growth of the CDO market itself If you want to read more about this, I'd highly recommend MacKenzie's 2011 paper in the American Journal of Sociology [see here]( http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/36082/CrisisRevised.pdf). It's a detailed historical account of the changes in valuation practices/models used within the MBS and CDO markets, and how these practices became invalidated as the CDO market grew in size. **TL;DR: the credit ratings created a \"\"ratings arbitrage\"\" that the banks took advantage of. They are as much, if not more, at fault as the GSAs.** For more info on the deterioration in mortgage quality in the mid-2000s, check out: Keys, Benjamin, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. Did Securitization Lead to Lax Screening? Evidence from Subprime Loans. Rajan, Uday, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. “The Failure of Models That Predict Failure: Distance, Incentives and Defaults.” SSRN eLibrary (December). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1296982. Also, the citation I mentioned above: DeMarzo, P. (2005) \"\"The pooling and tranching of securities: a model of informed intermediation\"\" Review of Economic Studies, 18(1):1-35, 2005\"" }, { "docid": "446167", "title": "", "text": "\"What a great explanation! I was familiar with many of the concepts, but I've learnt quite a lot. Do you happen to know any sources for further reading that are just as understandable to a non-economist? And/Or would you mind continuing / expanding this into whichever direction you find worth exploring? I would love to see this explanation \"\"connected\"\" to the debt crisis and how/why the US and europe seem to be in different situations there. Maybe that would be too complex to explain in more detail using your model, but maybe it is possible..?\"" }, { "docid": "245447", "title": "", "text": "\"For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the \"\"refund\"\" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a \"\"don't ask, don't tell\"\" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this \"\"loophole\"\". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a \"\"donation\"\" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash.\"" }, { "docid": "375877", "title": "", "text": "There is really much simpler explanation for the interest rate differences in different countries. It is the interest rate arbitrage. It is a very well explored economic concept, so you can look it up on the Internet, in case you want to know more. 1) Interest rates for the same currency in different countries Basically, as one smart person here pointed out, there is only one price of money in free market economy. It happens, because investors can move their money unrestrictedly anywhere in the World to capitalize on the local interest rates advantage. For instance, if I can take a loan in the USA at 3-4% annual interest and receive 5-6% annual income on my dollar deposit in Russia, I would take a loan in the US and open a deposit in Russia to enjoy a risk free interest rate differential income of 2% (5-6% - 3-4% ~ 2%). So, would any reasonable person. However, in real World very few banks in Russia or anywhere would pay you an an interest rate higher than it can borrow money at. It'd probably lose money if it'd do so. Anyways, the difference between the risk free rate and interest rate on the dollar deposit can be attributed to the risk premium of this particular bank. The higher expected return, the greater risk premium. If there is a positive difference in the interest rates on the dollar deposits in different countries, it will almost entirely accounted for the risk premium. It is generally much riskier to keep money in, say Russian bank, than American. That's why investors want greater return on their dollar deposits in Russian banks than in American. Of course, if you'd want to park your USD in Russian bank you'd also have to consider transaction costs. So, as you may have already guessed, there is no free lunch. 2) Interest rates in different currencies for different countries If we are talking about the interest rates in different sovereign currencies, it is a somewhat similar concept, only there is more risk if you keep money in local currency (risk premium is much higher). Probably, the biggest component of this risk is inflation (that is only attributed to the prices in local currency). For that reason, current interest rates on deposits in Russian Rubles are at 10-12%, but only 1-3% in the US Dollars. An economic concept that discusses this phenomenon in great detail is Interest Rate Parity. Hope this was helpful. P.S. It doesn't look quite realistic that you can get an 8% annual income for USD deposit in Russia with the interest rates in the U.S. being at 1-2%. At present moment, a 30-year mortgage annual interest rate in the US is at ~2-3% and an annual interest rates for dollar deposits in Sberbank (one of the safest Russian banks = very little risk premium) is at 1-3%. So, arbitrage is impossible." }, { "docid": "512282", "title": "", "text": "You can't just emigrate from a country like Pakistan to the USA, Canada or Australia; they will refuse you entry to their country. E.g. for the USA, even if you're are skilled enough that an American company will hire you (which is obviously the first step – so called 'economic refugees' are sent back immediately), you're a long way from obtaining a green card. Right now, Pakistan isn't even allowed to participate in the Green Card Lottery. What you also need to consider is that the cost of living in those countries is a lot higher. There are websites, like this one which allows you to compare them between cities all over the world. So while you would earn a lot more money, you also need to spend a lot more." }, { "docid": "489561", "title": "", "text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else." }, { "docid": "179223", "title": "", "text": "Based upon what little is publicly known at this time, it doesn't look good for CAT, PWC or outside counsel. The economic substance they offered up sounds like *post hoc* reasoning. The tax court buying their current explanations would have to accept some exceptionally astute, long-range planning took place that accepted the initial costs exceeding the nascent parts revenue, as well as the risks of over-optimizing tax operations if the necessary revenue didn't materialize; and it doesn't seem they are yet offering any evidence to show that kind of foresight. It will be fascinating to follow, for sure." }, { "docid": "186456", "title": "", "text": "Then why didn't you counter that? RP's budget is contingent upon gutting cabinet level departments and defunding a laundry list of government agencies, including some very effective ones. Criticizing my tone is just a shoddy dodge that's *every bit as arrogant* as what you read as my condescension. So: 1) Which 20% of diseases should the CDC stop researching? 2) How, exactly, are we going to keep planes in the sky, certify and inspect aircraft, manage routes and air traffic control, without the FAA? Even if we pretend that the FAA doesn't address a clear market failure, how will the problem be solved privately without passing undue expense onto consumers? 3) Without the FCC, what's to prevent me from building and dialing up a transmitter to bubble out any station I don't like? What's to stop anyone from just jamming anyone else? Do you think the police are suddenly going to take on the burden of enforcement? Please, take a good look at RP's budget. Again, while I agree with many of RP's criticisms of many policies, I don't agree with his solutions. There's too many unanswered questions, and the many things he's pushing to be eliminated are either impractical, or politically/economically untenable." }, { "docid": "480586", "title": "", "text": "Rule of thumb, the earlier you pay down your balance, the less interest you will accrue and the faster you will pay off the debt as a whole. But lets play with some real numbers here. You cited $5000 balance and a $750 payment, but with various bills and things adding onto the balance over the course of a month. Now if your purchases and payments add up to the same number, you are in a losing game, so for the sake of argument I am going to say you are putting $500 + interest on the card each month and making a $750 payment. We also need an interest rate to work with, I am going to use 1%/month and 30 day months to keep the math a bit easier to follow. You basically have two choices in this scenario, you can pay 750 a month on the card, then use it to make your $500 in purchases/other payments over time as you suggest in your question. Or you can pay $250, and hold back $500 to make those other payments directly without running them through the card, as has been suggested in some other answers. So let us compare the two... If I start the cycle at $5000, make a $250 payment on the first day of the cycle, then have no other activity, I will have a balance of $4750 for the month and accrue $47.50 in interest at the close of the cycle. Balance going into the next period is now $4797.50. Carry this out for a year, and your balance at the close of the 12th cycle is $2431.79, and $431.79 of your payments went to interest. By contrast, if you pay $750 at the start of the month, then add $100 back every 6 days so that you spend $500 over the course of the cycle. You will have an average daily balance of $4466.67, which results in $44.67 in interest charges being accrued at the end of the month. This gives you a balance of $4794.67 going into the next cycle, putting you about $3 ahead of the previous method. Push this pattern out for a year and your ending balance is 2395.86, with 395.86 going to interest. Resulting in a savings of ~$36 over making the smaller payment and paying cash for your other expenses. If this happens to be a rewards card, you also have gained whatever rewards benefit it gives you. This demonstrates that by the strict numbers game, the scenario you propose should come out a small but measurable distance ahead of making a smaller payment in order to avoid putting things back on the card. So why do so many people adamantly advise you to not do this? Most of it has to do with psychology and risk. The cash method does not leave any room for you to over spend. You have shredded or locked up the credit card so it can’t be used casually, and when you run out of cash, you can’t spend any more. Which forces you to pay much closer attention to where your money is going. When you are running things through the credit card, you generally don’t have that hard stop unless you are up against your credit limit, and even then most issuers are quite happy to let you go over and charge you extra fees for doing so. So if you have this plan where you are intending to put $500 on the card in a month, then lose track of something you did early in the month, and inadvertently spend $800, you are digging yourself deeper into the hole instead of climbing your way out. There is also a risk in terms of income loss. In the cash method, you no longer have the money to spend, and you are forced to make the hard decisions about where to allocate what you do have, making you much more likely to cut back on luxury items to preserve the necessities. In the card method, it is easy to say “eh, the card has room, I can catch up again later” and not realize the mess you are causing yourself until you are in way over your head. I personally have run all my bills through a credit card in the past so that I could have one single payment to make. Then I was unemployed for six months, and ended up moving before I found a new job. Everything in between, including the move, went on the card. Next thing I know I am carrying a balance of $15k where I used to always have it paid in full. It took roughly 10 years, including several years of working strictly in cash, to get that back under control. I currently have a card that is carrying a balance, and I am running select expenses (such as fuel and food) through it while I whittle the balance back down. Most of my main bills are still paid directly from cash, specifically so that I don’t fall back into the same trap I did before. Even so, there were several months in the past year where the balance was creeping up instead of down, because we were not paying that close of attention to our spending. Then my wife lost her job, and it forced us to closely evaluate where our money was going. We still run certain things through said card, but we are much stricter about it being only those select things, and the balance is trending down again. The main reason we are still channeling those expenses that way is because this is a cash back reward card, and we will be getting roughly $1000 back here in a couple more months." }, { "docid": "460308", "title": "", "text": "Finance noob here. Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good? If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)? &gt;he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies? Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad?" }, { "docid": "454412", "title": "", "text": "Unless a study accounts for whether the users are following a budget or not, it is irrelevant to those who are trying to take their personal finances seriously. I can certainly believe that those who have no budget will spend more on a credit card than they will on a debit card or with cash. Under the right circumstances spending with cards can actually be a tool to track and reduce spending. If you can see on a monthly and yearly basis where all of your money was spent, you have the information to make decisions about the small expenses that add up as well as the obvious large expenses. Debit cards and credit cards offer the same advantage of giving you an electronic record of all of your transactions, but debit cards do not come with the same fraud protection that credit cards have, so I (and many people like me) prefer to use credit cards for security reasons alone. Cash back and other rewards points bolster the case for credit cards over debit cards. It is very possible to track all of your spending with cash, but it is also more work. The frustration of accounting for bad transcriptions and rechecking every transaction multiple times is worth discussing too (as a reason that people get discouraged and give up on budgeting). My point is simply that credit cards and the electronic records that they generate can greatly simplify the process of tracking your spending. I doubt any study out there accounts for the people who are specifically using those benefits and what effect it has on their spending." }, { "docid": "117661", "title": "", "text": "You are using interchangeably borrow/loan and gift. They are very different. For the mortgage company, they would prefer that the money from friends and family be a gift. If it is a loan, then you have an obligation to pay it back. If they see money added to your bank accounts in the months just before getting the loan, they will ask for the source of the money. Anything you claim as a gift will be required to be documented by you and the person making the gift. You don't want to lie about it, and have the other person lie about it. They will make you sign documents, if they catch you in a lie you can lose the loan, or be prosecuted for fraud. If the money from friends and family is a loan, the payments for the loan will impact the amount of money you can borrow. From the view of the IRS the gift tax only comes into play if during one calendar year a person makes a gift to somebody else of 14,000 or more. There are two points related to this. It is person-to-person. So if your dad gives you 14K, and your mom gives you 14K, and your dad gives your wife 14k and your mom gives your wife 14K; everything is fine. So two people can give 2 people 56K in one year. Please use separate checks to make it clear to the IRS. If somebody gives a gift above the exclusion limit for the year, they will have to complete IRS form 709. This essentially removes the excess amount from their life time exclusion, in other words from their estate. Nothing to worry about from the IRS. The bank wants to see the documentation. Also you are not a charity, so they can't claim it as a donation. Why do you have 6,000 in cash sitting around. The mortgage company will want an explanation for all large deposits so you better have a good explanation. From the IRS FAQ on Gift Taxes: What can be excluded from gifts? The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts. Number 3 on the list is the one you care about." }, { "docid": "449439", "title": "", "text": "\"Current is another word for Checking, as it is called in the US. Savings account is an interest-bearing account with certain limitations. For example, in the US you cannot withdraw money from it more than 6 times a month. Here is the explanation why. Current account is a \"\"general-use\"\" account on which you can write checks, use ATM/Debit cards and have unlimited transactions. It can also have negative balance (if your bank agrees to let you overdraft, they usually charge huge fees for that though). Checking accounts can have interest as well, but they usually don't, and if they do - it's much lower than the savings account interest.\"" }, { "docid": "2018", "title": "", "text": "\"As i see it, with a debit card, they are taken kinda out of the game. They are not lending money, it seems really bad for them. Not exactly. It is true that they're not lending money, but they charge a hefty commission from the retailers for each swipe which is pure profit with almost no risk. One of the proposals considered (or maybe approved already, don't know) in Congress is to cap that hefty commission, which will really make the debit cards merely a service for the checking account holder, rather than a profit maker for the bank. On the other hand, it's definitely good for individuals. I disagree with that. Debit cards are easier to use than checks, but they provide much less protection than credit cards. Here's what I had to say on this a while ago, and seems like the community agrees. But, why do we really need a credit history to buy some of the more expensive stuff Because the system is broken. It rewards people in debt by giving them more opportunities to get into even more debts, while people who owe nothing to noone cannot get a credit when they do need one. With the current system the potential creditor can only asses the risk of someone who has debt already, they have no way of assessing risks of someone with no debts. To me, all this credit card system seems like an awfully nice way to make loads of money, backed by governments as well. Well, credit cards have nothing to do with it. It's the credit scores system that is broken. If we replace the \"\"card\"\" with \"\"score\"\" in your question - then yes, you're thinking correctly. That of course is true for the US, in other countries I have no knowledge on how the creditors assess the risks.\"" }, { "docid": "261697", "title": "", "text": "I would say it depends on what your long term plans and goals are. If you are trying to get rid of credit cards and never use them again, then I would say to keep $1000 as an emergency fund, pay the cards off and then save to build your emergency fund up to 3-6 months expenses. However, if you are just going to run the balances back up, I would save save 3-6 months expenses out of the money you just received and pay down the higher interest cards with what is left over." }, { "docid": "192811", "title": "", "text": "\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \"\"emergencies\"\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "50809", "title": "", "text": "(At least in the UK) a company named Card Factory has been very successful in undercutting the competition using the classic pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap strategy with less glamorous high-street locations than 'traditional' stores. Interestingly it doesn't seem to have spawned either competition at their price point or lowered the general prices for greetings cards even in low-margin businesses like supermarkets. A quick glance at their annual report suggests they're doing reasonably well with this approach." } ]

[ { "docid": "273947", "title": "", "text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"" }, { "docid": "501453", "title": "", "text": "\"Paraphrased from Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets: Money is (1) a medium of exchange, (2) a unit of account, (3) a store of value. To the first point: as Homer Simpson's brain explained to him \"\"Money can be exchanged for goods and services\"\". The second: money acts as a measure to keep track of the relative worth of an enormous amount of items. This makes it much simpler than tracking how many apples are worth how many deerhides, and so on and so forth as occurs in barter economies. The last point: money is a terrible store of value. Your money tends to inflate, meaning that its worth decreases over time. I think your explanation went into territory that it didn't need to. Your explanation of the creation of money for example seems to imply that the banking system is not involved in the process of money creation when actually the opposite is true.\"" }, { "docid": "564983", "title": "", "text": "\"Several people here have highlighted the incentive/agency problems that tend to naturally arise when securitizing mortgages. However, the market for mortgage-backed securities has existed for decades, and during most of that time these agency problems were held in check. Moreover, academics knew about this problem even before the credit crisis and actually *recommended* the use of trenching in order to avoid the moral hazard problems associated with securitization (see DeMarzo 2005). So, to give a compelling historical explanation for why the crisis happened *when* it did, you need to explain what changed in the mortgage securitization market to enable these previously unproblematic agency relationships to breakdown. So what changed? In short, the growth of the market for CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) composed of mortgage-backed securities), and not the MBS market itself. This market grew so rapidly in the mid-2000s because the ratings agencies created an opportunity for banks to take low-rated MBS debt and give it a higher rating by merely repackaging it into a CDO. It was ratings arbitrage, through and through. Explanations that place the brunt of the blame on the GSAs (i.e. Fannie and Freddie) cannot adequately explain why the majority of mortgage-related losses during the credit crisis were concentrated in CDOs of MBSs, and not in the vanilla MBS market. Here's what happened. Back in the day -- say, pre-early 2000s -- the agency/incentive problems that naturally arise in mortgage securitization were held in check by careful institutional investors who would rigorously assess the default risk of the higher-risk MBS tranches. They had a deep knowledge of the mortgage business. Sometimes they would even go so far as manually examining the loan documentation, the profile of the borrowers, the quality of the collateral, and so on. There were a lot of indiscriminating buyers who were happy to purchase the AAA and AA tranches, but they could afford to be indiscriminating because the banks who were securitizing MBSs knew that without selling to the discriminating buyers of higher-risk debt, they wouldn't be able to break even. It worked a bit like a market for fine wines. I don't know much about wine, but when I walk into a shop that sells fine wines, I can be reasonably certain that there will be a reasonably strong relationship between price and the quality of the wine. Basically, I get to free-ride off the superior discrimination of the wine connoisseurs who regularly visit the shop. Once the ratings agencies created the now infamous \"\"ratings arbitrage\"\" between the MBS and CDO markets, the market for CDOs on MBSs expanded. As this market grew, these \"\"discriminating\"\" buyers became a proportionally smaller part of the MBS market. The folks building CDOs of MBSs didn't know very much about the mortgage business itself; instead, they tended to rely on statistical default models provided by the ratings agencies that predicted the probability of mortgage default based on quantitative variables such as borrowers' credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, etc. The problem is that these models used historical data that was collected back when the \"\"discriminating\"\" institutional investors kept the agency problems in the MBS market in check. The growth of the CDO market spurred even more mortgage securitization, which led lending standards to deteriorate because firms like Countrywide knew that the CDO buyers only cared about credit scores, LTV ratios, etc. However, undiscriminating buyers of MBS were unable to detect these changes in default risk because the models they were using to \"\"see\"\" those changes were becoming invalidated by the growth of the CDO market itself If you want to read more about this, I'd highly recommend MacKenzie's 2011 paper in the American Journal of Sociology [see here]( http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/36082/CrisisRevised.pdf). It's a detailed historical account of the changes in valuation practices/models used within the MBS and CDO markets, and how these practices became invalidated as the CDO market grew in size. **TL;DR: the credit ratings created a \"\"ratings arbitrage\"\" that the banks took advantage of. They are as much, if not more, at fault as the GSAs.** For more info on the deterioration in mortgage quality in the mid-2000s, check out: Keys, Benjamin, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. Did Securitization Lead to Lax Screening? Evidence from Subprime Loans. Rajan, Uday, Amit Seru, and Vikrant Vig. 2008. “The Failure of Models That Predict Failure: Distance, Incentives and Defaults.” SSRN eLibrary (December). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1296982. Also, the citation I mentioned above: DeMarzo, P. (2005) \"\"The pooling and tranching of securities: a model of informed intermediation\"\" Review of Economic Studies, 18(1):1-35, 2005\"" }, { "docid": "209917", "title": "", "text": "Upvote for the lengthy and clear explanation. I was economics major and I still like to follow economics 15 years later and i agree with your points. But I wonder if your username doesn't detract from your comment visibility by egging on down voters." }, { "docid": "598428", "title": "", "text": "\"Paypal forbids using their credit card service to \"\"give yourself a cash advance or help others to do so\"\". For small ammounts you may get away with it but pushing $10K through a PayPal account is going to raise red flags. In the USA it seems that some cards allow balance transfers from other types of loan while others are restricted to credit cards only. So that is a possibility. Another option can be to find a card with a good deal on purchases. Then move your regular purchases to the card and use the money you would normally have spent on purchases to pay off the other loan. Remember credit cards can be either a very cheap way to borrow or a very expensive way. Which one they are depends on how good you are at negotiating the traps they set up for you. If you do use a credit card deal make sure you Is it overall a viable option? That depends on the details which are not specified in your hypothetical scenario incluing the persons credit rating , what the interest is like on the existing loan and what the expected time to repay the debt is.\"" }, { "docid": "112374", "title": "", "text": "\"You're circling around the answer... The only real difference between a loddar and a privately-issued promissory note is that the loddar is issued by a recognized third party with better credit/credibility (the whole merchant/priest/farmer cartel-thing). Private entities absolutely can and do issue their own promises to pay, and accept them, and in turn rely on those promises to make other promises. It's what you do when you charge something to a credit-card on the basis of your employer's promise to pay. You charge new tires, the tire store promises to pay its employees based on your CC company's promise to pay the tire-store, which is based on your promise to pay the credit-card company, which is based on your employer's promise to pay you, which is based on your employer's contracts with its customers, and so on... In fact, often as not, the whole chain *never actually gets reconciled with printed cash.* The central bank never has to print or even know about these transactions. It's just checks and electronic transfers: promises all the way down, maybe with occasional cash withdrawals for popcorn at the movies or to tip the stripper or something... That doesn't mean it's not \"\"real money\"\", it absolutely is: those promises are buying groceries and tires and making mortgage-payments and paying dentist bills and getting people to dig up stuff out of mines that will be fashioned into iPads, and all kinds of stuff. Where this hurts most people in the brain is that they kind of accept dollar bills as axiomatically and intrinsically valuable. So trying to explain in reverse how they are the same as promissory notes or credit-certificates is like trying to convince them that a plane ticket is the same as an airplane (which is obviously not true). That's why I started with this imaginary world without money. If you let go of any preconceptions, and stop trying to think through the analogies and don't read it trying to predictively look for the outcome conclusions, if you just read it and follow the story through, it is obvious that the *only* intrinsic difference (in that imaginary world) between apple-certificates, loddars, and privately-issued IOUs is the *credibility of the issuer*. Trying to understand this stuff via analogy will make your head spin: Taking it all the way back to the thread-topic and the question at the top of the page, what makes it so difficult is the tendency and mental impulse to analogize money as a \"\"thing\"\" that \"\"is\"\" somewhere, and therefore has to \"\"go\"\" somewhere. But that's an intrinsically and substantially imperfect analogy, which is what makes it hard to explain to a five-year-old. And you can't make the reality fit that analogy and stay sane. Even if you refuse to accept all this maddening abstraction and insist on only doing transactions with physical cash, or gold pieces, *the value of those markers is still 100% contingent on everyone accepting that everyone else will continue to believe that everyone else will continue to accept that currency...* Money is essentially a promise that other people will keep. Instead of giving you food, your employer gives you a \"\"universal gift certificate\"\" that you can redeem anywhere, and everyone else will accept it, because they can in turn redeem it anywhere else. The only difference between using a bank-draft or printed dollar bill, versus writing a promise to make good yourself, is the credibility of the issuer. That's a really difficult premise for most people to accept, because it's invisible and abstract, and seems to conflict with tangible interactions you've been doing all your life. So we have this sort of tendency to try and force the reality to fit preconceived conceptual analogies, like someone who keeps rejecting explanations of how airplanes can fly because \"\"that still doesn't explain how metal can be lighter than air\"\"... it's demanding that the reality must fit a hypothesis that doesn't apply. Hope that helps.\"" }, { "docid": "402173", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/09/the-how-and-why-of-inclusive-growth/541422/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In our increasingly unequal cities, inclusion is good for growth, and growth is good for inclusion. &gt; The report draws from the experience of Brookings Metro Policy Program&amp;#039;s Inclusive Economic Development Lab, a six-month pilot project that worked with regional EDOs in three metros-Indianapolis, Nashville, and San Diego-to develop more effective strategies to frame inclusive growth as an economic imperative. &gt; As one economic development official said to me recently: &amp;quot;For too long we emphasized economic growth, and that has helped accentuate many of the problems our cities and regions now face. Our profession is called economic development and that&amp;#039;s what we should emphasize; not just growth but the full development of our people, neighborhoods and communities.&amp;quot; That&amp;#039;s what the budding movement for inclusive growth and prosperity is about. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73aqjn/to_fight_inequality_cities_need_inclusive_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~219138 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **growth**^#1 **economic**^#2 **EDO**^#3 **inclusive**^#4 **more**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "141973", "title": "", "text": "Couple of thoughts... Opposition research is valuable to campaigns. They spend millions of dollars developing it. So it definitely has value. I don't believe it has to be cash or equivalents to be illegal. Foreign governments could just buy air time for candidates. It's the same thing. Don Jr may *not* have actually gotten anything of value. That is uncertain. No one knows what happened in the room. He *did* demonstrate an intent to get that thing, and collude in the process. We don't know, so that's why you investigate. It's entirely possible that Don Jr tried to collude, but failed. I also think there's reason for suspicion about the content of the meeting. First it was about adoption. Then it was something else (I can't remember the exact timeline of explanations). If it was innocuous, there would have been one unchanging story." }, { "docid": "245447", "title": "", "text": "\"For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the \"\"refund\"\" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a \"\"don't ask, don't tell\"\" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this \"\"loophole\"\". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a \"\"donation\"\" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash.\"" }, { "docid": "183331", "title": "", "text": "\"Economics is not hard science. Economics is really just a study of what people do and why. The best book to read to understand why people protect their wealth when the government threatens it is \"\"[Human Action](http://mises.org/document/3250)\"\" by Ludwig von Mises. Check it out. It will answer all of your questions with a lot more logic than research. Economic research on macro subjects can prove any preconceived theorem, therefore it is worse than logic because it purports to \"\"prove\"\" what are, in the end, only opinions.\"" }, { "docid": "75616", "title": "", "text": "Excellent explanation. Upvote to you sir. I would like to add something: How do we know how many bushels of apples is worth a chunk of deer meat? You did not touch on the concept of value. The way I see it, value is related to the human energy required to procure a specific good. For example: it takes a man all day to find a nugget of gold, while it take another man all day to pick 20 bushels of apples. Because gold is scarce, it is worth a lot of apples: it has a high value. At it's core, value is assigned based on the amount of human labor required to acquire a good or service. For example: Many years ago there may have been an equal number of bears and skunks. However, it would take many brave hunters with bows and arrows to kill a bear, while any hunter could kill a skunk solo. Thus, even though they had the same scarcity, a bear hide would be more valuable because the human labor required was greater. Many economics classes simply say value depends on supply and demand. However, if something is in low supply and high demand, it is BECAUSE it takes so much human effort to procure. If it did not take large amounts of human labor, everyone would sell said item and the value would drop. What is your take on this? do you have a better explanation for value?" }, { "docid": "41112", "title": "", "text": "So why is the capital income a problem, I don't get it? It also seems to be confusing the issue with the separate concern of wealth inequality. I say this because the capital income is not money earned from doing nothing - to generate the income one must invest in assets, and if a decent return is desired then even riskier investments must be considered. This creates new products and services, businesses, jobs etc. Also it does beg the question can everyone earn a capital income, or is there always a need for labour income? What happens as employment becomes more difficult to obtain due to automation? It was a neat explanation but it's left me with more questions than answers." }, { "docid": "147163", "title": "", "text": "Personal finances are not intuitive for everyone, and it can be a challenge to know what to do when you haven't been taught. Congratulations on recognizing that you need to make a change. The first step that I would recommend is what you've already done: Assemble your bank statements so you can get an accurate picture of what money you currently have. Keep organized folders so you can find your bank statements when you need them. In addition to the bank statements for your checking and savings accounts, you also need to assess any debt that you have. Have you taken out any loans that need to be paid back? Do you have any credit card debt? Make a list of all your debts, and make sure that you have folders for these statements as well. Hopefully, you don't have any debts. But if you are like most people, you owe money to someone, and you may even owe more money than you currently have in your bank accounts. If you have debts, fixing this problem will be one of your goals. No matter what your debt is, you need to make sure that from now on, you don't spend more money than you take in as income. To do this, you need to make a budget. A budget is a plan for spending your money. To get started with a budget, make a list of all the income you will receive this month. Add it up, and write that amount at the top of a page. Next, you want to make a list of all the expenses you will have this month. Some of these expenses are more or less fixed: rent, utility bills, etc. Write those down first. Some of the expenses you have more control over, such as food and entertainment. Give yourself some money to spend on each of these. You may also have some larger expenses that will happen in the future, such as a tuition or insurance payment. Allocate some money to those, so that by the time that payment comes around, you will have saved enough to pay for those expenses. If you find that you don't have enough income to cover all of your expenses in a month, you need to either reduce your expenses somewhere or increase your income until your budget is at a point where you have money left over at the end of each month. After you've gotten to this point, the next step is figuring out what to do with that extra money left over. This is where your goals come into play. If you have debt, I recommend that one of your first goals is to eliminate that debt as fast as possible. If you have no money saved, you should make one of your goals saving some money as an emergency fund. See the question Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing for some ideas on what order you should place your goals. Doing the budget and tracking all of your spending on paper is possible, but many people find that using the right software to help you do this is much easier. I have written before on choosing budgeting software. All of the budgeting software packages I mentioned in that post are from the U.S., but many of them can successfully be used in Europe. YNAB, the program I use, even has an unofficial German users community that you might find useful. One of the things that budgeting software will help you with is the process of reconciling your bank statements. This is where you go through the bank statement each month and compare it to your own record of spending transactions in your budget. If there are any transactions that appear in the statement that you don't have recorded, you need to figure out why. Either it is an expense that you forgot to record, or it is a charge that you did not make. Record it if it is legitimate, or dispute the expense if it is fraudulent. For more information, look around at some of the questions tagged budget. I also recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey, which will provide more help in making a budget and getting out of debt." }, { "docid": "155564", "title": "", "text": "\"With all due respect to economics everywhere and the armchair economist. I think they overlook one very basic fact. The alternative to buying popcorn at the cinema is buying it cheaper at the store, or making your own and bringing it to the cinema. Cinemagoing is something you tend to do with a date (and sometimes your friends) and who wants to look cheap to their date (and perhaps their spouse/friends) bringing popcorn to the cinema? This \"\"cheapo-gentlemens\"\" effect together with convenience is probably the reason why popcorn can remain so expensive at cinemas.\"" }, { "docid": "125204", "title": "", "text": "I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)" }, { "docid": "376758", "title": "", "text": "\"Thank you for misunderstanding: &gt;then I shudder to think what an explanation of how the price of money can be derived from plotting IS and LM together and extending it's meeting point into the money market to determine the price of currency would do to your notion of control by powerful offices in government. and embarking upon the very rant I knew you had in you. I am well aware of the Federal Reserve's purpose of controlling the money supply, as is everyone else. You are literally the last one to the party. Your mistaken feeling of superiority is derived from a position of complete ignorance. Your shock and outrage at the most simplistic of economic facts that have been the foundation for understanding international economics since the cold war represents a massive twisting of self education: you have wrested your way out of the dark pit of complete ignorance by reading up on how the economy works, but in a sorrowful twist you have learned this information from biased sources, perhaps the \"\"Abolish the Fed\"\" folks putting around, and instead of taking steps forward into understanding the world of finance you have flipped your lid and assume that you have somehow become Neo in The Matrix and have taken on a faux-intellectual persona in a desperate attempt to assert an identity of superiority over the masses of far more educated people around you who do not react with shock and outrage to things they already knew. **TLDR: You are just a smug asshole who has reacted to basic facts about the economy by incorporating them into making more credible tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, and I hate people like you because you distract from legitimate criticism of the international banking system by acting shocked by what you learned in Economics 101.**\"" }, { "docid": "468959", "title": "", "text": "Can he use an existing credit card in his name for all his business expenses, or does that pierce the corporate veil? That would be a question to a lawyer, since there's no definitive answer but rather circumstantial. Generally it is safer to separate the finances completely than to try and guess what the court would rule if it comes to that. It is not hard to get a separate card for a LLC (especially if it is a sole proprietorship). We are going to buy a house soon, so I don't want any extra inquiries. I guess it depends on the bank and the type of card. My Citi business card doesn't show up on my personal credit report." }, { "docid": "522723", "title": "", "text": "\"My recommendation is to pay off your student loans as quickly as possible. It sounds like you're already doing this but don't incur any other large debts until you have this taken care of. I'd also recommend not buying a car, especially an expensive one, on credit or lease either. Back during the dotcom boom I and many friends bought or leased expensive cars only to lose them or struggle paying for them when the bottom dropped out. A car instantly depreciates and it's quite rare for them to ever gain value again. Stick with reliable, older, used cars that you can purchase for cash. If you do borrow for a car, shop around for the best deal and avoid 3+ year terms if at all possible. Don't lease unless you have a business structure where this might create a clear financial advantage. Avoid credit cards as much as possible although if you do plan to buy a house with a mortgage you'll need to maintain some credit history. If you have the discipline to keep your balance small and paid down you can use a credit card to build credit history. However, these things can quickly get out of hand and you'll wonder why you suddenly owe $10K, $20K or even more on them so be very careful with them. As for the house (speaking of US markets here), save up for at least a 20% down payment if you can. Based on what you said, this would be about $20-25K. This will give you a lot more flexibility to take advantage of deals that might come your way, even if you don't put it all into the house. \"\"Stretching\"\" to buy a house that's too expensive can quickly lead to financial ruin. As for house size, I recommend purchasing a 4 bedroom house even if you aren't planning on kids right away. It will resell better and you'll appreciate having the extra space for storage, home office, hobbies, etc. Also, life has a way of changing your plans for having kids and such.\"" }, { "docid": "446167", "title": "", "text": "\"What a great explanation! I was familiar with many of the concepts, but I've learnt quite a lot. Do you happen to know any sources for further reading that are just as understandable to a non-economist? And/Or would you mind continuing / expanding this into whichever direction you find worth exploring? I would love to see this explanation \"\"connected\"\" to the debt crisis and how/why the US and europe seem to be in different situations there. Maybe that would be too complex to explain in more detail using your model, but maybe it is possible..?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "374030", "title": "", "text": "As one answer points out, people buying greeting cards care little about whether they cost 25 cents or $5. Those are both small amounts of money and it's not something you buy often---also people feel the need to spend money because it's a gift. On the supplier side, it should be noted that the cost of cards has little to do with the paper they are printed on. There is an expectation that cards are new and unique...something the buyer and recipient have never seen. So they have writers and graphic designers constantly cranking out a large variety of cards and replacing existing cards with new ones, of which only a small number get sold before they move to the next model. Relatively speaking, there is a lot of human effort per thousand cards sold. Then of course there is the real estate they occupy in the store (disproportionate to a bunch of pieces of paper) and other retail, marketing, and distribution costs. I'm not saying margins are particularly thin, but if they were crazy high we probably would see more entry as you suggest." } ]

[ { "docid": "355592", "title": "", "text": "\"There absolutely is a specific model that makes this so popular with so many credit card companies, and that model is \"\"per transaction fees\"\". Card companies also receive cost-sharing incentives from certain merchants. There is also a psychological reasoning as an additional incentive. When you want to accept credit cards as a source of payment as a business, you generally have three kinds of fees to pay: monthly/yearly subscription fees, percentage of transaction fee, and per transaction fee. The subscription fees can be waived and sometimes are expressed as a \"\"minimum cost\"\", so the business pays a certain amount whether you actually have people use credit cards or not. Many of these fees don't actually make it to the credit card companies, as they just pay the service providers and middle-men processing companies. The percentage of transaction fee means that the business accepting payment via credit card must pay a percentage usually ranging from 1-3% of the total transactions they accept. So if they get paid $10,000 a month by customers in the form of credit cards, the business pays out $100-300 a month to the credit card processor - a good portion of which will make it back to the credit card issuing company, and is a major source of income for them. The per transaction fee means that every time a transaction is run involving a card, a set fee is incurred by the business (which is commonly anywhere from $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction). If that $10,000 a month business mentioned previously had 10 customers paying $1,000 each at $0.10 a transaction, that's only $1 in fees to the credit card processors/companies. But if instead that business was a grocery store with an average transaction of $40, that's $25 in fees. This system means that if you are a credit card company and want to encourage people to make a specific kind of purchase, you should encourage purchases that people make many times for relatively small amounts of money. In a perfect world you'd want them to buy $1 bottles of water 5 times a day with their credit card. If the card company had 50,000 card holders doing this, at the end of 1 year the company would have $91,250,000 spread across 91,250,000 transactions. The card company might reasonably make $0.05 per transaction and %1 of the purchase total. The Get Rewarded For Drinking More campaign might earn the card company $912,500 in percentage fees and over $4.5 million in transaction fees. Yet the company would only have to pay 3% in rewards from the percentage fees, or $2.7 million, back to customers. If the card company had encouraged using your credit card for large once-yearly purchases, they would actually pay out more money in rewards than they collect in card-use fees. Yet by encouraging people to make small transactions very often the card company earns a nice net-income even if absolutely every customer pays their balance in full, on time, and pays no annual/monthly fees for their card - which obviously does not happen in the real world. No wonder companies try so hard to encourage you to use your card all the time! For card companies to make real money they need you to use your credit card. As discussed above, the more often you use the card the better (for them), and there can be a built-in preference for small repeated transactions. But no matter what the size of transaction, they can't make the big bucks if you don't use the card at all! Selling your personal information isn't as profitable if they don't have in-depth info on you to sell, either. So how do they get you to make that plastic sing? Gas and groceries are a habit. Most people buy one or the other at least once a weak, and a very large number of us make such purchases multiple times a week. Some people even make such purchases multiple times a day! So how do people pay for such transactions? The goal of the card companies is to have you use their product to pay as much as possible. If you pay for something regularly you'll keep that card in your wallet with you, rather than it getting lost in a drawer at home. So the card companies want you to use your card as a matter of habit, too. If you use a card to buy for gas and groceries, why wouldn't you use it for other things too? Lunch, dinner, buying online? If the card company pays out more and makes less for large, less-regular purchases, then the ideal for them is to have you use the card for small regular purchase and yet still have you use the card for larger infrequent purchases even if you get reduced/no rewards. What better way to achieve all these goals than to offer special rewards on gas and groceries? And because it's not a one-time purchase, you aren't so likely to game the system; no getting that special 5% cash-back card, booking your once-per-decade dream vacation, then paying it off and cancelling it soon after - which would actually make the card company lose money on the deal. In the end, credit card companies as a whole have a business model that almost universally prefers customers who use their products regularly and preferably for small amounts a maximum number of times. They want to reduce their expenses (like rewards paid out) while maximizing their revenue. They haven't figured out a better way to do all of this so well as to encourage people to use their cards for gas and groceries - everything else seems like a losing proposition in comparison. The only time this preference differs is when they can avoid paying some or all of the cost of rewards, such as when the merchants themselves honor the rewards in exchange for reduced or zero payment from the card companies. So if you use an airline card that seems to give you 10% back in airline rewards? Well, that's probably a great deal for the card company if the airline provides that reward at their own expense to try to boost business. The card company keeps the transaction-related fees and pays out almost nothing in rewards - the perfect offer (for them)! And this assumes no shenanigans like black-out periods, \"\"not valid with any other offers\"\" rewards like on cars where only a fool pays full MSRP (and sometimes the rewards are tagged in this sort of way, like not valid on sale/clearance items, etc), expiring rewards, the fact that they know not everyone uses their rewards, annual fees that are greater than the rewards you'll actually be obtaining after accounting for all the other issues, etc. And credit card industries are known for their shenanigans!\"" }, { "docid": "273947", "title": "", "text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"" }, { "docid": "155564", "title": "", "text": "\"With all due respect to economics everywhere and the armchair economist. I think they overlook one very basic fact. The alternative to buying popcorn at the cinema is buying it cheaper at the store, or making your own and bringing it to the cinema. Cinemagoing is something you tend to do with a date (and sometimes your friends) and who wants to look cheap to their date (and perhaps their spouse/friends) bringing popcorn to the cinema? This \"\"cheapo-gentlemens\"\" effect together with convenience is probably the reason why popcorn can remain so expensive at cinemas.\"" }, { "docid": "374063", "title": "", "text": "This is an organization with a strong Christian atmosphere that actively employs fellow believers and hosts a bible study every morning. If that isn't a church, then what *do* you consider a church? Also, it wasn't an analogy. It was an explanation of why certain organizations may choose to hire like-minded people. EDIT: No clue why this is getting downvotes. Equal opportunity employment is not without its practical limitations." }, { "docid": "319052", "title": "", "text": "The SCHUFA explicitly says on their website that their scoring system is a secret. However, if your goal is to be credit-worthy for example to get financing for a house or a car or whatever, just pay any loans and your credit card back on time and you'll be fine. There is no need to build a credit history. I just got a mortgage on a new house without any real credit history. I have one credit card which I only use on vacations because some countries don't take my debit card, and I always put money on it before I use it, so I've technically never borrowed money from a bank at all. My banker looked at my SCHUFA with me and we saw that there was nothing in there except for the credit card, which has a 500€ limit and if I maxed it out, the monthly interest would be 6,80€ so he added that 6,80€ to my expenses calculation and that was it. If you're having trouble getting a loan and you don't know why, you can ask the SCHUFA for the data they have on you and you can correct any mistakes they might have made. Sometimes, especially when you have the same full name and birth date as somebody else, the SCHUFA does get things mixed up and you have to sort it out." }, { "docid": "283657", "title": "", "text": "\"I have the same problem. The people above are right to an extent. You have to be more disciplined. But there is no reason why you can't get there in stages. If you try to do too much too fast you'll just give up. You need to find a system that removes some of the passive barriers affecting you. You need to think what in particular is overwhelming you. For me it was sitting down at the end of the month to write it all down. Writing it all down at the end of the week or even each day didn't work either because it was too much and I had forgotten what stuff was. I'm like you. The bank account is a record so why do I have to retype it or worse, hand write it out? Bleh. What I ended up doing was divide my expenses into four categories: food (to include all medical) shelter, transportation, spending -- with the first three being needs and the last being wants. Eating out is spending. I have four checking accounts with four debit cards. I saved up some money. I put a paycheck's worth of money in each because I didn't know how much I spent each month in each category, but knew I didn't spend an entire paycheck in any one category per month. Voila. No more work. At the store you just put things in the basket by category. At Target you pay for the food and toothpaste with the medical card and the DVD with the spending card. The cashiers don't care that you pay separately. And if you are buying so much crap that separating items by category is a problem, why the heck are you buying so much crap? At the end of the month you will now have a record of how much you spend on transportation, housing (electricity would be paid online from this account for example), medical and fun. That's all anyone needs to help you get started. You can then see if your housing is 35% or less (or whatever percentage you feel is right). The person trying to help the author above is right. A Target charge doesn't indicate whether you bought some oil for the car or cold medicine or a lock for the cabinet door that broke. But when you pay for each of these things under the right account, you do know how the money is allocated. Doing it this way requires little discipline. Before you put the item in the basket, you just ask yourself, is this a want or a need (which is something you should be doing anyway). If it's a need, is it for my car, house, or body. The house is what I use if i can't figure it out (like paying for the renewal of my professional license). that's it! You have to stand at the register for longer but so what. If you are spending all your salary and you stop when you have no more money (assuming you've run through all of your savings, which you will soon if you don't change), then you have no more money to spend. So if you are honest when you put things in the basket(need vs want), you are going to run out of spending money real quick. Your spending money account will be empty but you will still have food money. Set your debit card up so that it denies your charge if you dont have enough money. Once you realize how much you truly spend for needs in each category, yoy will only put that much in each account. Therefore, You can't use the house card to just \"\"borrow\"\" from it till next month. If you do, you won't be able to pay your bills. If you have so little discipline that you knowingly spend your bill money, then there is a deeper issue going on than just finding the right budgeting/cash flow system for you. Something is seriously wrong and you need to seek professional help. When someone is trying to help you, the first step is to determine what category you are spending too much in. Then when you realize it's the house category, for example, you will need to figure out why you are spending so much in that category. A bank statement wont tell you that. So you can do what we did. On every receipt --before you walk out of the store-- write down what each purchase is on the receipt. Then you can hand over the receipts to whoever is helping you. Most items are easily recognizable on the receipt so you wont have to write everything down. you should be doing this for insurance purposes anyway. Again, if your receipt is so blooming long that this is onerous, probably everything you just spent is not a need and maybe you need to turn right around and return stuff. Maybe you need to go to the store more often so there are only a few purchases on each receipt. Groceries are groceries. You don't need to detail that out. For Ikea when you have to purchase pieces to a set, we get a separate receipts for each. So the brackets and shelving for the bedroom will be on one receipt and the brackets and shelving for the other room will be on another receipt. Even at the store I cant figure out what all the little pieces are! But really, if you are making a decent enough salary, then you are probably spending too much on wants and are calling the items needs. So really your problem is correctly identifying needs from wants. Define a NEED. YOU. Make up your own definition of need Dwell on it. Let it become meaningful for you. Oranges are a need. Chocolate is not (no, really it's not! Lol!). So when you are putting the stuff in the basket, you dont even have to think about whether it's a need or not after a while. Wants go in the child seat if at all possible (to keep the number of items smaller). When you are ready to check out, add up the items roughly in the want pile. Ask yourself if you really want all that stuff. Then put some stuff back! At this point ask yourself is the 8 hours I will have to work to pay for this worth it? Am I really going to use it? Will using the item make me happy? Or is it the actual buying of the item that makes me feel powerful? Where will I put it? How much time will I need to maintain it? Then put some stuff back! Get some good goals, a kayaking trip or whatever. Ask yourself if the item is worth delaying the trip. How will I feel later? Will I have buyers remorse? If so, put it back! These are controls you can put into place that don't take a lot of discipline. Writing the items down on the receipt is a more advanced step you can take later. If you are with friends, go first so that you can write down the items while they are checking out. If you are private and don't want to share your method with your friends, go to the bathroom and in the stall write it down while they wait. Writing the items on the receipt while in the store is sort of a trigger mechanism for remembering to do so. That pulling out of the card triggers your memory to get out your pen or ask the cashier for one. The side benefit is catching someone using a cloned copy of your card. In the medical account if you see an Exxon charge, you know it's not yours. Also, while that one account is shut down, you have three others to rely on in the meantime. My spouse hated fumbling for the right card. They all look the same. Color code your cards. We have blue cross blue shield so it feels natural to have the food/medical account with a blue sticker (just buy a little circle sticker and place it on the edge so half is on the front and half is on the back -- nowhere near the strip). I've never been given a hard time about it. Our car is red so the car card is red, etc. If you think four cards is a lot to carry, ask yourself if you would rather carry four cards or keep track of every little thing? Good luck. I know you will find a system that works for you if you keep trying.\"" }, { "docid": "376758", "title": "", "text": "\"Thank you for misunderstanding: &gt;then I shudder to think what an explanation of how the price of money can be derived from plotting IS and LM together and extending it's meeting point into the money market to determine the price of currency would do to your notion of control by powerful offices in government. and embarking upon the very rant I knew you had in you. I am well aware of the Federal Reserve's purpose of controlling the money supply, as is everyone else. You are literally the last one to the party. Your mistaken feeling of superiority is derived from a position of complete ignorance. Your shock and outrage at the most simplistic of economic facts that have been the foundation for understanding international economics since the cold war represents a massive twisting of self education: you have wrested your way out of the dark pit of complete ignorance by reading up on how the economy works, but in a sorrowful twist you have learned this information from biased sources, perhaps the \"\"Abolish the Fed\"\" folks putting around, and instead of taking steps forward into understanding the world of finance you have flipped your lid and assume that you have somehow become Neo in The Matrix and have taken on a faux-intellectual persona in a desperate attempt to assert an identity of superiority over the masses of far more educated people around you who do not react with shock and outrage to things they already knew. **TLDR: You are just a smug asshole who has reacted to basic facts about the economy by incorporating them into making more credible tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, and I hate people like you because you distract from legitimate criticism of the international banking system by acting shocked by what you learned in Economics 101.**\"" }, { "docid": "125204", "title": "", "text": "I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)" }, { "docid": "75616", "title": "", "text": "Excellent explanation. Upvote to you sir. I would like to add something: How do we know how many bushels of apples is worth a chunk of deer meat? You did not touch on the concept of value. The way I see it, value is related to the human energy required to procure a specific good. For example: it takes a man all day to find a nugget of gold, while it take another man all day to pick 20 bushels of apples. Because gold is scarce, it is worth a lot of apples: it has a high value. At it's core, value is assigned based on the amount of human labor required to acquire a good or service. For example: Many years ago there may have been an equal number of bears and skunks. However, it would take many brave hunters with bows and arrows to kill a bear, while any hunter could kill a skunk solo. Thus, even though they had the same scarcity, a bear hide would be more valuable because the human labor required was greater. Many economics classes simply say value depends on supply and demand. However, if something is in low supply and high demand, it is BECAUSE it takes so much human effort to procure. If it did not take large amounts of human labor, everyone would sell said item and the value would drop. What is your take on this? do you have a better explanation for value?" }, { "docid": "209917", "title": "", "text": "Upvote for the lengthy and clear explanation. I was economics major and I still like to follow economics 15 years later and i agree with your points. But I wonder if your username doesn't detract from your comment visibility by egging on down voters." }, { "docid": "399199", "title": "", "text": "I'm a CPA and former IRS agent and manager. Whether you are a cash or accrual basis taxpayer, you get to deduct the expense when your card is charged. Think of it this way: You are borrowing from the credit card company or bank that issued the credit card. You take that money to make a purchase of a product or service. You now have an expense and a liability to a third party. When you pay off the liability, you do not get to take a deduction. Your deduction is when you pay for the expense. Depending on what you purchased, you may have to capitalize it." }, { "docid": "59249", "title": "", "text": "\"You absolutely should consider expenses. Why do they matter when the \"\"sticker price\"\" already includes them? Because you can be much more certain about what the expense ratio will be in the future than you can about what the fund performance will be in the future. The \"\"sticker price\"\" mixes generalized economic growth (i.e., gains you could have gotten from other funds) with gains specific to the fund, but the expense ratio is completely fund-specific. In other words, when looking at the \"\"sticker price\"\" performance of a fund, it's difficult to determine how that performance will extend into the future. But the expense ratio will definitely carry into the future. It is rare for funds to drastically change their expense ratios, but common for funds to change their performance. Suppose you find a fund that has returned a net of 8% over some time period and has a 1% expense ratio, and another fund that has returned a net of 10% but has a 2% expense ratio. So the first fund returned 9%-1% = 8% and the second returned 12%-2%=10%. There are decent odds that, over some future time period, the first fund will return 10%-1%=9% while the second fund will return 10%-2%=8%. In order for the second fund to be better than the first, it has to reliably outperform it by 1%; this is harder than it may sound. Simply put, there is a lot of \"\"noise\"\" in the fund performance, but the expense ratio is \"\"all signal\"\". Of course, if you find a fund that will reliably return 20% after expenses of 3%, it would probably make sense to choose that over one that returns 10% after expenses of 1%. But \"\"will reliably return\"\" is not the same as \"\"has returned over the past N years\"\", and the difference between the two phrases becomes greater and greater the smaller N is. When you find a fund that seems to have performed staggeringly well over some time period, you should be cautious; there is a good chance that the future holds some regression to the mean, and the fund will not continue to be so stellar. You may want to take a look at this question which asked about Morningstar fund ratings, which are essentially a measure of past performance. My answer references a study done by Morningstar comparing its own star ratings vs. fund expenses as a predictor of overall results. I'll repeat here the take-home message: How often did it pay to heed expense ratios? Every time. How often did it pay to heed the star rating? Most of the time, with a few exceptions. How often did the star rating beat expenses as a predictor? Slightly less than half the time, taking into account funds that expired during the time period. In other words, Morningstar's own study showed that its own star ratings (that is, past fund performance) are not as good at predicting success as simply looking at the expense ratios of the funds.\"" }, { "docid": "375877", "title": "", "text": "There is really much simpler explanation for the interest rate differences in different countries. It is the interest rate arbitrage. It is a very well explored economic concept, so you can look it up on the Internet, in case you want to know more. 1) Interest rates for the same currency in different countries Basically, as one smart person here pointed out, there is only one price of money in free market economy. It happens, because investors can move their money unrestrictedly anywhere in the World to capitalize on the local interest rates advantage. For instance, if I can take a loan in the USA at 3-4% annual interest and receive 5-6% annual income on my dollar deposit in Russia, I would take a loan in the US and open a deposit in Russia to enjoy a risk free interest rate differential income of 2% (5-6% - 3-4% ~ 2%). So, would any reasonable person. However, in real World very few banks in Russia or anywhere would pay you an an interest rate higher than it can borrow money at. It'd probably lose money if it'd do so. Anyways, the difference between the risk free rate and interest rate on the dollar deposit can be attributed to the risk premium of this particular bank. The higher expected return, the greater risk premium. If there is a positive difference in the interest rates on the dollar deposits in different countries, it will almost entirely accounted for the risk premium. It is generally much riskier to keep money in, say Russian bank, than American. That's why investors want greater return on their dollar deposits in Russian banks than in American. Of course, if you'd want to park your USD in Russian bank you'd also have to consider transaction costs. So, as you may have already guessed, there is no free lunch. 2) Interest rates in different currencies for different countries If we are talking about the interest rates in different sovereign currencies, it is a somewhat similar concept, only there is more risk if you keep money in local currency (risk premium is much higher). Probably, the biggest component of this risk is inflation (that is only attributed to the prices in local currency). For that reason, current interest rates on deposits in Russian Rubles are at 10-12%, but only 1-3% in the US Dollars. An economic concept that discusses this phenomenon in great detail is Interest Rate Parity. Hope this was helpful. P.S. It doesn't look quite realistic that you can get an 8% annual income for USD deposit in Russia with the interest rates in the U.S. being at 1-2%. At present moment, a 30-year mortgage annual interest rate in the US is at ~2-3% and an annual interest rates for dollar deposits in Sberbank (one of the safest Russian banks = very little risk premium) is at 1-3%. So, arbitrage is impossible." }, { "docid": "314339", "title": "", "text": "\"So it seems like a lot of people here aren't exactly sure about why this works and its financial implications. So what you are referring to is in Finance something called Funds Transfer Pricing or FTP (often referred to as just Transfer Pricing). Like anything else, FTP has its place. Most companies; however, don't use it properly. FTP, theoretically, has one primary purpose (although it's developed a second): to properly allocate opportunity costs across divisions. Let's say Company A produces widgets. They sell these widgets for $200 at a TOTAL COST of $150 and book profits of $50. Now to produce the widget Division 1 makes a computer chip at a cost of $50 that it then \"\"sells\"\" to Division 2 for $60. Division 1 then books a profit of $10. Division 2 then makes some plastic stuff and assembles the device. This is labor intensive so Division 2's costs are $100. Company A sells the completed device for $150. Division 2 subsequently books profits of $40, and appears much more profitable than Division 1, on the surface. The problem arises when Division 1 could sell the chip to the open market for $125. Now it costs them $50 to produce, and they could make a theoretical profit of $75. This is MORE than the company makes AS A WHOLE on the entire device. By having Division 2 pay effectively \"\"fair market price\"\" for that chip, you realize that Division 2 is really operating at a loss (the *opportunity cost* of not selling the chip to market is greater than producing the completed device). Company A would be better off getting rid of Division 2 and solely focusing on Division 1. In a good FTP system, Division 2 would pay the fair market price of $125. If done properly, management would hopefully realize it should divest Division 2. That's the ***fundamental premise*** behind FTP. In actuality things get much more complicated because of economics, the company itself, branding, IT, operations, management, PPE, labor laws, etc. Thats why most companies screw it up. All that other stuff falls under whats called cost allocation accounting. It gets VERY complex and entire masters courses are dedicated to it (different methods, etc.) The other thing you can do with FTP is get crazy tax breaks due to various tax laws. The simplified explanation is that divisions pay taxes on profits to the government ***that division*** is located in (this works on the state level, too btw.). GE does a lot of this and it's a big part of why they pay almost no-taxes. Again, it gets more complicated when you involve audits as there's some grey area legally. For simplicity, assume tax rates are 40% in the US and 10% in India. So let's say GE makes an airplane engine in the US but \"\"finishes\"\" manufacturing in India. These specific engines costs $5,000,000 for the US division to make, up to a certain point. The US division can then sell the engine at a break even to India. So India \"\"pays\"\" $5,000,000 for the engine. The US division then books no profit. India finishes the manufacturing with additional costs of $1,000,000. The India division then sells the engine to the open market for $9,000,000 . Therefore, the India division books a profit of $3,000,000 and pays taxes of $300,000. Now GE as a whole makes a profit of $3,000,000 less taxes of $300,000 = net profit of $2,700,00. Further, let's say the fair market value of the engine, as is, when the US sells to India is $7,000,000. That would mean US ***should*** book profits of $2,000,000 and India ***should*** book profits of $1,000,000. Total taxes by GE are now $800,000 (US) + $100,000 (India) = $900,000. However, what's important is that NET PROFIT is now $2,100,000. ***GE just saved $600,000 in taxes by doing this***. The beauty of this is, divisions are supposed to charge fair market value for products FTP'd internationally; however, it's REALLY hard for the IRS to say what the value of an unfinished product really is (heck, you could be offering bulk discounts, etc.)... The fact is, often, US divisions have skilled labor that is difficult to replicate elsewhere. They just show US divisions operating at losses to make the company as a whole better. The problem, again, arises when top management don't fully appreciate or understand the reasoning behind this stuff. They end up making cuts to US labor because it's \"\"unprofitable\"\" without thinking about the entire story. I know this is very long winded but hope it helps! ***tldr; companies FTP to recognizes profitability and opportunity costs of divisions as well as use it for overseas tax breaks.*** Side note: Politically speaking, people who know how this works are pissed off about it in the U.S. (don't worry though, most politicians on both sides don't have a clue). We have high corporate tax rates relative to other countries and IRS loopholes allow this kind of thing (lobbying $$). It's also why, economically, you can't just raise ***corporate*** tax rates to increase domestic tax reciepts as more companies will just implement this process (it's complicated to do properly). Also, please don't say 50 years ago tax rates were higher and raising taxes increased receipts. The fact is most companies couldn't even FATHOM doing this 50 years ago, no less even 20. edit: some clarification in wording\"" }, { "docid": "460308", "title": "", "text": "Finance noob here. Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good? If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)? &gt;he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies? Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad?" }, { "docid": "480586", "title": "", "text": "Rule of thumb, the earlier you pay down your balance, the less interest you will accrue and the faster you will pay off the debt as a whole. But lets play with some real numbers here. You cited $5000 balance and a $750 payment, but with various bills and things adding onto the balance over the course of a month. Now if your purchases and payments add up to the same number, you are in a losing game, so for the sake of argument I am going to say you are putting $500 + interest on the card each month and making a $750 payment. We also need an interest rate to work with, I am going to use 1%/month and 30 day months to keep the math a bit easier to follow. You basically have two choices in this scenario, you can pay 750 a month on the card, then use it to make your $500 in purchases/other payments over time as you suggest in your question. Or you can pay $250, and hold back $500 to make those other payments directly without running them through the card, as has been suggested in some other answers. So let us compare the two... If I start the cycle at $5000, make a $250 payment on the first day of the cycle, then have no other activity, I will have a balance of $4750 for the month and accrue $47.50 in interest at the close of the cycle. Balance going into the next period is now $4797.50. Carry this out for a year, and your balance at the close of the 12th cycle is $2431.79, and $431.79 of your payments went to interest. By contrast, if you pay $750 at the start of the month, then add $100 back every 6 days so that you spend $500 over the course of the cycle. You will have an average daily balance of $4466.67, which results in $44.67 in interest charges being accrued at the end of the month. This gives you a balance of $4794.67 going into the next cycle, putting you about $3 ahead of the previous method. Push this pattern out for a year and your ending balance is 2395.86, with 395.86 going to interest. Resulting in a savings of ~$36 over making the smaller payment and paying cash for your other expenses. If this happens to be a rewards card, you also have gained whatever rewards benefit it gives you. This demonstrates that by the strict numbers game, the scenario you propose should come out a small but measurable distance ahead of making a smaller payment in order to avoid putting things back on the card. So why do so many people adamantly advise you to not do this? Most of it has to do with psychology and risk. The cash method does not leave any room for you to over spend. You have shredded or locked up the credit card so it can’t be used casually, and when you run out of cash, you can’t spend any more. Which forces you to pay much closer attention to where your money is going. When you are running things through the credit card, you generally don’t have that hard stop unless you are up against your credit limit, and even then most issuers are quite happy to let you go over and charge you extra fees for doing so. So if you have this plan where you are intending to put $500 on the card in a month, then lose track of something you did early in the month, and inadvertently spend $800, you are digging yourself deeper into the hole instead of climbing your way out. There is also a risk in terms of income loss. In the cash method, you no longer have the money to spend, and you are forced to make the hard decisions about where to allocate what you do have, making you much more likely to cut back on luxury items to preserve the necessities. In the card method, it is easy to say “eh, the card has room, I can catch up again later” and not realize the mess you are causing yourself until you are in way over your head. I personally have run all my bills through a credit card in the past so that I could have one single payment to make. Then I was unemployed for six months, and ended up moving before I found a new job. Everything in between, including the move, went on the card. Next thing I know I am carrying a balance of $15k where I used to always have it paid in full. It took roughly 10 years, including several years of working strictly in cash, to get that back under control. I currently have a card that is carrying a balance, and I am running select expenses (such as fuel and food) through it while I whittle the balance back down. Most of my main bills are still paid directly from cash, specifically so that I don’t fall back into the same trap I did before. Even so, there were several months in the past year where the balance was creeping up instead of down, because we were not paying that close of attention to our spending. Then my wife lost her job, and it forced us to closely evaluate where our money was going. We still run certain things through said card, but we are much stricter about it being only those select things, and the balance is trending down again. The main reason we are still channeling those expenses that way is because this is a cash back reward card, and we will be getting roughly $1000 back here in a couple more months." }, { "docid": "245447", "title": "", "text": "\"For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the \"\"refund\"\" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a \"\"don't ask, don't tell\"\" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this \"\"loophole\"\". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a \"\"donation\"\" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash.\"" }, { "docid": "141973", "title": "", "text": "Couple of thoughts... Opposition research is valuable to campaigns. They spend millions of dollars developing it. So it definitely has value. I don't believe it has to be cash or equivalents to be illegal. Foreign governments could just buy air time for candidates. It's the same thing. Don Jr may *not* have actually gotten anything of value. That is uncertain. No one knows what happened in the room. He *did* demonstrate an intent to get that thing, and collude in the process. We don't know, so that's why you investigate. It's entirely possible that Don Jr tried to collude, but failed. I also think there's reason for suspicion about the content of the meeting. First it was about adoption. Then it was something else (I can't remember the exact timeline of explanations). If it was innocuous, there would have been one unchanging story." }, { "docid": "85382", "title": "", "text": "\"Realize that some friends are a bad influence, and maybe aren't really \"\"friends\"\". Don't be afraid to say \"\"sorry, I can't make it tonight\"\". Don't be afraid to go out shopping and not buy anything. Make sure they know why (Too much Credit Card Debit, saving for a house, etc). If your habits suddenly change with no explanation, they may think you are dissing them. But if you explain your reasons, they will probably support you (if they are real friends). In fact, they probably have the same money issues. Suggest lower-cost alternatives to hanging out. Instead of going out, suggest they come over to your place and watch a movie, play board games, Wii, etc. You can have snacks at your place. Alcohol is a lot cheaper when you pour it yourself!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "83922", "title": "", "text": "It cost a lot of money to pay the poet to make wording, designers/photographers to make the post-cards and miscellaneous staff (Executives, HR, shareholders etc.) These cost are thrown onto the buyers." } ]

[ { "docid": "389005", "title": "", "text": "This crisis just shows why the dollar has no chance in my lifetime of loding it's dominance. Russia is a major world player, were taking what seemed right steps to move forward economically, socially, politically. Yet this crisis shows the truth. Media controlled by the kremlin. Taking actions in other countries. No fear of economic hardships due to political issues. Who else could supplant the US dollar? China is in the same boat as Russia. Still not a free society. SO what's left? The Euro. But it's got a long way to go to show it can remain stable. Give it 50 years and get back to me." }, { "docid": "112374", "title": "", "text": "\"You're circling around the answer... The only real difference between a loddar and a privately-issued promissory note is that the loddar is issued by a recognized third party with better credit/credibility (the whole merchant/priest/farmer cartel-thing). Private entities absolutely can and do issue their own promises to pay, and accept them, and in turn rely on those promises to make other promises. It's what you do when you charge something to a credit-card on the basis of your employer's promise to pay. You charge new tires, the tire store promises to pay its employees based on your CC company's promise to pay the tire-store, which is based on your promise to pay the credit-card company, which is based on your employer's promise to pay you, which is based on your employer's contracts with its customers, and so on... In fact, often as not, the whole chain *never actually gets reconciled with printed cash.* The central bank never has to print or even know about these transactions. It's just checks and electronic transfers: promises all the way down, maybe with occasional cash withdrawals for popcorn at the movies or to tip the stripper or something... That doesn't mean it's not \"\"real money\"\", it absolutely is: those promises are buying groceries and tires and making mortgage-payments and paying dentist bills and getting people to dig up stuff out of mines that will be fashioned into iPads, and all kinds of stuff. Where this hurts most people in the brain is that they kind of accept dollar bills as axiomatically and intrinsically valuable. So trying to explain in reverse how they are the same as promissory notes or credit-certificates is like trying to convince them that a plane ticket is the same as an airplane (which is obviously not true). That's why I started with this imaginary world without money. If you let go of any preconceptions, and stop trying to think through the analogies and don't read it trying to predictively look for the outcome conclusions, if you just read it and follow the story through, it is obvious that the *only* intrinsic difference (in that imaginary world) between apple-certificates, loddars, and privately-issued IOUs is the *credibility of the issuer*. Trying to understand this stuff via analogy will make your head spin: Taking it all the way back to the thread-topic and the question at the top of the page, what makes it so difficult is the tendency and mental impulse to analogize money as a \"\"thing\"\" that \"\"is\"\" somewhere, and therefore has to \"\"go\"\" somewhere. But that's an intrinsically and substantially imperfect analogy, which is what makes it hard to explain to a five-year-old. And you can't make the reality fit that analogy and stay sane. Even if you refuse to accept all this maddening abstraction and insist on only doing transactions with physical cash, or gold pieces, *the value of those markers is still 100% contingent on everyone accepting that everyone else will continue to believe that everyone else will continue to accept that currency...* Money is essentially a promise that other people will keep. Instead of giving you food, your employer gives you a \"\"universal gift certificate\"\" that you can redeem anywhere, and everyone else will accept it, because they can in turn redeem it anywhere else. The only difference between using a bank-draft or printed dollar bill, versus writing a promise to make good yourself, is the credibility of the issuer. That's a really difficult premise for most people to accept, because it's invisible and abstract, and seems to conflict with tangible interactions you've been doing all your life. So we have this sort of tendency to try and force the reality to fit preconceived conceptual analogies, like someone who keeps rejecting explanations of how airplanes can fly because \"\"that still doesn't explain how metal can be lighter than air\"\"... it's demanding that the reality must fit a hypothesis that doesn't apply. Hope that helps.\"" }, { "docid": "512282", "title": "", "text": "You can't just emigrate from a country like Pakistan to the USA, Canada or Australia; they will refuse you entry to their country. E.g. for the USA, even if you're are skilled enough that an American company will hire you (which is obviously the first step – so called 'economic refugees' are sent back immediately), you're a long way from obtaining a green card. Right now, Pakistan isn't even allowed to participate in the Green Card Lottery. What you also need to consider is that the cost of living in those countries is a lot higher. There are websites, like this one which allows you to compare them between cities all over the world. So while you would earn a lot more money, you also need to spend a lot more." }, { "docid": "574065", "title": "", "text": "\"The fact that you pay the bill reliably is going to count more for your credit rating than anything else, even if you are paying it off in full every month. Lenders seem to like to see at least one instance where you charged a large balance, held it a couple months, then paid it off in full... but I wouldn't go out of my way to do that. Remember that the credit card company is making money on transaction fees as well as interest. If you're pushing money through their system, they're happy. They'd be happier if you were paying them interest too -- reportedly, they actually refer to those of us who pay in full every month as \"\"deadbeats\"\" -- but they aren't going to kick you out or ding your credit rating for it. The quote you give says that a small balance \"\"may be slightly better\"\". I submit that \"\"may be slightly\"\" is too small a difference to be worth worrying about, unless you have reason to believe that your credit rating actively needs to be repaired. (And as noted in the comments, it's actually stated even less strongly than that!) Personal recommendation: You can get a free credit report each year from each of the \"\"big three\"\" credit rating agencies. Those reports usually include a brief explanation of what they think the most negative item on your record is. The phrasing of those explanations is often somewhat misleading, but I'd still suggest that you get these reports and see what they think would improve your rating. I'm willing to bet it won't be \"\"doesn't carry a high enough debt balance.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "376758", "title": "", "text": "\"Thank you for misunderstanding: &gt;then I shudder to think what an explanation of how the price of money can be derived from plotting IS and LM together and extending it's meeting point into the money market to determine the price of currency would do to your notion of control by powerful offices in government. and embarking upon the very rant I knew you had in you. I am well aware of the Federal Reserve's purpose of controlling the money supply, as is everyone else. You are literally the last one to the party. Your mistaken feeling of superiority is derived from a position of complete ignorance. Your shock and outrage at the most simplistic of economic facts that have been the foundation for understanding international economics since the cold war represents a massive twisting of self education: you have wrested your way out of the dark pit of complete ignorance by reading up on how the economy works, but in a sorrowful twist you have learned this information from biased sources, perhaps the \"\"Abolish the Fed\"\" folks putting around, and instead of taking steps forward into understanding the world of finance you have flipped your lid and assume that you have somehow become Neo in The Matrix and have taken on a faux-intellectual persona in a desperate attempt to assert an identity of superiority over the masses of far more educated people around you who do not react with shock and outrage to things they already knew. **TLDR: You are just a smug asshole who has reacted to basic facts about the economy by incorporating them into making more credible tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, and I hate people like you because you distract from legitimate criticism of the international banking system by acting shocked by what you learned in Economics 101.**\"" }, { "docid": "85382", "title": "", "text": "\"Realize that some friends are a bad influence, and maybe aren't really \"\"friends\"\". Don't be afraid to say \"\"sorry, I can't make it tonight\"\". Don't be afraid to go out shopping and not buy anything. Make sure they know why (Too much Credit Card Debit, saving for a house, etc). If your habits suddenly change with no explanation, they may think you are dissing them. But if you explain your reasons, they will probably support you (if they are real friends). In fact, they probably have the same money issues. Suggest lower-cost alternatives to hanging out. Instead of going out, suggest they come over to your place and watch a movie, play board games, Wii, etc. You can have snacks at your place. Alcohol is a lot cheaper when you pour it yourself!\"" }, { "docid": "593681", "title": "", "text": "Just common courtesy. It seems to me that some people bring their extremely rough social skills from their home life and apply it to work. There does not seem to be any training at all on how to greet people and what is appropriate behavior. A lot of this, I'm sure, is regional. When I visit other parts of the country I do notice a marked difference. The retail drones in NY are *particularly* awful." }, { "docid": "245447", "title": "", "text": "\"For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the \"\"refund\"\" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a \"\"don't ask, don't tell\"\" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this \"\"loophole\"\". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a \"\"donation\"\" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash.\"" }, { "docid": "141973", "title": "", "text": "Couple of thoughts... Opposition research is valuable to campaigns. They spend millions of dollars developing it. So it definitely has value. I don't believe it has to be cash or equivalents to be illegal. Foreign governments could just buy air time for candidates. It's the same thing. Don Jr may *not* have actually gotten anything of value. That is uncertain. No one knows what happened in the room. He *did* demonstrate an intent to get that thing, and collude in the process. We don't know, so that's why you investigate. It's entirely possible that Don Jr tried to collude, but failed. I also think there's reason for suspicion about the content of the meeting. First it was about adoption. Then it was something else (I can't remember the exact timeline of explanations). If it was innocuous, there would have been one unchanging story." }, { "docid": "374063", "title": "", "text": "This is an organization with a strong Christian atmosphere that actively employs fellow believers and hosts a bible study every morning. If that isn't a church, then what *do* you consider a church? Also, it wasn't an analogy. It was an explanation of why certain organizations may choose to hire like-minded people. EDIT: No clue why this is getting downvotes. Equal opportunity employment is not without its practical limitations." }, { "docid": "347149", "title": "", "text": "Greetings! I’m bored to death at work so I decided to browse your site on my iphone during lunch break. I really like the info you provide here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m surprised at how quick your blog loaded on my mobile .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, very good site and posts too!" }, { "docid": "70109", "title": "", "text": "\"Without divulging too many specifics. Net income is 73k. Total income is 136k. Filed as an S-Corp. Using Quickbooks to classify expenses etc. I know its not much information but I don't know what to look out for, like \"\"whoa, net income is 73k, you gotta spend that!\"\" I have a CPA but isn't offering much in the terms of \"\"help\"\" and \"\"explanation\"\". Thanks for your time!\"" }, { "docid": "501453", "title": "", "text": "\"Paraphrased from Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets: Money is (1) a medium of exchange, (2) a unit of account, (3) a store of value. To the first point: as Homer Simpson's brain explained to him \"\"Money can be exchanged for goods and services\"\". The second: money acts as a measure to keep track of the relative worth of an enormous amount of items. This makes it much simpler than tracking how many apples are worth how many deerhides, and so on and so forth as occurs in barter economies. The last point: money is a terrible store of value. Your money tends to inflate, meaning that its worth decreases over time. I think your explanation went into territory that it didn't need to. Your explanation of the creation of money for example seems to imply that the banking system is not involved in the process of money creation when actually the opposite is true.\"" }, { "docid": "531504", "title": "", "text": "It looks like your visa being refused is entirely irrelevant. What happens in bankruptcy is that all the assets of the bankrupt entity are taken over, liquidated, and the proceeds are distributed to the creditors. You're one of the creditors, and as you've been told - the proceeds are not enough to pay all the creditors in full. This is quite common in bankruptcies. What you can do is sue in court and demand priority over other creditors, but... a. You're exactly the same as many other creditors (rest of the students), so why would you get a priority? b. Suing costs money and even if you get more, you'll pay way more for legal fees and expenses. What else can you do? If you paid with a credit card - your credit card company may be able to reverse charges. Sometimes that works, depending on how fast you move. If you paid with a check - your bank may similarly be able to stop payment on the check. This provided it hasn't been settled yet." }, { "docid": "345712", "title": "", "text": "My wife and I use a digital form of the envelope system. We call it a budget; we record how much we want to allocate each month to spend--for each category of expense--in a spread sheet. Why use prepaid cards? Why not open a bunch of bank accounts and use debit cards from each if you want to separate the money? You could also keep a ledger for each account that you spend from on a smart phone or even in a physical ledger. The reason for the envelope method is that it psychologically hurts some people to physically part with cash. Once you digitize it in some factor, you lose what is the primary touted benefit, and it's no longer the envelope system. The secondary benefit that--once the budget for one category is gone, it's gone--is only as good as the discipline you have to not rob cash from another envelope; why is this any easier than the discipline of not debiting beyond the bottom of the ledger? So a budget IS a digital version of the envelope system; once the physical cash is removed from the equation, it's definitely not the envelope system. Sorry for the contrarian take on this question, but I've never been a fan of the envelope system for many of the reasons you have described. I guess I'm too young for the cash psychology to work for me." }, { "docid": "481822", "title": "", "text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you." }, { "docid": "167492", "title": "", "text": "\"They say that banks earn 4 - 5% on deposits, so with lower costs they can give away 2-4%. They cite [this article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banking-industry-annual-profit-hit-record-in-2016-1488295836) which says that \"\"return on equity [for banks] up at 9.32%, the highest level since 2013\"\". But [net interest margin](https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/qbp/2017mar/chart4.html) is lower (2.5%-4.5%). And that's in a good year. They elaborate in a blog post: \"\"Fed Funds rates are supposed to affect deposit rates that banks pay to their customers, as, after all, deposit is a form of short term loan from depositor to the bank (see the explanation in our recent blog). However, as WalletHub notes in their recent report, it has not actually happened recently. As the report notes, for traditional branch-based banks, savings and checking account rates are virtually unchanged. You are probably getting the same 0.01% in your checking or savings account? Meanwhile, rates on your credit card went up by 0.53% since December 2015.\"\" \"\"So why aren’t deposit rates increasing? One reason often cited, is actually the relative decrease in the levels of competition in the U.S. market (as we described in our earlier blog). While there are still thousands of banks in the U.S., 4 control ~40% of the assets and close to half of the assets (loans). The other reason could be, perhaps, that after almost 10 years of getting close to zero in your bank account, you will forget that it could be any different. In fact, bank executives are puzzled why consumers are not “demanding” more on their deposits. You can walk to the branch and “demand” more money from your bank, but you may end up in county jail. The only other viable option is to take your deposits elsewhere, or vote with your feet.\"\" (https://blog.meetbeam.com/draft-why-are-lending-rates-going-up-but-deposit-rates-are-not-76e050b382af) \"\"Beam makes money by providing value-added services to our partnering bank and other financial service partners in the banking ecoysystem.\"\" That sounds like they might be selling your data?\"" }, { "docid": "121233", "title": "", "text": "A few things for you to consider: (1) Yes, if your average daily balance is lower [because you paid it off when you received your paycheck, then slowly used the card for the remainder of the month, until it's at the same balance next paycheck, vs just having the card at a flat $5k the whole month], you will accrue less interest, thereby allowing you to pay it off faster by reducing your interest payments. BUT: (2) Carrying a balance on your credit card is a big financial no-no, and eliminating it should be an immediate priority for you. If there is anything you can do (step 1: budget your expenses and then track actuals to see where you stand - step 2: see what expenses you can reduce - step 3: see if you can increase your income - step 4: rebudget with your new goals, determine how long it would take to pay off the card, possibly considering consolidating/refinancing your debt at a lower interest rate) to pay it off faster, then do it. However (3) If you have absolutely zero cash on hand, then taking your paycheck and immediately paying down your credit card, and then relying on that card to pay for things until the next paycheck, puts you at risk of your available credit changing. ie: if you have 5k on the card, and pay it down to 4.25k, then what happens to you if the credit card company [because they view you as a risk, or for whatever other reason - including a temporary hold because of fraudulent activity at no fault of your own] reduces your available credit to 4.5k? Suddenly, you will only have $250 in available spending power until your next paycheck. Therefore it may be wise for you to hold onto some amount of cash that you do not touch except for emergencies, even before you pay off your credit card. I really recommend you search this site for other questions related to budgeting and credit cards. There are many good answers, and some of what I've said above is just opinion, so you shouldn't just take my word for it, you should try to become familiar with these topics yourself. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "402173", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/09/the-how-and-why-of-inclusive-growth/541422/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In our increasingly unequal cities, inclusion is good for growth, and growth is good for inclusion. &gt; The report draws from the experience of Brookings Metro Policy Program&amp;#039;s Inclusive Economic Development Lab, a six-month pilot project that worked with regional EDOs in three metros-Indianapolis, Nashville, and San Diego-to develop more effective strategies to frame inclusive growth as an economic imperative. &gt; As one economic development official said to me recently: &amp;quot;For too long we emphasized economic growth, and that has helped accentuate many of the problems our cities and regions now face. Our profession is called economic development and that&amp;#039;s what we should emphasize; not just growth but the full development of our people, neighborhoods and communities.&amp;quot; That&amp;#039;s what the budding movement for inclusive growth and prosperity is about. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73aqjn/to_fight_inequality_cities_need_inclusive_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~219138 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **growth**^#1 **economic**^#2 **EDO**^#3 **inclusive**^#4 **more**^#5\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "534454", "title": "", "text": "TurboTax online works via Firefox (i.e. it is a cloud-based service.) I don't think any downloaded software is available directly for Linux." } ]

[ { "docid": "287398", "title": "", "text": "\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"" }, { "docid": "489633", "title": "", "text": "\"It is very helpful to understand that Free File is not actually \"\"by\"\" the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS does indeed offer access to the program through their website, but Free File is actually a public-private partnership program operated and maintained by the Free File Alliance. Who is the Free File Alliance? Well, according to their members list: 1040NOW Corp., Drake Enterprises, ezTaxReturn.com, FileYourTaxes, Free Tax Returns, H&R Block, Intuit, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax, OnLine Taxes, TaxACT, TaxHawk, and TaxSlayer. Why the income restriction? Well, that's part of the deal the IRS struck - the program is \"\"dedicated to helping 70 percent of American taxpayers prepare and e-file their federal tax returns\"\". Technically the member companies are offering their own software to handle tax preparation, and the rule is that 70% of American's must 'qualify' for at least one product, so this adjusted gross income limit changes periodically so that 70% of the population can use it. Why restrict it at all? This was part of the give and take involved in negotiation with the businesses involved. If the program was \"\"everyone files for free\"\", then it is presumed that many reputable businesses that make the program valuable would choose not to continue to participate. In other words, they want to be able to not give away their services for free to customers who are - at least by income definition - more than capable of paying them. The IRS has said it does not want to be in the tax prep software business, so they are not offering their own free software to do the job that private companies would otherwise charge for. However, there are other restrictions to being in the program - like the fact that no business in the program can offer \"\"refund anticipation loans\"\", offer commercial services more than a certain amount of times (so they can't hound you to upgrade), and so on. Some businesses were making a killing off these, though they are pretty much solely developed to be predatory on people with the lowest incomes (and education levels, and IQ, and with cognitive disabilities, and basically anyone they could sucker into paying what were effectively absurd rates for short term loans along with inflated filing/preparation fees). Finally, Free File was partly developed as an initiative to increase the amount of digitally filed taxes and reduce the paper-based burdens of accepting and processing turns. In other words: to cut government costs, not to be a government welfare program. Even if it were, one can generally obtain commercial software for $30-$100, so the benefit to those above gross income levels is pretty minor; yearly costs to file taxes with such software for those payers would be less than 0.001% of their yearly expenses. Compared to the benefits obtainable by households living below the poverty line, fighting to cover an extra 5-30% of the population at the potential expense of having the whole program be a failure probably seemed like a more than worthwhile trade-off.\"" }, { "docid": "350819", "title": "", "text": "Banks will usually look at 2 years worth of tax returns for issuing business credit. If those aren't available (for instance, for recently formed businesses), they will look at the personal returns of the owners. Unfortunately, it sounds like your friend is in the latter category. Bringing in another partner isn't necessarily going to help, either; with only two partners / owners, the bank would probably look at both owners' personal tax returns and credit histories. It may be necessary to offer collateral. I'm sorry I can't offer any better solutions, but alternative funding such as personal loans from family & friends could be necessary. Perhaps making them partners in exchange for capital." }, { "docid": "401819", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it. Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be \"\"personal gifts\"\" which are not, for the most part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular, case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on amounts received and use of the monies, etc.). We're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your personal tax adviser. Additionally, WePay will not report the funds you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional) to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the funds may be responsible for taxes. Again, every situation is different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the \"\"speak with a professional\"\" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return – except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the company, the money donated could be considered business income and the recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/\"" }, { "docid": "124009", "title": "", "text": "Graduating from college is probably one of the most fulfilling triumphs you’ll ever achieve in your entire life. However, that joy also brings bigger responsibilities in life that could affect tax time too. This specific time in your life will have a lot to offer and before the winds of change take you to wherever you dream of, here are some advices from [Southbourne Tax Group](http://www.thesouthbournegroup.com/) to make your taxes easier where you can get a refund during filing time and save money as well. If your modified adjusted gross income is below $80,000 and you’re single, up to $2,500 of the interest portion of your student loan payments can be tax deductible, and below $160,000 for married person filing jointly. Job hunting expenses can be tax deductible too but there are exceptions such as expenses involved in your search for a new job in a new career field and working full-time for the first time. Major tax breaks are expected in case you are moving to a new and different city for your first job. Get a jump start on retirement savings with your company’s 401(k). Each year, you can secure up to $18,000 from your income taxes by contributing on one. If you have a family coverage, you could secure $6,750 from contributing to a health savings account in case you are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. And if you are single, you can secure up to $3,400. Placing your money into a flexible spending account could keep an added $2,600 out of your taxable income. Getting big deductions for business expenses is possible if you are planning to be a freelancer or to be your own boss as a new college graduate. Southbourne Group also advises saving at least 25% of what you’re earning for the IRS. Research more about lifetime learning credit and understand its importance. You can claim up to $2,000 of a tax credit for post-secondary work at eligible educational institutions. This is possible if your adjusted gross income is below $65,000 as a single filer, or below $131,000 as a married person filing jointly. Saving money has a lot of benefits and one of which is cutting your tax bill. If you’re a married person filing jointly and have an adjusted gross income of less than $62,000, you may qualify for the saver’s credit, while for a single filer, it should be below $31,000. That can reduce your tax bill by up to 50% of the first $2,000 if you’re a single filer, or $4,000 if you’re a married person filing jointly you contribute to an eligible retirement plan. Southbourne Tax Group doesn’t want you to overspend on tax software and getting professional help in this regard. The firm suggests using the free packages from trusted tax software companies if your tax situation is quite simple. Get that professional help at Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program, which can help you meet with a pro at little or no cost." }, { "docid": "488574", "title": "", "text": "Good professional tax advice is expensive. If your situation is simple, then paying someone doesn't give you more than you could get from a simple software package. In this case, doing your own taxes will save you money this year, and also help you next year, as your situation grows steadily more complex. If you don't do your own taxes when you're single with a part time job, you'll never do it when you have a family, a full time job, a side business, and many deductions. Learning how to do your taxes over time, as your 'tax life' becomes complex, is a valuable skill. If your situation is complex, you will need pay a lot to get it done correctly. Sometimes, that cost is worthwhile. At bare minimum, I would say 'attempt to do your taxes yourself, first'. This will force you to organize your files, making the administrative cost of doing your return lower (ie: you aren't paying your tax firm to sort your receipts, because you've already ordered them nicely with your own subtotals, everything perfectly stapled together). If your situation is complex, and you find a place to get it done cheaply (think H&R Block), you will not be getting value for service. I am not saying a low-end tax firm will necessarily get things wrong, but if you don't have a qualified professional (read: university educated and designated) doing your return, the complexities can be ignored. Low-end tax firms typically hire seasonal staff, train them for 1-2 weeks, and mostly just show them how to enter tax slips into the same software you could buy yourself. If you underpay for professional services, you will pay the price, metaphorically speaking. For your specific situation, I strongly recommend you have a professional service look at your returns, because you are a non-resident, meaning you likely need to file in your home country as well. Follow what they do with your return, and next year, see how much of it you can do yourself. Before you hire someone, get a fee quote, and shop around until you find someone you are comfortable with. $1k spent now could save you many headaches in the future." }, { "docid": "371094", "title": "", "text": "This is a common occurrence, I know people who moved and then only remember the next spring during tax season that they never filed a new state version of a W-4. Which means for 3 or 4 months in the new year money is sent to the wrong state capital, and way too much was sent the previous year. In the spring of 2016 you should have filed a non-resident tax form with Michigan. On that form you would specify your total income numbers, your Michigan income numbers, and your other-state income numbers; with Michigan + other equal to total. That should have resulted in getting all the state taxes that were sent to Michigan returned. It is possible that the online software is unable to complete the non-resident tax form. Not all forms and situations can be addressed by the software. So you may need to fill out paper forms. You should be able to find what you need on the state of Michigan website for 2015 Taxes. A quick read shows that you will probably need the Michigan 1040, schedule 1 and Schedule NR You may run into an issue if your license, car registration, voter registration, and other documentation point to you being a resident for the part of the year you earned that income. That means you will have to submit Form 3799 Statement to Determine State of Domicile You want to do this soon because there are deadlines that limit how far back you can files taxes. The state may also get tax information from the IRS and could decide that all your income from 2015 should have applied to them, so they will be sending you a tax bill plus penalties for failure to file." }, { "docid": "272248", "title": "", "text": "\"I have done similar software work. You do not need an LLC to write off business expenses. The income and expenses go on Schedule C of your tax return. It is easy to write off even small expenses such as travel - if you keep records. The income should be reported to you on a 1099 form, filled out by your client, not yourself. For a financial advisor you should find one you can visit with personally and who operates as a \"\"fee-only\"\" advisor. That means they will not try to sell you something that they get a commission on. You might pay a few $hundred per visit. There are taxes that you have to pay (around 15%) due to self-employment income. These taxes are due 4 times a year and paid with an \"\"estimated tax\"\" form. See the IRS web site, and in particular schedule SE. Get yourself educated about this fast and make the estimated tax payments on time so you won't run into penalties at the end of the year.\"" }, { "docid": "303078", "title": "", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"" }, { "docid": "68969", "title": "", "text": "According to the Illinois Department of Revenue, you don't have to file any taxes that are specific to a LLC, only your personal taxes. LLC on Federal level is disregarded, instead you submit all your business income/expenses on Schedule C. On the state level - it seems to be the same (only individual tax return). Consult your state certified tax specialist. That is not the case in other states, for example in California LLC has to file its own tax return and pay its own taxes, in additional to the individual taxes." }, { "docid": "68486", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations on starting your own business. Invest in a tax software package right away; I can't recommend a specific one but there is enough information out there to point you in the right direction: share with us which one you ended up using and why (maybe a separate question?) You do need to make your FICA taxes but you can write off the SE part of it. Keep all your filings as a PDF, a printout and a softcopy in the native format of the tax software package: it really helps the next tax season. When you begin your business, most of the expenses are going to be straightforward (it was for me) and while I had the option of doing it by hand, I used software to do it myself. At the beginning, it might actually seem harder to use the tax software package, but it will pay off in the end. Build relationships with a few tax advisors and attorneys: you will need to buy liability insurance soon if you are in any kind of serious (non hobby) business and accounting for these are no trivial tasks. If you have not filed yet, I recommend you do this: File an extension, overpay your estimated taxes (you can always collect a refund later) and file your return once you have had a CPA look over it. Do not skimp on a CPA: it's just the cost of running your business and you don't want to waste your time reading the IRS manuals when you could be growing your own business. Best of luck and come back to tell us what you did!" }, { "docid": "450147", "title": "", "text": "I'm glad keshlam and Bobby mentioned there are free tools, both from the IRS and private software companies. Also search for Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) in your area for individual help with your return. A walk-in tax clinic strength is tax preparation. CPAs and EAs provide a higher level of service. For example, they compile and review your prior year's return and your current year, although that is not relevant to your current situation. EAs and CPAs are allowed to represent you before the IRS. They can directly meet or contact the IRS and navigate audits and other requests on your behalf. Outside of tax season, an accountant can help you with tax planning and other taxable events. Some people do not hire a CPA or EA until they need representation. Establishing a relationship and familiarity with an accountant now can save time and money if you do anticipate you will need representation later. Part of what makes the tax code complicated is it can use very specific definitions of a common word. Furthermore, the specific definition of a phrase or word can change between publications. Also, the tax code uses all-encompassing definitions and provide detailed and lengthy lists that are not exhaustive; you may not find your situation listed or described in the tax code, yet you are responsible for reporting your taxable events. The best software cannot navigate you through your tax situation like an accountant. Lastly, some of the smartest people I have met are accountants and to get the most out of meeting with them you should be as familiar as possible with your position. The more familiar you are with accounting, the more advanced knowledge they can share with you. In short, you will probably need an accountant when: You need to explain yourself before the IRS (representation), you are encountering varying definitions in the tax code that have an impact on your return, or you have important economic activities that you are unsure of appropriate tax treatment." }, { "docid": "462184", "title": "", "text": "In no ways. Both will be reported to the members on their K1 in the respective categories (or if it is a single member LLC - directly to the individual tax return). The capital gains will flow to your personal Schedule D, and the business loss to your personal Schedule C. On your individual tax return you can deduct up to 3K of capital losses from any other income. Business loss is included in the income if it is active business, for passive businesses (like rental) there are limitations." }, { "docid": "344236", "title": "", "text": "\"A few practical thoughts: A practical thing that helps me immensely not to loose important paperwork (such as bank statements, bills, payroll statement, all those statements you need for filing tax return, ...) is: In addition to the folder (Aktenordner) where the statements ultimately need to go I use a Hängeregistratur. There are also standing instead of hanging varieties of the same idea (may be less expensive if you buy them new - I got most of mine used): you have easy-to-add-to folders where you can just throw in e.g. the bank statement when it arrives. This way I give the statement a preliminary scan for anything that is obviously grossly wrong and throw it into the respective folder (Hängetasche). Every once in a while I take care of all my book-keeping, punch the statements, file them in the Aktenordner and enter them into the software. I used to hate and never do the filing when I tried to use Aktenordner only. I recently learned that it is well known that Aktenordner and Schnellhefter are very time consuming if you have paperwork arriving one sheet at a time. I've tried different accounting software (being somewhat on the nerdy side, I use gnucash), including some phone apps. Personally, I didn't like the phone apps I tried - IMHO it takes too much time to enter things, so I tend to forget it. I'm much better at asking for a sales receipt (Kassenzettel) everywhere and sticking them into a calendar at home (I also note cash payments for which I don't have a receipt as far as I recall them - the forgotten ones = difference ends up in category \"\"hobby\"\" as they are mostly the beer or coke after sports). I was also to impatient for the cloud/online solutions I tried (I use one for business, as there the archiving is guaranteed to be according to the legal requirements - but it really takes far more time than entering the records in gnucash).\"" }, { "docid": "214610", "title": "", "text": "\"As I have said before on this site, I personally use Moneydance. They have Mac, Linux and Windows support, and recently added an iOS mobile version that syncs with the desktop. I have only used the Mac \"\"desktop\"\" version, and it seems to function well, but have not tried the other platforms, nor the iOS version. I have no company affiliation, but am a (mostly) happy user. :-)\"" }, { "docid": "257168", "title": "", "text": "\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"" }, { "docid": "556976", "title": "", "text": "There are few things going on here: My advice would be: with 75k income and a regular pay check there isn't a whole let you can do to adjust your tax burden. It's unlikely that any adviser will save enough money to warrant professional advice and the associated cost. Use off the shelf software for tax return and tax planning." }, { "docid": "246453", "title": "", "text": "\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \"\"4\"\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \"\"don't tax 4 x $4050\"\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\"" }, { "docid": "595090", "title": "", "text": "If you have complicated taxes (own a business, many houses, you are self employed, you are a contractor, etc etc) a person can make the most of your situation. If you are a w-2 single job, maybe with a family, the programs are going to be so close to spot on that the extra fees aren't worth it. I would never bother using HR Block or Liberty or those tax places that pop up. Use the software, or in my state sometimes municipalities put on tax help days at the library to assist in filling out the forms. If you have tough taxes, get a dedicated professional based on at least a few recommendations." } ]

[ { "docid": "412819", "title": "", "text": "\"I used H&R Block this year 2013 to do my 2012 taxes and it was a snap! Ubuntu 12.10 with Firefox 20 and everything worked great! Although it is not listed as one of the \"\"supported\"\" platforms, Firefox breezed through the application without any problems. I used the deluxe version of H&R to calculate my mortgage and home business deductions, but I would guess any of the H&R versions work.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "414394", "title": "", "text": "There are two different tax returns you'll be doing: one is for her, until the day of her death. The other is for the estate. The personal one you could probably do on your own, it's nothing different from the one for a living person, except for the cut-off date in the middle of the year. The estate tax return may be a bit more nuanced, since it is a trust return and not an individual return, and is done under a different set of rules. I'd suggest talking to a tax professional who'd help you. Your estate executioner should be doing the estate tax return (or hiring someone to do it). Sorry for your loss." }, { "docid": "466213", "title": "", "text": "\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"" }, { "docid": "585356", "title": "", "text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"" }, { "docid": "192726", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically, yes. Don't use your business account for personal spending because it may invalidate your limited liability protection. Transfer a chunk of money to your personal account, write it down in your books as \"\"distribution\"\" (or something similar), and use it in whatever way you want from your personal account. The IRS doesn't care per se, but mixing personal and business expenses will cause troubles if you're audited because you'll have problems distinguishing one from another. You should be using some accounting software to make sure you track your expenses and distributions correctly. It will make it easier for you to prepare reports for yourself and your tax preparer, and also track distributions and expenses. I suggest GnuCash, I find it highly effective for a small business with not so many transactions (if you have a lot of transactions, then maybe QuickBooks would be more appropriate).\"" }, { "docid": "272248", "title": "", "text": "\"I have done similar software work. You do not need an LLC to write off business expenses. The income and expenses go on Schedule C of your tax return. It is easy to write off even small expenses such as travel - if you keep records. The income should be reported to you on a 1099 form, filled out by your client, not yourself. For a financial advisor you should find one you can visit with personally and who operates as a \"\"fee-only\"\" advisor. That means they will not try to sell you something that they get a commission on. You might pay a few $hundred per visit. There are taxes that you have to pay (around 15%) due to self-employment income. These taxes are due 4 times a year and paid with an \"\"estimated tax\"\" form. See the IRS web site, and in particular schedule SE. Get yourself educated about this fast and make the estimated tax payments on time so you won't run into penalties at the end of the year.\"" }, { "docid": "498503", "title": "", "text": "\"Will this difference be given back in my next tax return If you compute your taxes correctly, yes you will get that money back when your tax return is processed. \"\"is it possible to return the check and modify how it's calculated if I talk to payroll?\"\" That is entirely up to your company but, probably not. It's a lot of effort for a comparatively small amount of money. \"\"Any ideas?\"\" Yeah, you are doing your math wrong. A possible but more unlikely answer is your company's software screwed up.\"" }, { "docid": "246453", "title": "", "text": "\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \"\"4\"\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \"\"don't tax 4 x $4050\"\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\"" }, { "docid": "91994", "title": "", "text": "While you are required to do so as others have said, it's actually in your interest to do so. In a recent article at GlobeInvestor, Tim Cestnick discusses the benefits of filing tax returns for teens. This situation may or may not apply to you but the message is the same. The main benefits are (1) create RRSP contribution room and (2) be eligible for GST/HST credits and other possible one-shot credits (think oil royalty surplus cheques in Alberta). Excerpt: You see, when Lincoln was 14, he filed a tax return and reported $2,000 of income that year. He paid no tax thanks to the basic personal tax credit, but he created $360 of RRSP contribution room that year. Beginning in 2003, Lincoln started working part-time in his father's business. His father agreed to pay him $6,000 each summer to work in the business, to help save money for university. Lincoln didn't pay any tax on the money he earned in those summers because his basic personal tax credit was always higher than his earnings. In addition, Lincoln added to his RRSP contribution room simply by filing a tax return each year." }, { "docid": "228445", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada. Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return. Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return. You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada." }, { "docid": "542969", "title": "", "text": "Let's have a look at Who must send a tax return: You’ll need to send a tax return if, in the last tax year: And we're done. It doesn't matter that your tax will come out to zero - you still need to TELL them this, otherwise how are they going to know? 'Person liable for zero tax who doesn't send their tax return' and 'Person liable for a million quid of tax who doesn't send their tax return' look the same..." }, { "docid": "424893", "title": "", "text": "\"Donate buttons are meaningless with regards to taxes. This is payment for something you provided, and you cannot claim that you've received a gift. Any money you receive in this way is payment for your software. Remember, for gifts - no consideration should have been provided to the donor. Anything for which a consideration was provided - cannot be a gift. In your case the consideration is the software, and it's value is the amount you were paid. Since every person can decide how much to pay you on his own - any payment is for the software, not a gift. Any money you get is taxable to you, and you cannot claim it as \"\"gifts\"\" without exposing yourself to risks of making fraudulent claims. Consult a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for a qualified tax advice.\"" }, { "docid": "529790", "title": "", "text": "Buxfer is a personal-finance web app which you might like. It's not open-source. But at least none of your complaints about financeworks.intuit.com apply to Buxfer. Buxfer offers a piece of software you can download to your own PC, called Firebux. This macro-recording software provides automation that helps you download statements and upload them to Buxfer. So you never have to give Buxfer any of your bank or brokerage usernames or passwords. Buxfer and Firebux are both free of charge. Wesabe, another personal-finance web app, also used to offer data-uploader software, but Wesabe has now gone out of business." }, { "docid": "68486", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations on starting your own business. Invest in a tax software package right away; I can't recommend a specific one but there is enough information out there to point you in the right direction: share with us which one you ended up using and why (maybe a separate question?) You do need to make your FICA taxes but you can write off the SE part of it. Keep all your filings as a PDF, a printout and a softcopy in the native format of the tax software package: it really helps the next tax season. When you begin your business, most of the expenses are going to be straightforward (it was for me) and while I had the option of doing it by hand, I used software to do it myself. At the beginning, it might actually seem harder to use the tax software package, but it will pay off in the end. Build relationships with a few tax advisors and attorneys: you will need to buy liability insurance soon if you are in any kind of serious (non hobby) business and accounting for these are no trivial tasks. If you have not filed yet, I recommend you do this: File an extension, overpay your estimated taxes (you can always collect a refund later) and file your return once you have had a CPA look over it. Do not skimp on a CPA: it's just the cost of running your business and you don't want to waste your time reading the IRS manuals when you could be growing your own business. Best of luck and come back to tell us what you did!" }, { "docid": "120523", "title": "", "text": "I have fairly simple tax returns and my experience was that TurboTax software produced roughly the same result as human accountant and costs much less. The accountant was never able to find any deductions that the program couldn't find. Of course, if you have business, etc. you probably need an accountant to help you navigate all the rules, requirements, etc. But for simple enough cases I found that the additional pay is not justified." }, { "docid": "204703", "title": "", "text": "The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)" }, { "docid": "305742", "title": "", "text": "Wow, very amused by some of the answers. I will comment on those later. To directly answer your question, here is a link to a brochure that explains the three basic typs and is written in straightforward language. link text That is step one. Step 2 is a question, cheapest when, initially or for long term? Without a doubt term initially is the cheapest. However every 10 years or 20 years it increases in price. As the name term implies it is temporary. Coverage will end at some point, 75, or 80 depending upon plan design chosen. It is possible that if you choose Term you can outlive your coverage and all you have are a bunch of cancelled cheques. Young people with a mortgage, children and other debts should buy a lot of term as the mortgage will be paid off, the kids will no longer be dependent. These needs are temporary. However some needs are permanent. What about leaving a Legacy at Death to a Charity? Insurance is a good solution and can provide a tax deduction too. Term isn't a good fit. Or a business owner wishing to transfer his/her business at death to their children. Taxes will be due and permanent insurance such as Whole Life and Universal Life can be arranged to provide cash to pay tax whenever this happens. Let me ask you who received 10% in the last ten years on their equity portfolio. Almost zero people did. However a Whole Plan would have generated a guaranteed return of 3.0% plus a non-guaranteed return via dividends that the combined internal rate of return on a combined basis would be about 5.6% AFTER TAXES. Life a bond portfolio yield. (Internal rate of return is dependent on age at buying, years of investing. All insurance comany software can show you the internal rate of return.) IRR is essesntially: what is the return after tax that you must get to equal the equity or death benefit from a permanent insurance plan. Someone mentioned by Term and Invest the difference. That is what universal life is, Term and Invest the difference except the difference is growing tax sheltered.Outside investments with comparable risk are taxable! There is no easy answer for what type is right, often a combination is. The key question you should ask is How Much Is Enough? Then consider types based upon your needs and budget. Here is a link where you can calculate how much you need. I hope this helps a bit." }, { "docid": "508405", "title": "", "text": "Outside of software that can calculate the returns: You could calculate your possible returns on that leap spread as you ordinarily would, then place the return results of that and the return results for the covered call position side by side for any given price level of the stock you calculate, and net them out. (Netting out the dollar amounts, not percentage returns.) Not a great answer, but there ya go. Software like OptionVue is expensive" }, { "docid": "523810", "title": "", "text": "Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this." }, { "docid": "343766", "title": "", "text": "In the US, mortgage payments are not deductible. What is deductible is the mortgage interest (to a limit). That, as well, is not deductible unconditionally, but rather as part of your itemized deductions on Schedule A of your yearly tax return. So if you're married and have a standard deduction of $12600 a year, live in a state with no state income tax, and your property tax and the mortgage interest are less than your standard deduction - you will not be getting any tax benefit whatsoever. That is, in fact, the case for many, if not majority, of the US mortgage payers. So in order to get a proper estimate, you need to take into account all the aspects of your tax calculations, which are by nature quite personal, and simulate the changes with the mortgage interest deduction. Most tax preparation software will allow you creating multiple files, so you can run the numbers for different scenarios." } ]

[ { "docid": "396853", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"true\"\" 0% loan is a losing proposition for the bank, that's true. However when you look at actual \"\"0%\"\" loans they usually have some catches: There might also be late payment fees, prepayment penalties, and other clauses that make it a good deal on average to the bank. Individual borrowers might be able to get away with \"\"free money\"\", but the bank does not look to make money on each loan, they look to make money on thousands of loans overall. For a retailer (including new car sellers). the actual financing costs will be baked into the sales price. They will add, say, 10% to the sales price in exchange for an interest-free loan. They can also sell these loans to an investment bank or other entity, but they would be sold at a deep discount, so the difference will be made up in the sales price or other \"\"fees\"\". It's possible that they would just chalk it up to promotional discounts or customer acquisition costs, but it would not be a good practice on a large scale.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "336847", "title": "", "text": "our mortgage has been sold to a secondary market player. There are multiple ways in which the deal is struck. At times the risk of default is with Original FI [with recourse], at times it is with secondary FI [without recourse]. The rate can be discounted. So the Original FI collects the EMI as per 3.75 and pays to the secondary FI at 3.25. Or it can also be one time fixed amount. How could this possibly be financially beneficial for the original loan holder? As indicated, there are multiple ways the Original FI makes money, either one time or over the period, depending on how the deal is struck. Are they truly making enough money from the mortgage fees and first payment's interest to to warrant their need to clear up their credit line for new mortgages? Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No broadly speaking the mortgage fees cover the cost for initiating the loan. There may be a very small amount banks may make. This is incidental. The actual money is made in the interest that is collected every month. If a Bank as say 5 loans for 100K each. It is very reputed brand and 10 people need 100K loans. Then it makes sense for the First FI to give loan to 5 people for 100K each, and sell this at profit to secondary FI. Take the 100K * 5 and give it off to new 5 people. Effectively making more money on the original 500K the bank had." }, { "docid": "375794", "title": "", "text": "\"The Federal Reserve is not the only way that money can be \"\"printed.\"\" Every bank does fractional reserve banking, thereby increasing the money supply every time they make a new loan. There's a number called the reserve requirement which limits how much money each bank can create. Lowering the reserve requirement allows banks to create more money. Raising it will destroy money. But banks can also destroy money by calling in loans or being less willing to make new loans. So when you look at the number of banks in the US, and the number of loans they all have, it's impossible to figure out exactly how much the money supply is expanding or contracting.\"" }, { "docid": "353662", "title": "", "text": "\"Scenario 1 is typically the better description. If commercial banks were allowed to simply \"\"create\"\" money, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. In the U.S., the central bank is the Federal Reserve or Fed, and is the only entity (not the government, not the banks, not the people) that is allowed to create money \"\"out of thin air\"\". It does this primarily by buying government debt. The government spends more than it takes in, and so to come up with the deficit, it issues bonds. The Fed buys a certain amount of these bonds, and simply prints the money (or more realistically authorized the electronic transfer of $X to the Treasury) which the government then spends. That places money in the hands of corporations and the people, who turn around and spend it. However, long-term, the interest charges on money borrowed from the Fed will actually remove money from the economy. The central banks, therefore, have to constantly make marginal changes to various monetary policy tools they have when the economy is just humming along. If they do nothing, then too much of a short-term increase in money supply will result in there being \"\"too much money\"\" which makes an individual monetary unit worth less (inflation), while making money too hard to get will reduce the rate at which it's spent, reducing GDP and causing recessions. The exact scenario you describe is typically seen in cases where the government is running with a balanced budget, and the central bank thus can't give its \"\"new money\"\" to the government to spend when it wants to increase the money supply. In that situation, the central bank instead lowers its lending rate, the percentage interest that it will charge on loans made to other banks, thereby encouraging those banks to borrow more of the money created by the central bank. Those banks will then use the money to make loans, invest in the market, etc etc which puts the money in the economy. In the U.S., the Fed does have this tool as well, but increases or decreases in the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\" are typically used to influence the rate that banks charge each other to borrow money, thus encouraging or discouraging this lending. A lowering in the interest rate makes banks more likely to borrow from each other (and from the Fed but the amount of money \"\"created\"\" this way is a drop in the bucket compared to current \"\"quantitative easing\"\"), and thus increases the \"\"turnover\"\" of the existing money in the economy (how many times a theoretical individual dollar is spent in a given time period).\"" }, { "docid": "426559", "title": "", "text": "Could someone please explain to me how interest rates work? I like to think of interest rates as the price of money. It is specified as a percentage paid per unit of time (for example, 3%/year). To figure out how much interest money you get (or have to pay) for a given amount and time, multiply the amount with the interest rate and then divide by the time divided by the interest rate's specified time. That sounds awfully complicated, so let's look at a simple example instead. You deposit $1,000 at a fixed interest rate of 2% per year, for two and a half years, where the interest is paid at the end of the term. This means that you earn $1,000 * 2% = $20 per year in interest. Multiply this by [2.5 years] / [year] = 2.5, and you will have received $20 * 2.5 = $50 in interest over 2.5 years. If the interest is paid yearly, this gets slightly more complicated, but the principle is the same. Now imagine that you deposit $5,000 at a fixed 3% per year, for half a year. Again, the interest is paid at the end of the term. You now earn $5,000 * 3% [per year] * [[0.5 years] / [year]] = $75 in interest over six months. Variable interest rates makes this a little more complicated, but it is exactly the same thing in principle: calculate the interest paid for each period (taking any compounding into account), then add up all periods to get the total amount of interest paid over time. It also works the same way if you take out a loan rather than depositing money. Tax effects (capitals gains taxes or interest expense deductions) may make the actual amount paid or received different, but that does not change the fundamental aspect of how to calculate interest. Do CD's make more money with higher interest rates, or is it the other way around? Usually fixed interest rate instruments such as certificates of deposit, or loans with fixed rates, pay a higher interest rate for longer terms. This is because it is harder to judge credit risk in a longer term, so whoever gives the loan usually wants a premium for the additional risk. So a 6-month CD will normally pay a smaller percentage interest per year than a five-year CD. Note that this is not always the case; the technical term for when this does not hold is inverted yield curve. Interest rates are almost always formally specified in terms of percent per year, which makes it easy to compare rates. If you buy a $100 6-month CD paying 1% (I told you these were only examples :)) and then reinvest the money at the end of the term in another 6-month CD also paying 1%, the total amount paid will be ($100 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $100.50 for the first term, then ($100.50 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $101.0025 at the end of the second term. As you can see, the compounding of the interest makes this return slightly more than a single $100 12-month CD ($100 * 1 + 1% = $101), but unless you are dealing with large amounts of money, the difference is small enough to be negligible. If you were to put $100 in a 2% one-year CD, you'd get back $102 at the end of the year. Put the same amount in a 5% one-year CD, and you get back $105. So yes, higher interest rates means more interest money paid, for loans as well as deposits. Keep in mind that loans and deposits really are essentially the same thing, and interest calculations work the same way for both. The interest rate of a normal certificate of deposit does not change if the variable interest rates change, but rather is locked in when the money is deposited (or the CD is bought, whichever way you prefer to look at it)." }, { "docid": "13656", "title": "", "text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !" }, { "docid": "513079", "title": "", "text": "\"There are normally three key factors that define different kinds of loans, these factors affect the risk that the lender takes on and so the interest rate. The interest rate on any loan is linked to market interest rates; the lender shouldn't be able to receive a higher rate of interest for lending the money at no risk, and the level of risk that the lender believes the borrower to have. The three features of a particular loan are: These reduce the risk of complete or total non-payment (default) of the principal or any missed interest payments. Taken in order: Amortising Here some of the monthly payment pays a proportion of the underlying principal of the loan. This reduces the amount outstanding and so reduces the capacity for default on the full principal as part of the principal has already been paid. Security In a secured loan there is an asset such as a car, house, boat, gold, shares etc. that has a value on resale that is held against the loan. The lender may repossess the security if the borrower defaults and recover their money that way. This also acts as a \"\"stick\"\" using the loss of property to convince the borrower that it is better to keep paying the interest. The future value of the security will be taken into account when deciding how much this reduces the interest rate. Guarantor A guarantor to a loan guarantees that the borrower will repay the loan and interest in full and, if the borrower does not fulfil that obligation, the lender is able to seek legal redress from the guarantor for the borrower's debts. Each of these reduce the risk of the loan as detailed and so reduce the interest rate. The interest rate, then, is made up of three parts; the market interest rate (m) plus the interest rate premium for the borrower's own credit worthiness (c) minus the value of the features of the loan that help to reduce risk (l). The interest rate of the loan (r) is categorised as: r = m + c - l. Credit ratings themselves are an inexact science and even when two lenders are looking at the same credit score for the same person they will give a different interest rate premium. This is mostly for business reasons, and the shape of their loan book, that are too tedious to go through here. All in all the different types of loan give flexibility at the cost of a different interest rate. If you don't want the chance of your car being repossessed you don't take a secured loan, if you have a family member who can help and doesn't mind taking on your risk take a guaranteed loan.\"" }, { "docid": "333966", "title": "", "text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks." }, { "docid": "186127", "title": "", "text": "A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market. A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k. The loan has two components. a. The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b. The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top). The originating bank lends $180k of their own money. Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it. The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less. The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient. Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around. One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1. One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for." }, { "docid": "163904", "title": "", "text": "\"The answers here are all correct. This is 100% scam, beyond any reasonable doubt. Don't fall for it. However, I felt it valuable to explain what would happen were you to fall for this. It's not all that hard to understand, but it involves understanding some of the time delays that exist in modern banking today. The most important thing to understand is that depositing a check does not actually put dollars in your account, even though it appears to. A check is not legal tender for debts public and private. It's a piece of paper known as a \"\"bill of exchange.\"\" It's an authorization for a payee (you), to request that their bank pay you the amount on the check. A transaction made with a check does not actually draw to a close until your bank and their bank communicate and cause the actual transfer of funds to take place. This process is called \"\"clearing\"\" the check. Despite living in the modern times, this process is slow. It can take 7-10 days to clear a check (especially if it is an international bank). This is not good for the banking business. You can imagine how difficult it would be to tell a poor client, who is living paycheck to paycheck, that he can't have his pay until the check clears a week later. Banks have an interest in hiding this annoying feature of the modern banking system, so they do. When you deposit a check, the bank will typically advance you the money (an interest free loan, in effect) while the check \"\"floats\"\" (i.e. until it clears). This creates the illusion that the money is actually in your account for most intents and purposes. (presumably a bank would distinguish between the floating check and a cleared check if you tried to close out your account, but otherwise it looks and feels like the money is in your hands). Of course, if the check is dishonored (because the payer had insufficient funds, or the account simply did not exist), your bank will not get the money. At this moment, they will cancel any advances you received and notify you that the check bounced. Again, this happens 7-10 days later. The general pattern of this scam is that they will pay you by a method which clears slowly, like a check. They will then ask you to withdraw the money using a faster clearing method (like a wire transfer or withdrawing the cash). Typically they will be encouraging you to move quickly (they are on a timetable... when their check bounces, the game is up!) At this time, it will appear as though the account has a positive balance, but in fact it has a negative balance plus an advance on the check. This looks great until 7-10 days later, when the check bounces. At that time, the bank will cancel the advance, and reality will set in. You will now have an open bank account, legally opened by you in your own name, which is deeply in debt. Meanwhile, the scammer walks away with all the money that you sent them (which cleared quickly). There are many variants which can hide the details. Some can play games with check kiting to try to make your first check clear (then try to rope you in for a more painful hit). Some will change the instruments they use (checks are the easy ones, so they're simply most common). Don't try to think \"\"maybe this one is legit.\"\" These scammers literally make a living off of making shady transactions look legit. Things I would recommend looking out for:\"" }, { "docid": "219910", "title": "", "text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light." }, { "docid": "571920", "title": "", "text": "\"No. The full text of the Landlord-Tenant Act (specifically, section 554.614 of Act 348 of the year 1972) makes no mention of this. Searching the law for \"\"interest\"\" doesn't yield anything of interest (pardon the pun). Specifically, section 554.604 of the same law states that: (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is written or his legal representative may bring an action in the district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides or does business for collection on the bond. While it does sound like the landlord is required to deposit the money in a bank or other secured form, e.g. the Secretary of State, he/she isn't required to place it in an account that will earn interest.\"" }, { "docid": "444390", "title": "", "text": "Consider that the bank of course makes money on the money in your escrow. It is nothing but a free loan you give the bank, and the official reasons why they want it are mostly BS - they want your free loan, nothing else. As a consequence, to let you out of it, they want the money they now cannot make on your money upfront, in form of a 'fee'. That explains the amount; it is right their expected loss by letting you out. Unfortunately, knowing this doesn't change your options. Either way, you will have to pay that money; either as a one-time fee, or as a continuing loss of interest. As others mentioned, you cannot calculate with 29 years, as chances are the mortgage will end earlier - by refinancing or sale. Then you are back to square one with another mandatory escrow; so paying the fee is probably not a good idea. If you are an interesting borrower for other banks, you might be able to refinance with no escrow; you can always try to negotiate this and make it a part of the contract. If they want your business, they might agree to that." }, { "docid": "344165", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks use the money for productive pursuits, earning returns in excess of what they will owe the fed in discount interest. If a bank could not yield a return greater than their interest due their lender (whether that lender is the fed or not) they probably wouldn't borrow in the first place. EDIT: I misunderstood the question. The federal reserve does not disseminate new money by making loans. They do so by issuing and trading in bonds. The US Treasury, for example, issues a bond. The Federal Reserve Bank buys this bond using money they \"\"printed\"\". So the same question applies.... where does the money come from to pay the interest on the bond? It comes from the perpetual issuance and trading in bonds at a growing rate. All the fed needs to do is to buy bonds at a rate faster than they collect interest.\"" }, { "docid": "143593", "title": "", "text": "the best thing to do is file bankrupt. your credit will be shot for 7 to 10 years. however usually 3 years after the bankrupt people will give you small lines of credit. then you rebuild on the small credit lines. and never get into a bad loan again you learn from mistakes. there is no shame in a mistake if you learned from it. I rebuilt my credit by using fingerhut. small credit limit on a cap 1 credit card 300 dollars unsecured card. personal loan of 1500 dollars to buy a old clunk for a car as I did not want to have five years of car payments. you can also get a secured credit card. and build credit with that. the bank will explain how to build credit using your own money. also you should know a lot of banks like your bankrupt stat. because they no you cant file for several more years. meaning if you don't pay your loan they can garnish you and you cant file bankrupt. you can get a new car loan with good interest rate. by taking 5000 dollars of your 15000 dollars savings down on the new loan. making your new car loan have better payments cheaper and better interest. and get a secured credit card of 2000 to build towards a unsecured credit card. keep all your new credit tabs small and pay on time.i would not use all your nest egg savings. that is not smart. get a lawyer and file. stay in school you will have a fresh start and you learned about upside down loans. don't listen to people trying to tell you bankruptsy is bad. it in a lot of ways gives you the upper hand in a no win debt or debts." }, { "docid": "296345", "title": "", "text": "\"From Rich Dad, Poor Dad. 3 Major Things: With rental real estate, in addition to mortgage interest, you also deduct property taxes, and must claim depreciation (cost of house / 27.5 years) Business Expenses. For example, buy a yacht and put it in a charter fleet. Deduct interest on the loan, depreciation of the asset, property taxes, upkeep of the boat. Your \"\"business\"\" earns profit from chartering the boat, which if I recall correctly is taxed at a lower rate. You get to go sailing for free. Then there was the concept of subdividing the businesses. If you own a restaurant, create another business to own the property, and the equipment used in the company. Then lease the equipment and rent the land to the restaurant. Now admittedly I thought this was like the Daylight Savings plan of tax avoidance, I mean now aren't you essentially having two companies paying half the taxes. I am sure there are well paid CPAs that make the math happen, perhaps using insurance plans.. Perhaps each business funds a \"\"whole life\"\" insurance account, and contributes vast amounts into that. Then you take a loan from your insurance account. Loans of course are not income, so not taxed. The third way is to create your own bank. Banks are required to have reserves of 9%. Meaning if I have $100 dollars, the FDIA allows me to loan $1,111. I then charge you 20% interest, or $222/yr. Now how much can I loan? ...well you can see how profitable that is. Sure you pay taxes, but when you print your own money who cares? Most of this is just gleamed from books, and government publications, but that was my general understanding of it. Feel free to correct the finer points.\"" }, { "docid": "499336", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\"" }, { "docid": "400009", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking, an interest-free loan will be tied to a specific purchase, and the lender will be paid something by the vendor. The only other likely scenario is an introductory offer to try to win longer-term more profitable business, such as an initial interest-free period on a credit card. Banks couldn't make money if all their loans were interest-free, unless they were getting paid by the vendors of whatever was being purchased with the money that was lent." }, { "docid": "285064", "title": "", "text": "Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse." }, { "docid": "254941", "title": "", "text": "\"eg. &gt;For the past few hundred years, the financial system has been civilization's primary game for producing, distributing, and allocating output No. Finance does not itself produce anything. It only allocates production. &gt;Only banks can create bank notes by making loans to individuals, businesses, and governments. Actually, anyone can loan to anyone. &gt;The more loans banks make, the more bank notes in existence. Since interest is charged on every loan, if banks don't continually increase lending to produce more bank notes, the financial game collapses. This isn't a game, this is how the government actually operates. &gt;As advances in automation, robotics, and other efficient technology are replacing the need for people to labor, it is becoming impossible for banks to make enough legitimate loans to keep the game going. The interest rate has been pinned artificially low for a long time by the government. Intelligent financiers with actual skin in the game would be fine if they weren't forced to take on debt at a sub prime rate to get some pro-student-loan pro-\"\"affordable\"\"-housing politician reelected. &gt;Due to insufficient lending/bank note growth, large numbers of people can't find jobs or get money. Without jobs or access to money, people are financial slaves in the financial game. The lack of jobs has something to do with the fed printing billions and billions of dollars a month, but it's not because they're printing too much.... And then the author starts talking about how information is going to satiate our energy needs. As if energy is something that we can think our way into abundance of.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "106424", "title": "", "text": "Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment. Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted." } ]

[ { "docid": "353662", "title": "", "text": "\"Scenario 1 is typically the better description. If commercial banks were allowed to simply \"\"create\"\" money, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. In the U.S., the central bank is the Federal Reserve or Fed, and is the only entity (not the government, not the banks, not the people) that is allowed to create money \"\"out of thin air\"\". It does this primarily by buying government debt. The government spends more than it takes in, and so to come up with the deficit, it issues bonds. The Fed buys a certain amount of these bonds, and simply prints the money (or more realistically authorized the electronic transfer of $X to the Treasury) which the government then spends. That places money in the hands of corporations and the people, who turn around and spend it. However, long-term, the interest charges on money borrowed from the Fed will actually remove money from the economy. The central banks, therefore, have to constantly make marginal changes to various monetary policy tools they have when the economy is just humming along. If they do nothing, then too much of a short-term increase in money supply will result in there being \"\"too much money\"\" which makes an individual monetary unit worth less (inflation), while making money too hard to get will reduce the rate at which it's spent, reducing GDP and causing recessions. The exact scenario you describe is typically seen in cases where the government is running with a balanced budget, and the central bank thus can't give its \"\"new money\"\" to the government to spend when it wants to increase the money supply. In that situation, the central bank instead lowers its lending rate, the percentage interest that it will charge on loans made to other banks, thereby encouraging those banks to borrow more of the money created by the central bank. Those banks will then use the money to make loans, invest in the market, etc etc which puts the money in the economy. In the U.S., the Fed does have this tool as well, but increases or decreases in the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\" are typically used to influence the rate that banks charge each other to borrow money, thus encouraging or discouraging this lending. A lowering in the interest rate makes banks more likely to borrow from each other (and from the Fed but the amount of money \"\"created\"\" this way is a drop in the bucket compared to current \"\"quantitative easing\"\"), and thus increases the \"\"turnover\"\" of the existing money in the economy (how many times a theoretical individual dollar is spent in a given time period).\"" }, { "docid": "374523", "title": "", "text": "Bullshit. Those 16 Trillion dollars in secret loans weren't known until that audit which was forced on the Federal Reserve by Congress, and Congress and the American people weren't told that the Federal Reserve was making massive zero interest loans to foreign banks. None of that would have come out unless Congress had pushed for that audit. &gt;A prime example is his claim that 16 trillion was lent, which is pretty dishonest. At no point was there more than about 2T lent out (from the audit itself) and at no point was the US taxpayer on the hook for over around 2T. lol.. that's some prime spin job right there. Tell me this... if I loan you $500 a night every night for 5 days and those loans allow you to earn $100 totally risk free how much have I loaned you? Does it even matter, because the end of result is I essentially gave you $100." }, { "docid": "94279", "title": "", "text": "It certainly is possible for a run on the bank to drive it into insolvency. And yes, if the bank makes some bad loans, it can magnify the problem. Generally, this does not happen, though. Remember that banks usually have lots of customers, and people are depositing money and making mortgage payments every day, so there is usually enough on-hand to cover average banking withdrawl activity, regardless of any bad loans they have outstanding. Banks have lots of historical data to know what the average withdrawl demands are for a given day. They also have risk models to predict the likelihood of their loans going into default. A bank will generally use this information to strike a healthy balance between profit-making activity (e.g. issuing loans), and satisfying its account holders. In the event of a major withdrawl demand, there are some protections in place to guard against insolvency. There are regulations that specify a Reserve Requirement. The bank must keep a certain amount of money on hand, so they can't take huge risks by loaning out too much money all at once. Regulators can tweak this requirement over time to reflect the current economic situation. If a bank does run into trouble, it can take out a short-term loan. Either from another bank, or from the central bank (e.g. the US Federal Reserve). Banks don't want to pay interest on loans any more than you do, so if they are regularly borrowing money, they will adjust thier cash reserves accordingly. If all else fails and the bank can't meet its obligations (e.g. the Fed loan fell through), the bank has an insurance policy to make sure the account holders get paid. In the US, this is what the FDIC is for. Worst case, the bank goes under, but your money is safe. These protections have worked pretty well for many decades. However, during the recent financial crisis, all three of these protections were under heavy strain. So, one of the things banking regulators did was to put the major banks through stress tests to make sure they could handle several bad financial events without collapsing. These tests showed that some banks didn't have enough money in reserve. (Not long after, banks started to increase fees and credit card rates to raise this additional capital.) Keep in mind that if banks were unable to use the deposited money (loan it out, invest it, etc), the current financial landscape would change considerably." }, { "docid": "574432", "title": "", "text": "\"If I understand you situation correctly, then the accepted answer is extremely misleading and incorrect. Your arrangement with your parents is definitely unreasonable. It is definitely not \"\"similar to an interest-only loan\"\". In an interest-only loan, like you can get from a bank, you will loan a sum of money, which you are expected to pay back at a certain time in the future, or when you sell the condo. But you pay back the original sum, not the value of property at selling time. For the access to the money you pay an interest to the bank. The bank gets their profits from the interest. The property only serves as collateral in case you are not able to make your interest payments. Another way to view it, is that your parent bought (a share of) your condo for investment reasons. In that case, they would expect to get their profits from the increase of the value of the property over time. That looks most like your situation. Granted, that is more risky for them, but that is what they choose to sign up for. But in that case it is not reasonable to charge your for interest as well, because that would mean they would get double profits. So how does the $500 monthly payment fit in? If it is interest, then it would work out to a yearly interest of about 5.2%. Where I live, that would nowadays be extremely high even for an interest-only mortgage from a bank. But I don't live in the USA, so don't know whether that is true there. I think in your situation, the $500 can only be seen as rent. Whether that is reasonable for your situation I cannot judge from here. It should be 75% of a reasonable rent for a condo like that. But in that case, your parents should also stand for 75% of the maintenance costs of the property, which you don't mention, and most of the property taxes and insurance fees. In short, no it is not a reasonable arrangement. You would be better of trying to get a morgage from the bank, and buy out your parents with it.\"" }, { "docid": "344165", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks use the money for productive pursuits, earning returns in excess of what they will owe the fed in discount interest. If a bank could not yield a return greater than their interest due their lender (whether that lender is the fed or not) they probably wouldn't borrow in the first place. EDIT: I misunderstood the question. The federal reserve does not disseminate new money by making loans. They do so by issuing and trading in bonds. The US Treasury, for example, issues a bond. The Federal Reserve Bank buys this bond using money they \"\"printed\"\". So the same question applies.... where does the money come from to pay the interest on the bond? It comes from the perpetual issuance and trading in bonds at a growing rate. All the fed needs to do is to buy bonds at a rate faster than they collect interest.\"" }, { "docid": "355241", "title": "", "text": "From Wikipedia: A hard money loan is a specific type of asset-based loan financing through which a borrower receives funds secured by the value of a parcel of real estate. Hard money loans are typically issued at much higher interest rates than conventional commercial or residential property loans and are almost never issued by a commercial bank or other deposit institution. Hard money is similar to a bridge loan, which usually has similar criteria for lending as well as cost to the borrowers. The primary difference is that a bridge loan often refers to a commercial property or investment property that may be in transition and does not yet qualify for traditional financing, whereas hard money often refers to not only an asset-based loan with a high interest rate, but possibly a distressed financial situation, such as arrears on the existing mortgage, or where bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings are occurring. This implies to me that these loans are only against real estate. Presumably, because it doesn't move and can't be simply taken away, as in the case where you have say, a high value diamond or painting." }, { "docid": "392980", "title": "", "text": "\"Your plan as proposed will not work, because it goes against how banks make money. Banks make money in two ways: (1) Fees [including account fees, investment advice fees, mortgage application fees, etc.]; and (2) Interest Rate Spread. They borrow money for x%, and they lend it out for x+y%. In a simple form, someone gives the bank a deposit, and earns 1%. The bank turns around to the next person in line and loans the money to them for 4%. You are asking them to turn the interest rate spread into a cost instead of their main source of profit: You are asking the bank to borrow money from another person paying them 1.2% interest, and then loan the money to you, paying you 0.6% interest and keeping 0.6% for themselves. The bank would lose money doing this. Technically yes, you can borrow from a bank and invest it in something earning above the 4% interest they will charge you. You can then pay the bank's interest off of your earnings, and make some profit for yourself. BUT this carries an inherent risk: If your investment loses money, you still owe the bank, effectively increasing the negative impact of your investment. This tactic is called \"\"Leveraging\"\"; you can look it up on this site or on google. It is not something you should do if you do not fully understand the risks you are taking on. Given that you are asking this question, I would suggest tactfully that you are not yet well informed enough to make this sort of investment. You run serious risk of losing everything if you over-leverage (assuming the banks will even lend you money in the first place).\"" }, { "docid": "13656", "title": "", "text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !" }, { "docid": "490888", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\"" }, { "docid": "333966", "title": "", "text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks." }, { "docid": "3466", "title": "", "text": "You must consider the different levels of risk associated with each loan. When the bank loans you money, it does so based on a high degree of information about your financial situation (through your credit report + additional information gathered at the time of granting your request). It feels quite confident that you will repay them, and therefore considers you to be low risk. In order to make a profit off of all its low risk clients, the bank only needs to charge a small rate of interest - competitive with the market but enough to cover the losses from clients who will default. When you loan money through a peer-to-peer program, you are at two distinct disadvantages from the bank: (1) Your loan portfolio will not be diversified; that is, you may have only a single person or a small handful of people owing you money. Any catastrophic event in their lives may wipe out their loan to you. Whereas the bank can play the averages with a broader client base. (2) You have less information, and ultimately less (effective) power to reclaim your losses. Would you feel confident walking behind the desk at a bank today, and deciding whether to approve someone's loan based on the information that the bank's back-end has already determined is necessary to make that decision? Now how about when you are doing it on your own? Because of this, you take on more risk from a peer-to-peer loan than a bank takes on from you. That's why the person is willing (or, required due to market availability) to pay a higher rate; they know they are higher risk. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea, just that there is a specific reason that the difference in rates exists, and it implies that you should consider carefully whether the risks outweigh the benefits. Note that the concept of taking a buy/sell position on two theoretically identical assets while earning a net profit at no risk is known as 'arbitrage'. Arbitrage situations rarely exist, and never for long. Whenever you see a position that appears to be arbitrage, consider what might make it not so. ie: you could buy inventory in location A, and sell it at 10% higher margin in location B - but have you considered transportation, carrying costs, and interest for the period that you physically held the inventory? The appearance of arbitrage may (in my opinion) be a sign that you have incomplete information." }, { "docid": "521233", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all \"\"depositor\"\" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms \"\"risky\"\". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their \"\"investment banking\"\" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on \"\"risky\"\" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money. So, the upshot of all this is that the bank simply won't give you more on your money than it is allowed to make on it. In addition, there are several tools that the Fed has to regulate economic activity, and three big ones play a part. First is the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\"; this is the interest rate that the Fed charges on loans made to other banks (which is a primary source of day-to-day liquidity for these banks). Money paid as interest to the Fed is effectively removed from the economy and is a way to reduce the money supply. Right now the FFR is .25% (that's one quarter of one percent) which is effectively zero; borrow a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) from the Fed for one month and you'll pay them a scant $208,333. Banks lend to other banks at a rate based on the FFR, called the Interbank Rate (usually adding some fraction of a percent so the lending bank makes money on the loan). This means that the banks can get money from the Fed and from other banks very cheaply, which means they don't have to offer high interest rates on savings to entice individual depositors to save their money with the bank. Second is \"\"quantitative easing\"\", which just means the Fed buys government bonds and pays for them with \"\"new\"\" money. This happens all the time; remember those interest charges on bank loans? To keep the money supply stable, the Fed must buy T-debt at least in the amount of the interest being charged, otherwise the money leaves the economy and is not available to circulate. The Fed usually buys a little more than it collects in order to gradually increase the money supply, which allows the economy to grow while controlling inflation (having \"\"too much money\"\" and so making money worth less than what it can buy). What's new is that the Fed is increasing the money supply by a very large amount, by buying bonds far in excess of the (low) rates it's charging, and at fixed prices determined by the yield the Fed wants to induce in the markets. In the first place, with the Fed buying so many, there are fewer for institutions and other investors to buy. This increases the demand, driving down yields as investors besides the Fed are willing to pay a similar price, and remember that T-debt is one of the main things banks are allowed to invest your deposits in. Inflation isn't a concern right now despite the large amount of new money being injected, because the current economy is so lackluster right now that the new cash is just being sat upon by corporations and being used by consumers to pay down debt, instead of what the Fed and Government want us to do (hire, update equipment, buy houses and American cars, etc). In addition, the \"\"spot market price\"\" for a T-bond, or any investment security, is generally what the last guy paid. By buying Treasury debt gradually at a fixed price, the Fed can smooth out \"\"jitters\"\" in the spot price that speculators may try to induce by making low \"\"buy offers\"\" on T-debt to increase yields. Lastly, the Fed can tell banks that they must keep a certain amount of their deposits in \"\"reserve\"\", basically by keeping them in a combination of cash in the vault, and in accounts with the Fed itself. This has a dual purpose; higher reserve rates allow a bank to weather a \"\"run\"\" (more people than usual wanting their money) and thus reduces risk of failure. An increased reserves amount also reduces the amount of money circulating in the economy, because obviously if the banks have to keep a percentage of assets in cash, they can't invest that cash. Banks are currently required to keep 10% of \"\"deposited assets\"\" (the sum of all checking and savings accounts, but not CDs) in cash. This compounds the other problems with banks' investing; not only are they not getting a great return on your savings, they can only use 90% of your savings to get it.\"" }, { "docid": "400009", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking, an interest-free loan will be tied to a specific purchase, and the lender will be paid something by the vendor. The only other likely scenario is an introductory offer to try to win longer-term more profitable business, such as an initial interest-free period on a credit card. Banks couldn't make money if all their loans were interest-free, unless they were getting paid by the vendors of whatever was being purchased with the money that was lent." }, { "docid": "517299", "title": "", "text": "You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance." }, { "docid": "553328", "title": "", "text": "\"I am neither a lawyer nor a tax accountant, and if you're dealing with serious money I suggest you consult a professional. But my understanding is: If you make a loan at zero interest or at below-market rates, the IRS will consider the difference between the interest that you do charge and the market rate to be a gift. That is, if someone could get a loan from a bank and he'd pay $1000 in interest for the year, but instead you loan him the money as a friend interest free, than as far as the IRS is concerned you have given him a $1000 gift, and you could potentially have to pay gift tax. Or they might \"\"impute\"\" the interest to you and tax you on $1000 of additional income. If you have no agreement on repayment terms, if it's all, \"\"Hey Joe, just pay me back when you can\"\", then the IRS is likely to consider the entire \"\"loan\"\" to be a gift. There's an annual exclusion on gifts -- I think it's now $13,000 -- so if you loan your buddy fifty bucks to tide him over until next pay day, the IRS isn't going to get involved in that. They're worried about more serious money. And yes, the IRS does \"\"police loan rates\"\". The IRS examines exact numbers for all sorts of things. If, say, you go on a 100-mile overnight business trip, and the company gives you $10,000 for travel expenses, the IRS is likely to say that this is not a tax-deductible travel expense at all but a sham to hide part of your salary from taxes. Or if you donate a pair of old socks to charity and declare a $500 charitable contribution deduction, the IRS will say that that is not a realistic value for a pair of old socks and disallow the deduction. Etc. A small discrepancy from market rates can be justified for any number of reasons. If the book value of a used car is $5000 and you sell it to your neighbor for $4900, the IRS is unlikely to question it, there are any number of legitimate business reasons why you had to give a discount to make the sale. But if you sell it to him for $50, they may declare that this is not a sale but a gift. Etc.\"" }, { "docid": "577201", "title": "", "text": "As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend." }, { "docid": "292788", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no one solution to every project finance problem. Two models might make sense in this situation, however. In this case, you would count all the money that you give to your friend as a loan which he will pay back with interest. The interest rate and loan amounts will have to be agreed on by both of you. One one hand, the interest should be high enough to reward you in a successful outcome for the amount of risk that you take on if things don't work out. On the other, the interest rate needs to be low enough where his earnings after loan repayment justify your friend's effort, in addition to being competitive to ant rate your friend could secure from a bank. The downside to this plan is you don't directly benefit from the franchise's profits. In this model, you will record the cash that each of you invests. Since your friend is also adding \"\"sweat equity\"\" by setting up and operating the franchise, you will need to quantify the work that your friend and you invest into the franchise. Then you can determine how much each of you has invested in terms of dollars and split any franchise profits based on those proportions. The downside of this plan is that it is difficult to estimate how much time each of you invests and how much that time is worth.\"" }, { "docid": "120090", "title": "", "text": "Short answer: yes, you can put up collateral for someone else's loan. The bank will be happy to take your money, give it to the other person, and return it to you on completion of the loan (keeping the interest the security makes on the money market and the interest they're charging the other person for themselves). If the above doesn't sound very appealing (you don't see any benefit from your investment, and can be left holding the bag if your friend defaults on their loan), it really isn't a great way to spend your money. However, as assistance to someone else, it provides several advantages over directly transferring the money:" }, { "docid": "286900", "title": "", "text": "\"To summarize, the money never existed. The best example I can give is the housing bubble. Houses were being bought on credit worthiness and this pushed the house prices and values up as if the houses had been bought with real money. When people couldn't make their payments, the house prices crashed. The boom and bust cycle is simply credit being overextended (boom) and when there is not enough money in the system for everyone to repay all their debts it crashes (bust). The real question that people should be asking is not \"\"Where did all the money go?\"\", but \"\"Why is money issued by private banks?\"\" Money is a social invention to facilitate trade. Should it not be like a public water utility? Counterfeiting is illegal except when a private bank does it. Money should not be variable in value and economics will never be a science if the measurement of value is not standardized. All natural sciences have standards of measurement like meters, joules, degrees, etc. Money must decrease in value constantly because all money is issued at interest. We essentially pay rent on all money that isssued and the interest can only be repaid if more money is created, once again at interest. This is why economists generally say some inflation is good. Finance has told them interest is a given on the issue of money when in reality, money is just an IOU that requires no such interest payment for it's issue. Interest should be made if a loan is issued against savings, but not for the simple issuance of money. There should be public banks that issue the money and private banks for investment. You can read more about this from reading about Arthur Kitson. In this way, the public controls the value of it's money, not private bankers that use the issue of money to transfer wealth to an idle financial class. If you want to get into the differences between wealth and debt, read the work of Frederick Soddy. It's off topic from this thread but really interesting to see how he relates real science to economics and how our current economic system is not scientific in the least. Wealth is subject to the laws of thermodynamics while debt is an invention of the human will. Debt never rots or degrades with time and can expand exponentially through compound interest - nothing in the natural world does this.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "400009", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking, an interest-free loan will be tied to a specific purchase, and the lender will be paid something by the vendor. The only other likely scenario is an introductory offer to try to win longer-term more profitable business, such as an initial interest-free period on a credit card. Banks couldn't make money if all their loans were interest-free, unless they were getting paid by the vendors of whatever was being purchased with the money that was lent." } ]

[ { "docid": "239611", "title": "", "text": "\"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you. Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No \"\"payday loans\"\" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with \"\"interest free credit\"\", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you. Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan.\"" }, { "docid": "57517", "title": "", "text": "Some places banks/Credit Unions will allow you to refinance a auto loan. My credit Union only does this if the original loan was with another lender. They will send the money to the old lender, then give you a loan under the new terms. They are trying to get your business, not necessarily looking for a way make less money for themselves. You will have to see how much you will save. Which will be based on the delta of the length of the loan or the change in interest rate, or both. My Credit Union has a calculator to show you the numbers based on keeping the size of the payments the same, or keeping the number of payments the same. Make sure you understand any limitations regarding the refinance based on the age of the car, and if you are underwater." }, { "docid": "296345", "title": "", "text": "\"From Rich Dad, Poor Dad. 3 Major Things: With rental real estate, in addition to mortgage interest, you also deduct property taxes, and must claim depreciation (cost of house / 27.5 years) Business Expenses. For example, buy a yacht and put it in a charter fleet. Deduct interest on the loan, depreciation of the asset, property taxes, upkeep of the boat. Your \"\"business\"\" earns profit from chartering the boat, which if I recall correctly is taxed at a lower rate. You get to go sailing for free. Then there was the concept of subdividing the businesses. If you own a restaurant, create another business to own the property, and the equipment used in the company. Then lease the equipment and rent the land to the restaurant. Now admittedly I thought this was like the Daylight Savings plan of tax avoidance, I mean now aren't you essentially having two companies paying half the taxes. I am sure there are well paid CPAs that make the math happen, perhaps using insurance plans.. Perhaps each business funds a \"\"whole life\"\" insurance account, and contributes vast amounts into that. Then you take a loan from your insurance account. Loans of course are not income, so not taxed. The third way is to create your own bank. Banks are required to have reserves of 9%. Meaning if I have $100 dollars, the FDIA allows me to loan $1,111. I then charge you 20% interest, or $222/yr. Now how much can I loan? ...well you can see how profitable that is. Sure you pay taxes, but when you print your own money who cares? Most of this is just gleamed from books, and government publications, but that was my general understanding of it. Feel free to correct the finer points.\"" }, { "docid": "388391", "title": "", "text": "\"So \"\"Operation Twist\"\" is actually a pretty simple concept. Here's the break down: The Fed sells short-term treasury bonds that it already holds on its books. Short-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in less than three years. Then: Uses that money to buy long term treasury bonds. Long-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in six to 30 years The reason: The fed buys these longer-term treasuries to lower longer-term interest rates and encourage more borrowing and spending. Diving deeper into how it works: So the Fed can easily determine short-term rates by using the Federal funds rate this rate has a direct effect on the following: However this does not play a direct role in influencing the rate of long-term loans (what you might pay on a 30-year fixed mortgage). Instead, long-term rates are determined by investors who buy and sell bonds in the bond market, which changes daily. These bond yields fluctuate depending on the health of the economy and inflation. However, the Fed funds rate does play an indirect role in these rates. So now that we know a little more about what effects what rate, why does lower long-term rates in treasuries influence my 30yr fixed mortgage? Well when you are looking for a loan you are entering a market and competing against other people, by people I mean anyone looking for money (e.g: my grandmother, companies, or the US government). The bank that lends you money has to decide weather the deal you are offering them is better then another deal on the market. If the risk of lending to one person is the same as the risk of lending to another, the bank will make whichever loan yields the higher interest rate. The U.S. government is considered a very safe borrower, so much so that government bonds are considered almost “risk free”, but because of the lower risk the rate of return is lower. So now the bank has to factor in this risk and make its decision weather to lend you money, or the government. So, if the government were to go to the market and buy its own long-term bonds it is adding demand in the market causing the price of the bond to rise in effect lowering the interest rate (when price goes up, yield goes down). So when you go back and ask for a loan it has to re-evaluate and decide \"\"Is it worth giving this money to Joe McFreeBeer instead and collecting a higher yield?\"\" (After all, Joe McFreeBeer is a nice guy). Here's an example: Lets say the US has a rating of 10 out of 10 and its bonds pay a 2% yield. Now lets say for each lower mark in rating the bank will lend at a minimum of 1% higher and your rating is 8 of 10. So if you go to market, the lowest rate you can get will be 4%. Now lets say price rises on the US treasury and causes the rate to go down by 1%. In this scenario you will now be able to get a loan for 3% and someone with a rating of 7 of 10 would be able to get that 4% loan. Here's some more info and explinations: Why is the Government Buying Long-Term Bonds? What Is 'Operation Twist'? A Q&A on US Fed Program Federal Reserve for Beginners Federal Open Market Committee\"" }, { "docid": "24138", "title": "", "text": "You're going to have a huge problem getting approved for anything as long as you have an unpaid bill on your report. Pay it and make sure its reported as paid in full - ASAP. Once that settled, your credit will start to improve slowly. Can't do anything about that, it will take time. You can make the situation improve a bit faster by lending money to yourself and having it reported regularly on your report. How? Easy. Get a secured credit card. What does it mean? You put X amount of money in a CD and the bank will issue you a credit card secured by that CD. Your credit line will be based on the amount in that CD, and you'll probably pay some fees to the bank for the service (~$20-50/year, shop around). You might get lucky and find a secured card without fees, if you look hard enough. Secured cards are reported as revolving credit (just as any other credit card) and are easy to get because the bank doesn't take the risk - you do. If you default on your payments - your CD goes to cover the debt, and the card gets cancelled. But make absolutely sure that you do not default. Charge between 10% and 30% of the credit limit each month, not more. Pay the balance shown on your credit card statement in full every month and by the due date shown on your monthly statement. It will take a while, but you would typically start noticing the improvement within ~6-12 months. Stop applying for stuff. Not store cards, not car loans, you're not going to get anything, and will just keep dragging your scores down. Each time you have a pull on your report, the score goes down. A lot of pulls, frequent pulls - the score goes down a lot. Lenders can see when one is desperate, and no-one wants to lend money to desperate people. Optimally lenders want to lend money to people who doesn't need loans, but in order to keep the business running they'll settle for slightly less - people who don't usually need loans, and pay the loans they do have on time. You fail on both, as you're desperate for a loan and you have unpaid bills on your report." }, { "docid": "254941", "title": "", "text": "\"eg. &gt;For the past few hundred years, the financial system has been civilization's primary game for producing, distributing, and allocating output No. Finance does not itself produce anything. It only allocates production. &gt;Only banks can create bank notes by making loans to individuals, businesses, and governments. Actually, anyone can loan to anyone. &gt;The more loans banks make, the more bank notes in existence. Since interest is charged on every loan, if banks don't continually increase lending to produce more bank notes, the financial game collapses. This isn't a game, this is how the government actually operates. &gt;As advances in automation, robotics, and other efficient technology are replacing the need for people to labor, it is becoming impossible for banks to make enough legitimate loans to keep the game going. The interest rate has been pinned artificially low for a long time by the government. Intelligent financiers with actual skin in the game would be fine if they weren't forced to take on debt at a sub prime rate to get some pro-student-loan pro-\"\"affordable\"\"-housing politician reelected. &gt;Due to insufficient lending/bank note growth, large numbers of people can't find jobs or get money. Without jobs or access to money, people are financial slaves in the financial game. The lack of jobs has something to do with the fed printing billions and billions of dollars a month, but it's not because they're printing too much.... And then the author starts talking about how information is going to satiate our energy needs. As if energy is something that we can think our way into abundance of.\"" }, { "docid": "278902", "title": "", "text": "The advice is always to not get a big refund from the IRS, because that is giving them an interest free loan. You actually have an opportunity to get an interest free loan from them. When you file your taxes for 2013 note how much you paid in taxes. Not the check you had to send in with your tax form or the refund you received, but the total amount in taxes you paid. Multiply that amount by 1.1 or (110%). For example $8,000 * 1.10 = $8,800. When you get your paychecks in 2014 you goal is to make sure that your federal taxes (not state, Social security or medicare) taken from your paycheck will get you over that number $8,800 /26 or ~350 a paycheck. Keep in mind that the later you start the more each check needs to be. You will owe them a big check in April 2015. But because of the 110% rule you will not owe interest, penalties, or have to deal with quarterly taxes. The 110% rule exempts you from these if you end them 110% as much a you paid in taxes the previous year. Note that no matter how you pay your taxes for 2014: big check now, extra per paycheck, or minimum now; you will have to watch your withholding during 2015 because the 110% rule won't protect you." }, { "docid": "278671", "title": "", "text": "If it costs more to fix the car than the car is worth, then those repairs are not worth it. Hit craigslist and look for another junker that runs, but is in your cash price range. Pay to get it looked at by a mechanic as a condition of sale. Use consumer reports to try and find a good model. Somebody in your position does not need a $15K car. You need a series of $2K or $4K cars that you will replace more often, but pay cash for. Car buying, especially from a dealer financed, place isn't how I would recommend building your credit back up. EDIT in response to your updates: Build your credit the smart way, by not paying interest charges. Use your lower limit card, and annually apply for more credit, which you use and pay off each and every month. Borrowing is not going to help you. Just because you can afford to make payments, doesn't automatically make payments a wise decision. You have to examine the value of the loan, not what the payments are. Shop for a good price, shop for a good rate, then purchase. The amount you can pay every month should only be a factor than can kill the deal, not allow it. Pay cash for your vehicle until you can qualify for a low cost loan from a credit union or a bank. It is a waste of money and time to pay a penalty interest rate because you want to build your credit. Time is what will heal your credit score. If you really must borrow for the purchase, you must secure a loan prior to shopping for a car. Visit a few credit unions and get pre-qualified. Once you have a pre-approved loan in place, you can let the deal try and beat your loan for a better deal. Don't make the mistake of letting the dealer do all the financing first." }, { "docid": "286900", "title": "", "text": "\"To summarize, the money never existed. The best example I can give is the housing bubble. Houses were being bought on credit worthiness and this pushed the house prices and values up as if the houses had been bought with real money. When people couldn't make their payments, the house prices crashed. The boom and bust cycle is simply credit being overextended (boom) and when there is not enough money in the system for everyone to repay all their debts it crashes (bust). The real question that people should be asking is not \"\"Where did all the money go?\"\", but \"\"Why is money issued by private banks?\"\" Money is a social invention to facilitate trade. Should it not be like a public water utility? Counterfeiting is illegal except when a private bank does it. Money should not be variable in value and economics will never be a science if the measurement of value is not standardized. All natural sciences have standards of measurement like meters, joules, degrees, etc. Money must decrease in value constantly because all money is issued at interest. We essentially pay rent on all money that isssued and the interest can only be repaid if more money is created, once again at interest. This is why economists generally say some inflation is good. Finance has told them interest is a given on the issue of money when in reality, money is just an IOU that requires no such interest payment for it's issue. Interest should be made if a loan is issued against savings, but not for the simple issuance of money. There should be public banks that issue the money and private banks for investment. You can read more about this from reading about Arthur Kitson. In this way, the public controls the value of it's money, not private bankers that use the issue of money to transfer wealth to an idle financial class. If you want to get into the differences between wealth and debt, read the work of Frederick Soddy. It's off topic from this thread but really interesting to see how he relates real science to economics and how our current economic system is not scientific in the least. Wealth is subject to the laws of thermodynamics while debt is an invention of the human will. Debt never rots or degrades with time and can expand exponentially through compound interest - nothing in the natural world does this.\"" }, { "docid": "490888", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\"" }, { "docid": "32744", "title": "", "text": "You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative." }, { "docid": "64456", "title": "", "text": "1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money." }, { "docid": "375794", "title": "", "text": "\"The Federal Reserve is not the only way that money can be \"\"printed.\"\" Every bank does fractional reserve banking, thereby increasing the money supply every time they make a new loan. There's a number called the reserve requirement which limits how much money each bank can create. Lowering the reserve requirement allows banks to create more money. Raising it will destroy money. But banks can also destroy money by calling in loans or being less willing to make new loans. So when you look at the number of banks in the US, and the number of loans they all have, it's impossible to figure out exactly how much the money supply is expanding or contracting.\"" }, { "docid": "233805", "title": "", "text": "\"Borrowing to invest is almost always a bad idea. You'd have to take out an unsecured loan, which has a higher interest rate, or a secured loan and put at risk whatever you are securing the loan with. You need some means to make payments on the loan, or if interest is being added to the balance then take the compounding effect into account with regards to the cost of the money and how much you will really end up owning. In order to come out ahead you need to 'invest' in something that will yield a return that is higher than the cost of borrowing the money, such high yields always come with higher risk, meaning that you will actually GET that return is less and less of a sure thing.. so now you are talking about the 'chance' to make money, Or a chance your 'investment' could fail, perhaps badly. Meaning you could well do nothing but end up in debt with little to nothing to show for it. If someone claims to have a 'sure thing' and is encouraging you to borrow money to invest in it, I'd be checking their back for a fin and remembering the lyrics \"\"when the shark bites ... scarlet billows start to spread\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "83687", "title": "", "text": "\"does it mean uncontrolled severe deflation/inflation is more likely to occur compared to \"\"normal\"\" currencies such as USD, EUR etc? Look at the chart referenced in the link in your question. It took approximately 50 years for annual production of gold to double from 500 tons to 1000 tons. It took approximately 40 years for annual production to double from 1000 tons to 2000 tons. Compare that to the production of US dollars by the Federal Reserve (see chart below obtained from here). US dollar production doubled in DAYS. Which one do you think will lead to uncontrolled inflation/deflation? Update: Why did I include a chart of the FED's balance sheet? Because this is the way newly printed money is introduced - the FED will purchase something from banks (mortgage-backed securities, US treasuries, etc.) with newly printed money. The banks can then loan this money to people who then deposit the money into other banks who loan those deposits to other people and so on. This is how the fractional reserve process expands the money supply. This is why I did not include a chart of the money supply since that is counting the same money multiple times. If I deposited 100 newly minted coins into a bank and that bank proceeded to loan out 80 of my coins where 80 are deposited into another bank who then proceeds to loan out 60 of the coins, and so on....the production of coins only changed by the initial 100 that I minted - not by the fractional reserve multiple. There are historical examples of inflation with gold and silver as duff has pointed out. None of them come close in magnitude to the inflation experienced with government fiat money.\"" }, { "docid": "249831", "title": "", "text": "\"Ditto mhoran_psprep. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Where does the money come from? When someone starts a bank, they normally get together a bunch of investors -- perhaps people they know personally, perhaps they sell stock -- to raise initial capital. But most of the money in the bank comes from depositors. Fundamentally, what a bank does is take money from depositors and loan it to borrowers. (Banks also borrow money from other banks and from the government.) They charge the borrowers interest on the loan, and they pay depositors interest on their deposits. The difference between those two interest rates is where the bank gets their profit. Where does the money go when you pay it back? As mhoran_psprep said, some of it goes to pay interest to the depositors; some of it goes to pay the bank's expenses like employee salaries, cost of the building, etc; and some of it goes as profit to the owners or stockholders of the bank. If you're thinking, \"\"Wow, I'm paying back a whole lot more than I borrowed\"\", well, yes. But remember you're borrowing that money for 20 or 30 years. The bank isn't making very much money on the loan each year that you have it -- these days something like 4 or 5% in the U.S., I don't know what the going rates are in other countries.\"" }, { "docid": "546874", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards). And the government does not subsidize this. In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free. Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing \"\"fine print\"\" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways. However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates). So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent. The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting \"\"subsidized\"\" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers. And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent. Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends. (or you'll forget). And this works - that's why they do it. By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month. So if that's your goal, you already have it. In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest. That doesn't work, though. The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances. That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults. The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve you. They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor.\"" }, { "docid": "93248", "title": "", "text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more." }, { "docid": "321637", "title": "", "text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "119298", "title": "", "text": "The bank depends on the laws of large numbers. They don't need to make money on every customer -- just on average. There are several ways that zero interest makes sense to them: You asked about banks, and I don't think you see this last scheme in use very much by a bank. Here's why. First, customers absolutely hate it - and when you drop the interest bomb, they will warn their friends away, blow you up on social media, call the TV news consumer protectors, and never, ever, ever do business with you again. Which defeats your efforts in customer acquisition. Second, it only works on that narrow range of people who default just a little bit, i.e. who have an auto-pay malfunction. If someone really defaults, not only will they not pay the punishment interest, they won't pay the principal either! This only makes sense for secured loans like furniture or cars, where you can repo that stuff - with unsecured loans, you don't really have any power to force them to pay, short of burning their credit. You can sue them, but you can't get blood from a stone." } ]

[ { "docid": "292788", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no one solution to every project finance problem. Two models might make sense in this situation, however. In this case, you would count all the money that you give to your friend as a loan which he will pay back with interest. The interest rate and loan amounts will have to be agreed on by both of you. One one hand, the interest should be high enough to reward you in a successful outcome for the amount of risk that you take on if things don't work out. On the other, the interest rate needs to be low enough where his earnings after loan repayment justify your friend's effort, in addition to being competitive to ant rate your friend could secure from a bank. The downside to this plan is you don't directly benefit from the franchise's profits. In this model, you will record the cash that each of you invests. Since your friend is also adding \"\"sweat equity\"\" by setting up and operating the franchise, you will need to quantify the work that your friend and you invest into the franchise. Then you can determine how much each of you has invested in terms of dollars and split any franchise profits based on those proportions. The downside of this plan is that it is difficult to estimate how much time each of you invests and how much that time is worth.\"" }, { "docid": "83687", "title": "", "text": "\"does it mean uncontrolled severe deflation/inflation is more likely to occur compared to \"\"normal\"\" currencies such as USD, EUR etc? Look at the chart referenced in the link in your question. It took approximately 50 years for annual production of gold to double from 500 tons to 1000 tons. It took approximately 40 years for annual production to double from 1000 tons to 2000 tons. Compare that to the production of US dollars by the Federal Reserve (see chart below obtained from here). US dollar production doubled in DAYS. Which one do you think will lead to uncontrolled inflation/deflation? Update: Why did I include a chart of the FED's balance sheet? Because this is the way newly printed money is introduced - the FED will purchase something from banks (mortgage-backed securities, US treasuries, etc.) with newly printed money. The banks can then loan this money to people who then deposit the money into other banks who loan those deposits to other people and so on. This is how the fractional reserve process expands the money supply. This is why I did not include a chart of the money supply since that is counting the same money multiple times. If I deposited 100 newly minted coins into a bank and that bank proceeded to loan out 80 of my coins where 80 are deposited into another bank who then proceeds to loan out 60 of the coins, and so on....the production of coins only changed by the initial 100 that I minted - not by the fractional reserve multiple. There are historical examples of inflation with gold and silver as duff has pointed out. None of them come close in magnitude to the inflation experienced with government fiat money.\"" }, { "docid": "278902", "title": "", "text": "The advice is always to not get a big refund from the IRS, because that is giving them an interest free loan. You actually have an opportunity to get an interest free loan from them. When you file your taxes for 2013 note how much you paid in taxes. Not the check you had to send in with your tax form or the refund you received, but the total amount in taxes you paid. Multiply that amount by 1.1 or (110%). For example $8,000 * 1.10 = $8,800. When you get your paychecks in 2014 you goal is to make sure that your federal taxes (not state, Social security or medicare) taken from your paycheck will get you over that number $8,800 /26 or ~350 a paycheck. Keep in mind that the later you start the more each check needs to be. You will owe them a big check in April 2015. But because of the 110% rule you will not owe interest, penalties, or have to deal with quarterly taxes. The 110% rule exempts you from these if you end them 110% as much a you paid in taxes the previous year. Note that no matter how you pay your taxes for 2014: big check now, extra per paycheck, or minimum now; you will have to watch your withholding during 2015 because the 110% rule won't protect you." }, { "docid": "490888", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\"" }, { "docid": "196237", "title": "", "text": "\"Debt increases your exposure to risk. What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment? Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however. It's all about what you do with the money you borrow. Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education. How much more money will you make with a college degree? Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan? Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan? For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return? The money goes to better use if it is invested. (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them. (Stocks don't always go up.) You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts. Paying down the debt is more of a \"\"sure thing\"\". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest. Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move. Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest! (And check for early repayment penalties.)\"" }, { "docid": "8480", "title": "", "text": "It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter. When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid. When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property. If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable. This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss. For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage. Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered). If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk. There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk. It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side. Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying. Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble." }, { "docid": "521233", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all \"\"depositor\"\" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms \"\"risky\"\". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their \"\"investment banking\"\" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on \"\"risky\"\" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money. So, the upshot of all this is that the bank simply won't give you more on your money than it is allowed to make on it. In addition, there are several tools that the Fed has to regulate economic activity, and three big ones play a part. First is the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\"; this is the interest rate that the Fed charges on loans made to other banks (which is a primary source of day-to-day liquidity for these banks). Money paid as interest to the Fed is effectively removed from the economy and is a way to reduce the money supply. Right now the FFR is .25% (that's one quarter of one percent) which is effectively zero; borrow a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) from the Fed for one month and you'll pay them a scant $208,333. Banks lend to other banks at a rate based on the FFR, called the Interbank Rate (usually adding some fraction of a percent so the lending bank makes money on the loan). This means that the banks can get money from the Fed and from other banks very cheaply, which means they don't have to offer high interest rates on savings to entice individual depositors to save their money with the bank. Second is \"\"quantitative easing\"\", which just means the Fed buys government bonds and pays for them with \"\"new\"\" money. This happens all the time; remember those interest charges on bank loans? To keep the money supply stable, the Fed must buy T-debt at least in the amount of the interest being charged, otherwise the money leaves the economy and is not available to circulate. The Fed usually buys a little more than it collects in order to gradually increase the money supply, which allows the economy to grow while controlling inflation (having \"\"too much money\"\" and so making money worth less than what it can buy). What's new is that the Fed is increasing the money supply by a very large amount, by buying bonds far in excess of the (low) rates it's charging, and at fixed prices determined by the yield the Fed wants to induce in the markets. In the first place, with the Fed buying so many, there are fewer for institutions and other investors to buy. This increases the demand, driving down yields as investors besides the Fed are willing to pay a similar price, and remember that T-debt is one of the main things banks are allowed to invest your deposits in. Inflation isn't a concern right now despite the large amount of new money being injected, because the current economy is so lackluster right now that the new cash is just being sat upon by corporations and being used by consumers to pay down debt, instead of what the Fed and Government want us to do (hire, update equipment, buy houses and American cars, etc). In addition, the \"\"spot market price\"\" for a T-bond, or any investment security, is generally what the last guy paid. By buying Treasury debt gradually at a fixed price, the Fed can smooth out \"\"jitters\"\" in the spot price that speculators may try to induce by making low \"\"buy offers\"\" on T-debt to increase yields. Lastly, the Fed can tell banks that they must keep a certain amount of their deposits in \"\"reserve\"\", basically by keeping them in a combination of cash in the vault, and in accounts with the Fed itself. This has a dual purpose; higher reserve rates allow a bank to weather a \"\"run\"\" (more people than usual wanting their money) and thus reduces risk of failure. An increased reserves amount also reduces the amount of money circulating in the economy, because obviously if the banks have to keep a percentage of assets in cash, they can't invest that cash. Banks are currently required to keep 10% of \"\"deposited assets\"\" (the sum of all checking and savings accounts, but not CDs) in cash. This compounds the other problems with banks' investing; not only are they not getting a great return on your savings, they can only use 90% of your savings to get it.\"" }, { "docid": "333966", "title": "", "text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks." }, { "docid": "330229", "title": "", "text": "\"I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment. I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation. When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you. But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank. The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front. The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a \"\"95% Loan-to-Value ratio\"\" is 2.75%. Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling. Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP? There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy. I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada. Read here, here, and here.\"" }, { "docid": "257483", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\"" }, { "docid": "426559", "title": "", "text": "Could someone please explain to me how interest rates work? I like to think of interest rates as the price of money. It is specified as a percentage paid per unit of time (for example, 3%/year). To figure out how much interest money you get (or have to pay) for a given amount and time, multiply the amount with the interest rate and then divide by the time divided by the interest rate's specified time. That sounds awfully complicated, so let's look at a simple example instead. You deposit $1,000 at a fixed interest rate of 2% per year, for two and a half years, where the interest is paid at the end of the term. This means that you earn $1,000 * 2% = $20 per year in interest. Multiply this by [2.5 years] / [year] = 2.5, and you will have received $20 * 2.5 = $50 in interest over 2.5 years. If the interest is paid yearly, this gets slightly more complicated, but the principle is the same. Now imagine that you deposit $5,000 at a fixed 3% per year, for half a year. Again, the interest is paid at the end of the term. You now earn $5,000 * 3% [per year] * [[0.5 years] / [year]] = $75 in interest over six months. Variable interest rates makes this a little more complicated, but it is exactly the same thing in principle: calculate the interest paid for each period (taking any compounding into account), then add up all periods to get the total amount of interest paid over time. It also works the same way if you take out a loan rather than depositing money. Tax effects (capitals gains taxes or interest expense deductions) may make the actual amount paid or received different, but that does not change the fundamental aspect of how to calculate interest. Do CD's make more money with higher interest rates, or is it the other way around? Usually fixed interest rate instruments such as certificates of deposit, or loans with fixed rates, pay a higher interest rate for longer terms. This is because it is harder to judge credit risk in a longer term, so whoever gives the loan usually wants a premium for the additional risk. So a 6-month CD will normally pay a smaller percentage interest per year than a five-year CD. Note that this is not always the case; the technical term for when this does not hold is inverted yield curve. Interest rates are almost always formally specified in terms of percent per year, which makes it easy to compare rates. If you buy a $100 6-month CD paying 1% (I told you these were only examples :)) and then reinvest the money at the end of the term in another 6-month CD also paying 1%, the total amount paid will be ($100 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $100.50 for the first term, then ($100.50 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $101.0025 at the end of the second term. As you can see, the compounding of the interest makes this return slightly more than a single $100 12-month CD ($100 * 1 + 1% = $101), but unless you are dealing with large amounts of money, the difference is small enough to be negligible. If you were to put $100 in a 2% one-year CD, you'd get back $102 at the end of the year. Put the same amount in a 5% one-year CD, and you get back $105. So yes, higher interest rates means more interest money paid, for loans as well as deposits. Keep in mind that loans and deposits really are essentially the same thing, and interest calculations work the same way for both. The interest rate of a normal certificate of deposit does not change if the variable interest rates change, but rather is locked in when the money is deposited (or the CD is bought, whichever way you prefer to look at it)." }, { "docid": "517299", "title": "", "text": "You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance." }, { "docid": "506161", "title": "", "text": "And so what was the logical alternative? How does Hank Paulson: 1. Get $150-300 billion dollars into the hands of individual taxpayers so that they don't default on their home mortgages and wipe out the banking system? 2. Make sure the $150-300 B is going to individuals who actually need the capital, weren't bad actors in taking on too much debt and causing everyone else significant harm by engaging in risky borrowing? 3. Sufficiently protect the $150-300 B in loans so that the US Gov't can get paid back and not have it be some massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars? And all this had to be done within a matter of days. Ontop of which, why aren't you railing against the irresponsible automakers who didn't pay back their TARP loans and instead were forgiven, while the banks paid back their loans in full with interest and a profit to the US Taxpayer? The automakers and the unions basically got free money (after Obama came into office and under his direction) on the back of the taxpayer. Isn't that crony capitalism when unions who are Democratic sympathizing voters get loans that are ultimately forgiven by the federal government? The whining you make about private entities like Berkshire, who did nothing to create the crisis and merely took advantage of it, with little to no help from the federal government is remarkable. It's like straight out of a socialist playbook." }, { "docid": "553328", "title": "", "text": "\"I am neither a lawyer nor a tax accountant, and if you're dealing with serious money I suggest you consult a professional. But my understanding is: If you make a loan at zero interest or at below-market rates, the IRS will consider the difference between the interest that you do charge and the market rate to be a gift. That is, if someone could get a loan from a bank and he'd pay $1000 in interest for the year, but instead you loan him the money as a friend interest free, than as far as the IRS is concerned you have given him a $1000 gift, and you could potentially have to pay gift tax. Or they might \"\"impute\"\" the interest to you and tax you on $1000 of additional income. If you have no agreement on repayment terms, if it's all, \"\"Hey Joe, just pay me back when you can\"\", then the IRS is likely to consider the entire \"\"loan\"\" to be a gift. There's an annual exclusion on gifts -- I think it's now $13,000 -- so if you loan your buddy fifty bucks to tide him over until next pay day, the IRS isn't going to get involved in that. They're worried about more serious money. And yes, the IRS does \"\"police loan rates\"\". The IRS examines exact numbers for all sorts of things. If, say, you go on a 100-mile overnight business trip, and the company gives you $10,000 for travel expenses, the IRS is likely to say that this is not a tax-deductible travel expense at all but a sham to hide part of your salary from taxes. Or if you donate a pair of old socks to charity and declare a $500 charitable contribution deduction, the IRS will say that that is not a realistic value for a pair of old socks and disallow the deduction. Etc. A small discrepancy from market rates can be justified for any number of reasons. If the book value of a used car is $5000 and you sell it to your neighbor for $4900, the IRS is unlikely to question it, there are any number of legitimate business reasons why you had to give a discount to make the sale. But if you sell it to him for $50, they may declare that this is not a sale but a gift. Etc.\"" }, { "docid": "64456", "title": "", "text": "1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money." }, { "docid": "239611", "title": "", "text": "\"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you. Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No \"\"payday loans\"\" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with \"\"interest free credit\"\", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you. Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan.\"" }, { "docid": "221113", "title": "", "text": "&gt;if I loan you $500 a night every night for 5 days and those loans allow you to earn $100 totally risk free how much have I loaned you? Does it even matter, because the end of result is I essentially gave you $100. A bank lends me $10k to start a business. I eventually make $5 million dollars with my business. How much was my loan? DOESN'T MATTER, THE BANK GAVE ME $5 MILLION." }, { "docid": "148627", "title": "", "text": "Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further. The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made. Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other. When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity. I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so." }, { "docid": "309298", "title": "", "text": "\"The PMI premium you pay is dependent on a very large number of variables in the finance market. Mortgage insurance, at the higher inter-bank levels, is handled with credit default swaps (the ones you've been hearing about on the news for the past 4 years), where the lender bundles a block of mortgages, takes them to a guarantor like AIG or Freddie Mac, and says \"\"We bet you that these mortgages will default this month, because the homeowners have little or no equity to deter them; if we win, you agree to swap these debts for their current face value\"\". The lender examines the mortgages, calculates the odds of a default severe enough that the bank would come to collect, using complex environmental heuristics, multiplies by the value of the potential payout, adds a little for their trouble, and says \"\"well, we'll take that bet if you pay us $X\"\". The bank takes the deal, then divvies up that cost among the mortgages and bills the homeowner for their share. The amount you pay for PMI can therefore depend on pretty much anything in this entire process; the exact outstanding amount and equity status of your loan, the similar status of other mortgages your loan will be bundled with for assessment, who the guarantor is, what exact heuristic they use to come up with an amount, the weighting the bank uses to divvy it up, and how much they actually pass on to you. Most of these same variables are at play when you shop for actual insurance for your car or home, which is why your premiums will go up or down with the same insurer and why someone else always seems to have a better deal (pretty much every insurer can say that \"\"drivers who switched saved an average of $X\"\"; of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have switched). Thinking of it in those terms, it's easy to see how this number can vary widely based on numbers you can't see. You're free to say no, and it will cost you nothing right up until you sign something that says you agree to be penalized for saying no. While the overall amount of the payments does decrease, the PMI has gone up, and that's money you'll never see again just like interest (except you can deduct interest; not PMI). I would do the tax math; find out how much you could deduct over the next year in interest on your current loan, then on their proposed terms, and what the resulting tax bills will be from both. You may save monthly only to pay more than you saved to Uncle Sam at the end of the year. You're also free to negotiate. The worst they can do is stay firm on their offer, but they may take a second look and say \"\"you're right, that PMI is rather high, we'll try again and see if we can do better\"\". They can either negotiate with their insurer, or they can eat some of the PMI cost that they're currently passing on to you.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "83330", "title": "", "text": "If interest rates are negative, a 0% load might still be profitable." } ]

[ { "docid": "470587", "title": "", "text": "\"The optimal down payment is 100%. The only way you would do anything else when you have the cash to buy it outright is to invest the remaining money to get a better return. When you compare investments, you need to take risk into account as well. When you make loan payments, you are getting a risk free return. You can't find a risk-free investment that pays as much as your car loan will be. If you think you can \"\"game the system\"\" by taking a 0% loan, then you will end up paying more for the car, since the financing is baked into the sales [price in those cases (there is no such thing as free money). If you pay cash, you have much more bargaining power. Buy the car outright (negotiating as hard as you can), start saving what you would have been making as a car payment as an emergency fund, and you'll be ahead of the game. For the inflation hedge - you need to find investments that act as an inflation hedge - taking a loan does not \"\"hedge\"\" against inflation since you'll still be paying interest regardless of the inflation rate. The fact that you'll be paying slightly less interest (in \"\"real\"\" terms) does not make it a hedge. To answer the actual question, if your \"\"reinvestment rate\"\" (the return you can get from investing the \"\"borrowed\"\" cash) is less than the interest rate, then the more you put down, the greater your present value (PV). If your reinvestment rate is less than the interest rate, then the less you put down the better (not including risk). When you incorporate risk, though, the additional return is probably not worth the risk. So there is no \"\"optimal\"\" down payment in between those mathematically - it will depend on how much liquid cash you need (knowing that every dollar that you borrow is costing you interest).\"" }, { "docid": "196237", "title": "", "text": "\"Debt increases your exposure to risk. What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment? Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however. It's all about what you do with the money you borrow. Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education. How much more money will you make with a college degree? Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan? Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan? For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return? The money goes to better use if it is invested. (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them. (Stocks don't always go up.) You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts. Paying down the debt is more of a \"\"sure thing\"\". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest. Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move. Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest! (And check for early repayment penalties.)\"" }, { "docid": "94152", "title": "", "text": "\"Other than the inconvienent fact that Treasury cannot sell to the Fed by law your theory is nice. You forget the step where the open market buys from the Treasury since they desire bonds to invest in, and the Fed can buy only from the open market. Secondly, the Fed does not give cash to the Treasury. The mint (a branch of the Treasury, not the Fed) prints cash. So it seems your understanding of how the money system works is quite wrong, yet since this is the Economy subreddit instead of the Economics subreddit, I expect you to get upvotes for saying what is popular even though it is laughably incorrect. You seem to not like cash that was not \"\"even existing previously\"\". All cash was not existing previously. How do you expect people to make transactions? Barter? You call them interest free loans (but above claimed they will never be paid back?), but then the Fed is making a profit on them? It seems you contradict yourself with all that handwaving. It would be interesting for you to explain how (and why) money (not cash) gets added and removed to the economy. Yay for ignorance!\"" }, { "docid": "286900", "title": "", "text": "\"To summarize, the money never existed. The best example I can give is the housing bubble. Houses were being bought on credit worthiness and this pushed the house prices and values up as if the houses had been bought with real money. When people couldn't make their payments, the house prices crashed. The boom and bust cycle is simply credit being overextended (boom) and when there is not enough money in the system for everyone to repay all their debts it crashes (bust). The real question that people should be asking is not \"\"Where did all the money go?\"\", but \"\"Why is money issued by private banks?\"\" Money is a social invention to facilitate trade. Should it not be like a public water utility? Counterfeiting is illegal except when a private bank does it. Money should not be variable in value and economics will never be a science if the measurement of value is not standardized. All natural sciences have standards of measurement like meters, joules, degrees, etc. Money must decrease in value constantly because all money is issued at interest. We essentially pay rent on all money that isssued and the interest can only be repaid if more money is created, once again at interest. This is why economists generally say some inflation is good. Finance has told them interest is a given on the issue of money when in reality, money is just an IOU that requires no such interest payment for it's issue. Interest should be made if a loan is issued against savings, but not for the simple issuance of money. There should be public banks that issue the money and private banks for investment. You can read more about this from reading about Arthur Kitson. In this way, the public controls the value of it's money, not private bankers that use the issue of money to transfer wealth to an idle financial class. If you want to get into the differences between wealth and debt, read the work of Frederick Soddy. It's off topic from this thread but really interesting to see how he relates real science to economics and how our current economic system is not scientific in the least. Wealth is subject to the laws of thermodynamics while debt is an invention of the human will. Debt never rots or degrades with time and can expand exponentially through compound interest - nothing in the natural world does this.\"" }, { "docid": "546874", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards). And the government does not subsidize this. In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free. Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing \"\"fine print\"\" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways. However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates). So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent. The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting \"\"subsidized\"\" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers. And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent. Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends. (or you'll forget). And this works - that's why they do it. By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month. So if that's your goal, you already have it. In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest. That doesn't work, though. The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances. That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults. The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve you. They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor.\"" }, { "docid": "285033", "title": "", "text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\"" }, { "docid": "147806", "title": "", "text": "\"This model would work fine under a couple of assumptions: that market interest rates never change, and that the borrower will surely make all the payments as agreed. But neither of those assumptions are realistic. Suppose Alice loans $1,000,000 to Bob at 4% under the terms you describe. Bob chooses to make interest-only payments of $40,000 per year. Some time later, prevailing interest rates go up to 10%. Now Alice would really like Bob to repay the entire principal as quickly as possible, because that money could be earning her $100,000 per year instead of only $40,000, but under the contract she has no way to force Bob to do so. And Bob has no incentive to repay any of the principal, because he can earn more interest on it than he has to pay to Alice. So Alice is not going to be very happy about this. You might say, but at least Alice is only losing \"\"potential\"\" money; she's still turning a profit of $10,000 per year, since her bank only charges her 3% interest. Ah, but you're assuming that Alice can get a bank loan with a rate of 3% fixed forever. The bank doesn't want to make such a loan either, for exactly the same reasons. So in practice, any loan like this would be expected to have a variable interest rate. There's a flip side, too. Suppose instead that market rates drop to 1%. Now Alice would like Bob to repay the principal as slowly as possible, because she's earning 4% on that money, which is better than any other options available to her. But Bob now has every incentive to repay it as fast as he can - or even to refinance by taking out another loan at, say, 2%, and using the proceeds to repay the entire principal to Alice. (This risk still applies with most traditional loans, since the borrower usually always has the right to pay early, but some loans include a \"\"prepayment penalty\"\" in such cases to help compensate the lender.) Thus, when Bob has all the power to decide when to pay, Alice is sure to lose no matter which way interest rates move. A loan with a fixed term helps insulate Alice against this risk. She may be able to make a guess about the likelihood of interest rates going up to 10% in the next 15 or 30 years, and increase Bob's fixed rate to account for this; that's much easier than trying to account for the possibility of interest rates going up to 10% ever. (And if she does have to try to account for this, she's probably going to have to set the interest rate extremely high; so Bob might accept a fixed term of repayment in exchange for a more reasonable rate.) Even if we suppose that Alice has done the best possible credit check and that Bob is a perfectly trustworthy fellow who would never dream of defaulting on his loan, catastrophes do happen. Maybe Bob is robbed of all his money by an evil accountant, or has a mid-life crisis and spends it all on opera tickets. Whatever, Bob is now bankrupt and Alice is never going to get her principal back, nor any further interest payments either. Even if the loan is secured by some collateral, there's still a risk since the collateral might lose value. Alice has some chance of estimating the risk of this happening in the next 15 or 30 years, and can set the interest rate to compensate for it. But it is harder for her to estimate the risk of this happening ever, and if she tries, she'll have to set the rate so high that Bob might prefer a fixed term and a lower rate. (There's a side issue as to what happens if Bob dies with the loan still outstanding. If it's an unsecured loan, typically Alice can try to collect the principal from Bob's estate, but if there isn't enough, too bad for Alice; she can't force Bob's heirs to continue making payments. If it's a secured loan, Alice may be able to have Bob's heirs continue paying or else she seizes the collateral; but she still has the risk of the collateral losing value.)\"" }, { "docid": "574432", "title": "", "text": "\"If I understand you situation correctly, then the accepted answer is extremely misleading and incorrect. Your arrangement with your parents is definitely unreasonable. It is definitely not \"\"similar to an interest-only loan\"\". In an interest-only loan, like you can get from a bank, you will loan a sum of money, which you are expected to pay back at a certain time in the future, or when you sell the condo. But you pay back the original sum, not the value of property at selling time. For the access to the money you pay an interest to the bank. The bank gets their profits from the interest. The property only serves as collateral in case you are not able to make your interest payments. Another way to view it, is that your parent bought (a share of) your condo for investment reasons. In that case, they would expect to get their profits from the increase of the value of the property over time. That looks most like your situation. Granted, that is more risky for them, but that is what they choose to sign up for. But in that case it is not reasonable to charge your for interest as well, because that would mean they would get double profits. So how does the $500 monthly payment fit in? If it is interest, then it would work out to a yearly interest of about 5.2%. Where I live, that would nowadays be extremely high even for an interest-only mortgage from a bank. But I don't live in the USA, so don't know whether that is true there. I think in your situation, the $500 can only be seen as rent. Whether that is reasonable for your situation I cannot judge from here. It should be 75% of a reasonable rent for a condo like that. But in that case, your parents should also stand for 75% of the maintenance costs of the property, which you don't mention, and most of the property taxes and insurance fees. In short, no it is not a reasonable arrangement. You would be better of trying to get a morgage from the bank, and buy out your parents with it.\"" }, { "docid": "37189", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question points out how most fractional reserve banks are only a couple of defaults away from insolvency. The problem arises because of the terms around the depositors' money. When a customer deposits money into a bank they are loaning their money to the bank (and the bank takes ownership of the money). Deposit and savings account are considered \"\"on-demand\"\" accounts where the customer is told they can retrieve their money at any time. This is a strange type of loan, is it not? No other loan works this way. There are always terms around loans - how often the borrower will make payments, when will the borrower pay back the loan, what is the total time frame of the loan, etc.. The bank runs into problems because the time frame on the money they borrowed (i.e. deposits) does not match the time frame on the money they are lending.\"" }, { "docid": "571920", "title": "", "text": "\"No. The full text of the Landlord-Tenant Act (specifically, section 554.614 of Act 348 of the year 1972) makes no mention of this. Searching the law for \"\"interest\"\" doesn't yield anything of interest (pardon the pun). Specifically, section 554.604 of the same law states that: (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is written or his legal representative may bring an action in the district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides or does business for collection on the bond. While it does sound like the landlord is required to deposit the money in a bank or other secured form, e.g. the Secretary of State, he/she isn't required to place it in an account that will earn interest.\"" }, { "docid": "116700", "title": "", "text": "\"Will the proportion of my payments towards interest eventually go down? Yes. Today would be a good day to do a web search for \"\"amortization schedule\"\". You will quickly learn how to compute precisely how much of each payment goes to interest and how much goes to principal given different payment choices. Would it be wiser to spend more each month on loan payments? That depends on your goals and resources, which we know nothing about. If you have extra money you could spend it on debt reduction, or you could spend it on an investment that pays more money in growth or dividends than the interest you'd save. Or you could decide that the longer you have that loan, sure, the more interest you'll pay, but inflation will make future money less valuable. Basically, by taking out a loan you have chosen to gamble that the thing you bought with the loaned money will be worth the cost of the interest payments in the future, adjusted for inflation. The bank on the other hand is gambling that you're good for the debt and that they can make a reasonable profit off it. If you have more money to gamble with, which bet is the wisest one is really up to you. would it be smarter to try to pay off one loan before the other? If you want to pay off a loan early then always choose the loan with the higher interest rate. should I start making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly? That's roughly equivalent to paying off the principal by one additional payment a year. There are two reasons to do so. The first is that the total interest will be lower and the loan will be paid off faster. You can work out exactly how much with your new found skill at amortization computation. The second is the simple convenience of knowing that your budget for each pay period is the same. That convenience is worth something; is it worth the amount extra you'll be paying every year? Again, this is for you to decide. Work out how much extra you're paying per year and how much you're saving in the long run, and compare that against the benefit.\"" }, { "docid": "499336", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\"" }, { "docid": "285064", "title": "", "text": "Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse." }, { "docid": "361646", "title": "", "text": "\"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?\"" }, { "docid": "32744", "title": "", "text": "You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative." }, { "docid": "374523", "title": "", "text": "Bullshit. Those 16 Trillion dollars in secret loans weren't known until that audit which was forced on the Federal Reserve by Congress, and Congress and the American people weren't told that the Federal Reserve was making massive zero interest loans to foreign banks. None of that would have come out unless Congress had pushed for that audit. &gt;A prime example is his claim that 16 trillion was lent, which is pretty dishonest. At no point was there more than about 2T lent out (from the audit itself) and at no point was the US taxpayer on the hook for over around 2T. lol.. that's some prime spin job right there. Tell me this... if I loan you $500 a night every night for 5 days and those loans allow you to earn $100 totally risk free how much have I loaned you? Does it even matter, because the end of result is I essentially gave you $100." }, { "docid": "304407", "title": "", "text": "(a) you give away your money - gift tax The person who receives the gift doesn't owe any tax. If you give it out in small amounts, there will be no gift tax. It could have tax and Estate issues for you depending on the size of the gift, the timing, and how much you give away in total. Of course if you give it away to a charity you could deduct the gift. (b) you loan someone some money - tax free?? It there is a loan, and and you collect interest; you will have to declare that interest as income. The IRS will expect that you charge a reasonable rate, otherwise the interest could be considered a gift. Not sure what a reasonable rate is with savings account earning 0.1% per year. (c) you pay back the debt you owe - tax free ?? tax deductible ?? The borrower can't deduct the interest they pay, unless it is a mortgage on the main home, or a business loan. I will admit that there may be a few other narrow categories of loans that would make it deductible for the borrower. If the loan/gift is for the down payment on a house, the lender for the rest of the mortgage will want to make sure that the gift/loan nature is correctly documented. The need to fully understand the obligations of the homeowner. If it is a loan between family members the IRS may want to see the paperwork surrounding a loan, to make sure it isn't really a gift. They don't look kindly on loans that are never paid back and no interest collected." }, { "docid": "577201", "title": "", "text": "As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend." }, { "docid": "186127", "title": "", "text": "A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market. A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k. The loan has two components. a. The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b. The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top). The originating bank lends $180k of their own money. Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it. The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less. The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient. Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around. One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1. One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for." } ]

[ { "docid": "366594", "title": "", "text": "\"Other answers didn't seem to cover it, but most \"\"0%\"\" bank loans (often offered to credit card holders in the form of balance transfer checks), aside from less-obvious fees like already-mentioned late fees, also charge an actual loan fee, typically 2-3% (or a minimum floor amount) - that was the deal with every single transfer 0% offer I ever saw from a bank. So, effectively, even if you pay off the loan perfectly, on time, and within 0% period, you STILL got a 3% loan and not 0% (assuming 0% period lasts 12 months which is often the case).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "273759", "title": "", "text": "\"The wording of this question is very confusing because \"\"primary signer\"\" would, in ordinary parlance, mean the person borrowing the money and the co-signer (not consigner) would mean the one who is guaranteeing the repayment of the loan: if the borrower does not pay, the co-signer is liable for making the payments. Whose name is on the title of the car? Who borrowed the money to buy the car? Is the loan in your name and your son co-signed the loan to induce the bank to loan you money to purchase the car, or is it the other way around, that your son borrowed the money and you co-signed the loan in order to induce the bank to loan your son the money? If the car title and the loan are in your name, are you defaulting on the loan and so your son is making the loan payments that should have come from you? Or is it that your son borrowed the money to buy the car, his name is on the title, he is making the payments, and you are no longer interested in backing him up in case he defaults and the bank comes after you for the money?\"" }, { "docid": "444390", "title": "", "text": "Consider that the bank of course makes money on the money in your escrow. It is nothing but a free loan you give the bank, and the official reasons why they want it are mostly BS - they want your free loan, nothing else. As a consequence, to let you out of it, they want the money they now cannot make on your money upfront, in form of a 'fee'. That explains the amount; it is right their expected loss by letting you out. Unfortunately, knowing this doesn't change your options. Either way, you will have to pay that money; either as a one-time fee, or as a continuing loss of interest. As others mentioned, you cannot calculate with 29 years, as chances are the mortgage will end earlier - by refinancing or sale. Then you are back to square one with another mandatory escrow; so paying the fee is probably not a good idea. If you are an interesting borrower for other banks, you might be able to refinance with no escrow; you can always try to negotiate this and make it a part of the contract. If they want your business, they might agree to that." }, { "docid": "120090", "title": "", "text": "Short answer: yes, you can put up collateral for someone else's loan. The bank will be happy to take your money, give it to the other person, and return it to you on completion of the loan (keeping the interest the security makes on the money market and the interest they're charging the other person for themselves). If the above doesn't sound very appealing (you don't see any benefit from your investment, and can be left holding the bag if your friend defaults on their loan), it really isn't a great way to spend your money. However, as assistance to someone else, it provides several advantages over directly transferring the money:" }, { "docid": "83687", "title": "", "text": "\"does it mean uncontrolled severe deflation/inflation is more likely to occur compared to \"\"normal\"\" currencies such as USD, EUR etc? Look at the chart referenced in the link in your question. It took approximately 50 years for annual production of gold to double from 500 tons to 1000 tons. It took approximately 40 years for annual production to double from 1000 tons to 2000 tons. Compare that to the production of US dollars by the Federal Reserve (see chart below obtained from here). US dollar production doubled in DAYS. Which one do you think will lead to uncontrolled inflation/deflation? Update: Why did I include a chart of the FED's balance sheet? Because this is the way newly printed money is introduced - the FED will purchase something from banks (mortgage-backed securities, US treasuries, etc.) with newly printed money. The banks can then loan this money to people who then deposit the money into other banks who loan those deposits to other people and so on. This is how the fractional reserve process expands the money supply. This is why I did not include a chart of the money supply since that is counting the same money multiple times. If I deposited 100 newly minted coins into a bank and that bank proceeded to loan out 80 of my coins where 80 are deposited into another bank who then proceeds to loan out 60 of the coins, and so on....the production of coins only changed by the initial 100 that I minted - not by the fractional reserve multiple. There are historical examples of inflation with gold and silver as duff has pointed out. None of them come close in magnitude to the inflation experienced with government fiat money.\"" }, { "docid": "112195", "title": "", "text": "\"Repurchase agreements are a way of financing a security position. You have a collateralized loan where you give your security in exchange for cash. Let's say you have a 10 year Treasury note paying 3.5% while the 1-week repurchase rate is 0.5%. You loan the security to someone with a promise to repurchase it from them some time in the future. You collect the 3.5% coupon and you pay the 0.5% interest. Clearly it makes no sense for someone to collect interest on money and also collect coupon payments. And for the counter-party it makes no sense to be not getting coupon payments and also to be paying interest. This how one website explains the process: During the transaction, any coupon payments that come due belong to the legal owner, the \"\"borrower.\"\" However, when this happens, a cash amount equal to the coupon is paid to the original owner, this is called \"\"manufactured payment.\"\" In order to avoid the tax payment on the coupon, some institutions will repo the security to a tax exempt entity and receive the manufactured payment and avoid the tax (\"\"coupon washing\"\") I find this unequivocal description to be the clearest During the life of the transaction the market risk and the credit risk of the collateral remain with the seller. (Because he has agreed to repurchase the asset for an agreed sum of money at maturity). Provided the trade is correctly documented if the collateral has a coupon payment during the life of the repo the buyer is obliged to pay this to the seller.\"" }, { "docid": "219910", "title": "", "text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light." }, { "docid": "28375", "title": "", "text": "\"The \"\"just accounting\"\" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank.\"" }, { "docid": "457667", "title": "", "text": "I've been budgeting with MS Money since 2004 and was pretty disappointed to hear it's being discontinued. Budgeting is actually a stress-relieving hobby for me, and I can be a bit of a control-freak when it comes to finances, so I decided to start early looking for a replacement rather than waiting until MS Money can no longer download transactions. Here are the pros and cons of the ones I've tried (updated 10/2010): You Need A Budget Pro (YNAB) - Based on the old envelopes system, YNAB has you allot money from each paycheck to a specific budget category (envelope). It encourages you to live on last money's income, and if you have trouble with overspending, that can be a great plan. Personally, I'm a big believer in the envelope concept, so that's the biggest pro I found. Also, it's a downloaded software, so once I've bought it (for about $50) it's mine, without forced upgrades as far as I've seen. The big con for me was that it does not automatically download transactions. I would have to sign on to each institution's website and manually download to the program. Also, coming from Money, I'm used to having features that YNAB doesn't offer, like the ability to store information about my accounts. Overall, it's forward-thinking and a good budgeting system, but will take some extra time to download transactions and isn't really a comprehensive management tool for all my financial needs. You can try it out with their free trial. Mint - This is a free online program. The free part was a major pro. It also looks pretty, if that's important to you. Updating is automatic, once you've got it all set up, so that's a pro. Mint's budgeting tools are so-so. Basically, you choose a category and tell it your limit. It yells at you (by text or email) when you cross the line, but doesn't seem to offer any other incentive to stay on budget. When I first looked at Mint, it did not connect with my credit union, but it currently connects to all my banks and all but one of my student loan institutions. Another recent improvement is that Mint now allows you to manually add transactions, including pending checks and cash transactions. The cons for me are that it does not give me a good end-of-the-month report, doesn't allow me to enter details of my paychecks, and doesn't give me any cash-flow forecasting. Overall, Mint is a good casual, retrospective, free online tool, but doesn't allow for much planning ahead. Mvelopes - Here's another online option, but this one is subscription-based. Again, we find the old envelopes system, which I think is smart, so that's a pro for me. It's online, so it downloads transactions automatically, but also allows you to manually add transactions, so another pro. The big con on this one is the cost. Depending on how you far ahead you choose to pay (quarterly, yearly or biannually), you're paying $7.60 to $12 per month. They do offer a free trial for 14 days (plus another 14 days offered when you try to cancel). Another con is that they don't provide meaningful reports. Overall, a good concept, but not worth the cost for me. Quicken - I hadn't tried Quicken earlier because they don't offer a free trial, but after the last few fell short, I landed with Quicken 2009. Pro for Quicken, as an MS Money user is that it is remarkably similar in format and options. The registers and reports are nearly identical. One frustration I'd had with Money was that it was ridiculously slow at start-up, and after a year or so of entering data, Quicken is dragging. Con for Quicken, again as an MS Money user, is that it's budgeting is not as detailed as I would like. Also, it does not download transactions smoothly now that my banks all ask security questions as part of sign-in. I have to sign in to my bank's website and manually download. Quicken 2011 is out now, but I haven't tried it yet. Hopefully they've solved the problem of security questions. Quicken 2011 promises an improved cash-flow forecast, which sounds promising, and was a feature of MS Money that I have very much missed. Haven't decided yet if it's worth the $50 to upgrade to 2011." }, { "docid": "249831", "title": "", "text": "\"Ditto mhoran_psprep. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Where does the money come from? When someone starts a bank, they normally get together a bunch of investors -- perhaps people they know personally, perhaps they sell stock -- to raise initial capital. But most of the money in the bank comes from depositors. Fundamentally, what a bank does is take money from depositors and loan it to borrowers. (Banks also borrow money from other banks and from the government.) They charge the borrowers interest on the loan, and they pay depositors interest on their deposits. The difference between those two interest rates is where the bank gets their profit. Where does the money go when you pay it back? As mhoran_psprep said, some of it goes to pay interest to the depositors; some of it goes to pay the bank's expenses like employee salaries, cost of the building, etc; and some of it goes as profit to the owners or stockholders of the bank. If you're thinking, \"\"Wow, I'm paying back a whole lot more than I borrowed\"\", well, yes. But remember you're borrowing that money for 20 or 30 years. The bank isn't making very much money on the loan each year that you have it -- these days something like 4 or 5% in the U.S., I don't know what the going rates are in other countries.\"" }, { "docid": "175824", "title": "", "text": "Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed." }, { "docid": "239611", "title": "", "text": "\"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you. Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No \"\"payday loans\"\" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with \"\"interest free credit\"\", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you. Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan.\"" }, { "docid": "37189", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question points out how most fractional reserve banks are only a couple of defaults away from insolvency. The problem arises because of the terms around the depositors' money. When a customer deposits money into a bank they are loaning their money to the bank (and the bank takes ownership of the money). Deposit and savings account are considered \"\"on-demand\"\" accounts where the customer is told they can retrieve their money at any time. This is a strange type of loan, is it not? No other loan works this way. There are always terms around loans - how often the borrower will make payments, when will the borrower pay back the loan, what is the total time frame of the loan, etc.. The bank runs into problems because the time frame on the money they borrowed (i.e. deposits) does not match the time frame on the money they are lending.\"" }, { "docid": "186127", "title": "", "text": "A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market. A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k. The loan has two components. a. The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b. The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top). The originating bank lends $180k of their own money. Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it. The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less. The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient. Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around. One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1. One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for." }, { "docid": "458485", "title": "", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"" }, { "docid": "577201", "title": "", "text": "As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend." }, { "docid": "574432", "title": "", "text": "\"If I understand you situation correctly, then the accepted answer is extremely misleading and incorrect. Your arrangement with your parents is definitely unreasonable. It is definitely not \"\"similar to an interest-only loan\"\". In an interest-only loan, like you can get from a bank, you will loan a sum of money, which you are expected to pay back at a certain time in the future, or when you sell the condo. But you pay back the original sum, not the value of property at selling time. For the access to the money you pay an interest to the bank. The bank gets their profits from the interest. The property only serves as collateral in case you are not able to make your interest payments. Another way to view it, is that your parent bought (a share of) your condo for investment reasons. In that case, they would expect to get their profits from the increase of the value of the property over time. That looks most like your situation. Granted, that is more risky for them, but that is what they choose to sign up for. But in that case it is not reasonable to charge your for interest as well, because that would mean they would get double profits. So how does the $500 monthly payment fit in? If it is interest, then it would work out to a yearly interest of about 5.2%. Where I live, that would nowadays be extremely high even for an interest-only mortgage from a bank. But I don't live in the USA, so don't know whether that is true there. I think in your situation, the $500 can only be seen as rent. Whether that is reasonable for your situation I cannot judge from here. It should be 75% of a reasonable rent for a condo like that. But in that case, your parents should also stand for 75% of the maintenance costs of the property, which you don't mention, and most of the property taxes and insurance fees. In short, no it is not a reasonable arrangement. You would be better of trying to get a morgage from the bank, and buy out your parents with it.\"" }, { "docid": "426559", "title": "", "text": "Could someone please explain to me how interest rates work? I like to think of interest rates as the price of money. It is specified as a percentage paid per unit of time (for example, 3%/year). To figure out how much interest money you get (or have to pay) for a given amount and time, multiply the amount with the interest rate and then divide by the time divided by the interest rate's specified time. That sounds awfully complicated, so let's look at a simple example instead. You deposit $1,000 at a fixed interest rate of 2% per year, for two and a half years, where the interest is paid at the end of the term. This means that you earn $1,000 * 2% = $20 per year in interest. Multiply this by [2.5 years] / [year] = 2.5, and you will have received $20 * 2.5 = $50 in interest over 2.5 years. If the interest is paid yearly, this gets slightly more complicated, but the principle is the same. Now imagine that you deposit $5,000 at a fixed 3% per year, for half a year. Again, the interest is paid at the end of the term. You now earn $5,000 * 3% [per year] * [[0.5 years] / [year]] = $75 in interest over six months. Variable interest rates makes this a little more complicated, but it is exactly the same thing in principle: calculate the interest paid for each period (taking any compounding into account), then add up all periods to get the total amount of interest paid over time. It also works the same way if you take out a loan rather than depositing money. Tax effects (capitals gains taxes or interest expense deductions) may make the actual amount paid or received different, but that does not change the fundamental aspect of how to calculate interest. Do CD's make more money with higher interest rates, or is it the other way around? Usually fixed interest rate instruments such as certificates of deposit, or loans with fixed rates, pay a higher interest rate for longer terms. This is because it is harder to judge credit risk in a longer term, so whoever gives the loan usually wants a premium for the additional risk. So a 6-month CD will normally pay a smaller percentage interest per year than a five-year CD. Note that this is not always the case; the technical term for when this does not hold is inverted yield curve. Interest rates are almost always formally specified in terms of percent per year, which makes it easy to compare rates. If you buy a $100 6-month CD paying 1% (I told you these were only examples :)) and then reinvest the money at the end of the term in another 6-month CD also paying 1%, the total amount paid will be ($100 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $100.50 for the first term, then ($100.50 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $101.0025 at the end of the second term. As you can see, the compounding of the interest makes this return slightly more than a single $100 12-month CD ($100 * 1 + 1% = $101), but unless you are dealing with large amounts of money, the difference is small enough to be negligible. If you were to put $100 in a 2% one-year CD, you'd get back $102 at the end of the year. Put the same amount in a 5% one-year CD, and you get back $105. So yes, higher interest rates means more interest money paid, for loans as well as deposits. Keep in mind that loans and deposits really are essentially the same thing, and interest calculations work the same way for both. The interest rate of a normal certificate of deposit does not change if the variable interest rates change, but rather is locked in when the money is deposited (or the CD is bought, whichever way you prefer to look at it)." }, { "docid": "499336", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\"" }, { "docid": "313623", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on the deal: and you didn't give any details. That said, there are some things that stand out regardless, and some more specific answers to your questions. First, Mortgage rates (at the bank) are absurdly low right now. Like 4%-5%; less than 4% for excellent credit. You say your credit is ok, so unless your landlord is willing to do a deal where they get no benefit (beyond the price of the house), the bank is the way to go. If you don't have much for a down payment, go with an FHA loan, where you need only 3.5% down. Second, there is another option in between bank mortgage and rent-to-own. And that is that where your landlord \"\"carries the note\"\". Basically, there is a mortgage, and it works like a bank mortgage, but instead of the bank owning the mortgage, your landlord does. Now, in terms of them carrying all of it, this isn't really helpful. Who wants to make 3-4% interest? But, there is an interesting opportunity here. With your ok credit, you can probably get pretty close to 4% interest at the bank IF the loan is for 80% LTV (loan to value; that is, 20% equity). At 80% LTV you also won't have PMI, so between the two that loan will be very cheap. Then, your accommodating landlord can \"\"carry\"\" the rest at, say, 6-7% interest, junior to the bank mortgage (meaning if you default, the bank gets first dibs on the value of the house). Under that scenario, your over all interest payment is very reasonable, and you wouldn't have to put any money down. Now for your other questions: If we rent to own are we building equity? Not usually. Like the other posters said, rent-to-own is whatever both parties agree on. But objectively, most rent-to-own agreements, whether for a TV or a house, are set up to screw the buyer. Sorry to be blunt, and I'm not saying your landlord would do that, this is just generally how it is with rent to own. You don't own it till you make the last payment, and if you miss a payment they repo the property. There is no recourse because, hey, it was a rental agreement! Of course the agreements vary, and people who offer rent to own aren't necessarily bad people, but it's like one of those payday loan places: They provide a valid service but no one with other options uses them. If we rent to own, can we escape if we have to (read: can't pay anymore). Usually, sure! Think about what you're saying: \"\"Here's the house back, and all that money I paid you? Keep it!\"\" It's a great deal if you're on the selling side. How does rent to own affect (or not) our credit? It all depends on how it's structured. But really, it comes down to are they going to do reporting to the credit bureaus? In a rent-to-own agreement between individuals, the answer is no. (individuals can't report to a credit bureau. it's kind of a big deal to be set up to be able to do that)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "279897", "title": "", "text": "Car dealers as well as boat dealers, RV dealers, maybe farm vehicle dealers and other asset types make deals with banks and finance companies to they can make loans to buyers. They may be paying the interest to the finance companies so they can offer a 0% loan to the retail customer for all or part of the loan term. Neither the finance company nor the dealer wants to make such loans to people who are likely to default. Such customers will not be offered this kind of financing. But remember too that these loans are secured by the asset - the car - which is also insured. But the dealer or the finance company holds that asset as collateral that they can seize to repay the loan. So the finance company gets paid off and the dealer keeps the profit he made selling the car. So these loans are designed to ensure the dealer nor the finance company looses much. These are called asset finance loans because there is always an asset (the car) to use as collateral." } ]

[ { "docid": "574432", "title": "", "text": "\"If I understand you situation correctly, then the accepted answer is extremely misleading and incorrect. Your arrangement with your parents is definitely unreasonable. It is definitely not \"\"similar to an interest-only loan\"\". In an interest-only loan, like you can get from a bank, you will loan a sum of money, which you are expected to pay back at a certain time in the future, or when you sell the condo. But you pay back the original sum, not the value of property at selling time. For the access to the money you pay an interest to the bank. The bank gets their profits from the interest. The property only serves as collateral in case you are not able to make your interest payments. Another way to view it, is that your parent bought (a share of) your condo for investment reasons. In that case, they would expect to get their profits from the increase of the value of the property over time. That looks most like your situation. Granted, that is more risky for them, but that is what they choose to sign up for. But in that case it is not reasonable to charge your for interest as well, because that would mean they would get double profits. So how does the $500 monthly payment fit in? If it is interest, then it would work out to a yearly interest of about 5.2%. Where I live, that would nowadays be extremely high even for an interest-only mortgage from a bank. But I don't live in the USA, so don't know whether that is true there. I think in your situation, the $500 can only be seen as rent. Whether that is reasonable for your situation I cannot judge from here. It should be 75% of a reasonable rent for a condo like that. But in that case, your parents should also stand for 75% of the maintenance costs of the property, which you don't mention, and most of the property taxes and insurance fees. In short, no it is not a reasonable arrangement. You would be better of trying to get a morgage from the bank, and buy out your parents with it.\"" }, { "docid": "333966", "title": "", "text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks." }, { "docid": "278671", "title": "", "text": "If it costs more to fix the car than the car is worth, then those repairs are not worth it. Hit craigslist and look for another junker that runs, but is in your cash price range. Pay to get it looked at by a mechanic as a condition of sale. Use consumer reports to try and find a good model. Somebody in your position does not need a $15K car. You need a series of $2K or $4K cars that you will replace more often, but pay cash for. Car buying, especially from a dealer financed, place isn't how I would recommend building your credit back up. EDIT in response to your updates: Build your credit the smart way, by not paying interest charges. Use your lower limit card, and annually apply for more credit, which you use and pay off each and every month. Borrowing is not going to help you. Just because you can afford to make payments, doesn't automatically make payments a wise decision. You have to examine the value of the loan, not what the payments are. Shop for a good price, shop for a good rate, then purchase. The amount you can pay every month should only be a factor than can kill the deal, not allow it. Pay cash for your vehicle until you can qualify for a low cost loan from a credit union or a bank. It is a waste of money and time to pay a penalty interest rate because you want to build your credit. Time is what will heal your credit score. If you really must borrow for the purchase, you must secure a loan prior to shopping for a car. Visit a few credit unions and get pre-qualified. Once you have a pre-approved loan in place, you can let the deal try and beat your loan for a better deal. Don't make the mistake of letting the dealer do all the financing first." }, { "docid": "321637", "title": "", "text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"" }, { "docid": "334559", "title": "", "text": "\"The question posted was, \"\"Should I pay off a 0% car loan\"\"? The poster provided a few details: I'm ahead on 0% interest car loan. I don't have to make a payment until October. I currently owe $3,000 and I could pay it all off. Should I do that or leave that money in my savings account that earns 2% interest? The question seems to seek a general rule of thumb for how to behave with smaller debts. And a general rule of thumb could be taken from one of two principles (which seem to be religious camps). The \"\"free money\"\" camp believes that you can invest (even small amounts) of money risk-free and receive high returns, tax free, for zero effort. The \"\"reduce debt\"\" camp believes that you should pay off debts so that you have the freedom to live your life unfettered. Which religion do you prefer? I tend to prefer paying off debts. The \"\"free money\"\" tent wants you to pay the car off over the next 6 months, earning interest. Suppose you can earn 2% interest (.02/12 per month), paying $500 per month for 6 months. So you earn interest on 3000 the first month, 2500, the second month, 2000 the third month, So, are you feeling rich, earning $13.13? How much time did you spending making the 5 additional payments? You could skip coffee once/month and make a bigger difference. The \"\"reduce debt\"\" tent would have you pay off the car. Suppose you change your deductible on the car (or drop collision) to save money, and you will also same time by avoid 5 bill payments, But do you still have enough money in your emergency fund, how do you feel about having less insurance coverage, and did you notice the time savings? We really need more information about the poster's situation. The answer should consider the relevant details of the situation to provide an informed response. Here are questions that would enable a response to address the whole situation. Why are these important? Here are a few reasons why the above might be important.\"" }, { "docid": "304407", "title": "", "text": "(a) you give away your money - gift tax The person who receives the gift doesn't owe any tax. If you give it out in small amounts, there will be no gift tax. It could have tax and Estate issues for you depending on the size of the gift, the timing, and how much you give away in total. Of course if you give it away to a charity you could deduct the gift. (b) you loan someone some money - tax free?? It there is a loan, and and you collect interest; you will have to declare that interest as income. The IRS will expect that you charge a reasonable rate, otherwise the interest could be considered a gift. Not sure what a reasonable rate is with savings account earning 0.1% per year. (c) you pay back the debt you owe - tax free ?? tax deductible ?? The borrower can't deduct the interest they pay, unless it is a mortgage on the main home, or a business loan. I will admit that there may be a few other narrow categories of loans that would make it deductible for the borrower. If the loan/gift is for the down payment on a house, the lender for the rest of the mortgage will want to make sure that the gift/loan nature is correctly documented. The need to fully understand the obligations of the homeowner. If it is a loan between family members the IRS may want to see the paperwork surrounding a loan, to make sure it isn't really a gift. They don't look kindly on loans that are never paid back and no interest collected." }, { "docid": "151435", "title": "", "text": "\"A credit Union makes loans exactly the same ways a bank does. A portion of the money deposited in checking, savings, money market, Certificate of Deposit, or IRA is then used to make loans for cars, boats, school, mortgages, 2nd mortgages, lines of credit... The government dictates the percentage of each type of deposit that must be held in reserve for non-loan transactions. The Credit Union members are the share holders of the \"\"company\"\". There are no investors in the \"\"company\"\" because the goal is not to make money. In general the entire package is better because there is no pressure to increase profits. Fees are generally lower because they are there to discourage bad behavior, not as a way to make a profit off of the bad behavior. Dividends/interest are treated the same way as bank interest. The IRS forms are the same, and it is reported the same way. Some of bizarre rules they have to follow: maximum number of transactions between accounts, membership rules, are there because banks want to make it harder to be a member of a credit union.\"" }, { "docid": "426559", "title": "", "text": "Could someone please explain to me how interest rates work? I like to think of interest rates as the price of money. It is specified as a percentage paid per unit of time (for example, 3%/year). To figure out how much interest money you get (or have to pay) for a given amount and time, multiply the amount with the interest rate and then divide by the time divided by the interest rate's specified time. That sounds awfully complicated, so let's look at a simple example instead. You deposit $1,000 at a fixed interest rate of 2% per year, for two and a half years, where the interest is paid at the end of the term. This means that you earn $1,000 * 2% = $20 per year in interest. Multiply this by [2.5 years] / [year] = 2.5, and you will have received $20 * 2.5 = $50 in interest over 2.5 years. If the interest is paid yearly, this gets slightly more complicated, but the principle is the same. Now imagine that you deposit $5,000 at a fixed 3% per year, for half a year. Again, the interest is paid at the end of the term. You now earn $5,000 * 3% [per year] * [[0.5 years] / [year]] = $75 in interest over six months. Variable interest rates makes this a little more complicated, but it is exactly the same thing in principle: calculate the interest paid for each period (taking any compounding into account), then add up all periods to get the total amount of interest paid over time. It also works the same way if you take out a loan rather than depositing money. Tax effects (capitals gains taxes or interest expense deductions) may make the actual amount paid or received different, but that does not change the fundamental aspect of how to calculate interest. Do CD's make more money with higher interest rates, or is it the other way around? Usually fixed interest rate instruments such as certificates of deposit, or loans with fixed rates, pay a higher interest rate for longer terms. This is because it is harder to judge credit risk in a longer term, so whoever gives the loan usually wants a premium for the additional risk. So a 6-month CD will normally pay a smaller percentage interest per year than a five-year CD. Note that this is not always the case; the technical term for when this does not hold is inverted yield curve. Interest rates are almost always formally specified in terms of percent per year, which makes it easy to compare rates. If you buy a $100 6-month CD paying 1% (I told you these were only examples :)) and then reinvest the money at the end of the term in another 6-month CD also paying 1%, the total amount paid will be ($100 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $100.50 for the first term, then ($100.50 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $101.0025 at the end of the second term. As you can see, the compounding of the interest makes this return slightly more than a single $100 12-month CD ($100 * 1 + 1% = $101), but unless you are dealing with large amounts of money, the difference is small enough to be negligible. If you were to put $100 in a 2% one-year CD, you'd get back $102 at the end of the year. Put the same amount in a 5% one-year CD, and you get back $105. So yes, higher interest rates means more interest money paid, for loans as well as deposits. Keep in mind that loans and deposits really are essentially the same thing, and interest calculations work the same way for both. The interest rate of a normal certificate of deposit does not change if the variable interest rates change, but rather is locked in when the money is deposited (or the CD is bought, whichever way you prefer to look at it)." }, { "docid": "374523", "title": "", "text": "Bullshit. Those 16 Trillion dollars in secret loans weren't known until that audit which was forced on the Federal Reserve by Congress, and Congress and the American people weren't told that the Federal Reserve was making massive zero interest loans to foreign banks. None of that would have come out unless Congress had pushed for that audit. &gt;A prime example is his claim that 16 trillion was lent, which is pretty dishonest. At no point was there more than about 2T lent out (from the audit itself) and at no point was the US taxpayer on the hook for over around 2T. lol.. that's some prime spin job right there. Tell me this... if I loan you $500 a night every night for 5 days and those loans allow you to earn $100 totally risk free how much have I loaned you? Does it even matter, because the end of result is I essentially gave you $100." }, { "docid": "313623", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on the deal: and you didn't give any details. That said, there are some things that stand out regardless, and some more specific answers to your questions. First, Mortgage rates (at the bank) are absurdly low right now. Like 4%-5%; less than 4% for excellent credit. You say your credit is ok, so unless your landlord is willing to do a deal where they get no benefit (beyond the price of the house), the bank is the way to go. If you don't have much for a down payment, go with an FHA loan, where you need only 3.5% down. Second, there is another option in between bank mortgage and rent-to-own. And that is that where your landlord \"\"carries the note\"\". Basically, there is a mortgage, and it works like a bank mortgage, but instead of the bank owning the mortgage, your landlord does. Now, in terms of them carrying all of it, this isn't really helpful. Who wants to make 3-4% interest? But, there is an interesting opportunity here. With your ok credit, you can probably get pretty close to 4% interest at the bank IF the loan is for 80% LTV (loan to value; that is, 20% equity). At 80% LTV you also won't have PMI, so between the two that loan will be very cheap. Then, your accommodating landlord can \"\"carry\"\" the rest at, say, 6-7% interest, junior to the bank mortgage (meaning if you default, the bank gets first dibs on the value of the house). Under that scenario, your over all interest payment is very reasonable, and you wouldn't have to put any money down. Now for your other questions: If we rent to own are we building equity? Not usually. Like the other posters said, rent-to-own is whatever both parties agree on. But objectively, most rent-to-own agreements, whether for a TV or a house, are set up to screw the buyer. Sorry to be blunt, and I'm not saying your landlord would do that, this is just generally how it is with rent to own. You don't own it till you make the last payment, and if you miss a payment they repo the property. There is no recourse because, hey, it was a rental agreement! Of course the agreements vary, and people who offer rent to own aren't necessarily bad people, but it's like one of those payday loan places: They provide a valid service but no one with other options uses them. If we rent to own, can we escape if we have to (read: can't pay anymore). Usually, sure! Think about what you're saying: \"\"Here's the house back, and all that money I paid you? Keep it!\"\" It's a great deal if you're on the selling side. How does rent to own affect (or not) our credit? It all depends on how it's structured. But really, it comes down to are they going to do reporting to the credit bureaus? In a rent-to-own agreement between individuals, the answer is no. (individuals can't report to a credit bureau. it's kind of a big deal to be set up to be able to do that)\"" }, { "docid": "285033", "title": "", "text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\"" }, { "docid": "506161", "title": "", "text": "And so what was the logical alternative? How does Hank Paulson: 1. Get $150-300 billion dollars into the hands of individual taxpayers so that they don't default on their home mortgages and wipe out the banking system? 2. Make sure the $150-300 B is going to individuals who actually need the capital, weren't bad actors in taking on too much debt and causing everyone else significant harm by engaging in risky borrowing? 3. Sufficiently protect the $150-300 B in loans so that the US Gov't can get paid back and not have it be some massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars? And all this had to be done within a matter of days. Ontop of which, why aren't you railing against the irresponsible automakers who didn't pay back their TARP loans and instead were forgiven, while the banks paid back their loans in full with interest and a profit to the US Taxpayer? The automakers and the unions basically got free money (after Obama came into office and under his direction) on the back of the taxpayer. Isn't that crony capitalism when unions who are Democratic sympathizing voters get loans that are ultimately forgiven by the federal government? The whining you make about private entities like Berkshire, who did nothing to create the crisis and merely took advantage of it, with little to no help from the federal government is remarkable. It's like straight out of a socialist playbook." }, { "docid": "239611", "title": "", "text": "\"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you. Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No \"\"payday loans\"\" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with \"\"interest free credit\"\", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you. Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan.\"" }, { "docid": "8480", "title": "", "text": "It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter. When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid. When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property. If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable. This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss. For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage. Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered). If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk. There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk. It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side. Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying. Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble." }, { "docid": "400009", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking, an interest-free loan will be tied to a specific purchase, and the lender will be paid something by the vendor. The only other likely scenario is an introductory offer to try to win longer-term more profitable business, such as an initial interest-free period on a credit card. Banks couldn't make money if all their loans were interest-free, unless they were getting paid by the vendors of whatever was being purchased with the money that was lent." }, { "docid": "93248", "title": "", "text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more." }, { "docid": "517299", "title": "", "text": "You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance." }, { "docid": "144177", "title": "", "text": "\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"" }, { "docid": "32880", "title": "", "text": "Since this is the reasoning: I don't want to bother with micropayments, and harassing her for monthly payments. You must do one the following: Provide the money to your mom as a loan (i.e.: with a note and interest) payable when the full repayment of the loan to the bank is done (i.e.: balloon note). The terms of the note should be that the money to be used as collateral for the secured loan from the bank. Provide the money to your mom directly. In this case you have to pay gift tax on $7K (above the 13K exemption limit). Since you want the money back - you'll probably want the option #1. Your interest rate should be above a certain level to avoid reclassifying it as a gift by the IRS (your tax adviser can help you with that). Your mom will pay interest to the bank on the secured loan, and to you on the collateral (unless you wave it, subject to gift tax, again - talk to the tax adviser). You will only need to harass your mom about the balloon payment in the end. This is not a tax or legal advice. Talk to your tax adviser and a legal counsel about the details and additional options." } ]

[ { "docid": "253563", "title": "", "text": "\"In addition to all the points made in other answers, in some jurisdictions (including the UK where I live) the consumer credit laws require the lender to allow the borrower to pay off the loan at any time. If the lender charges interest and the borrower pays off the loan early then the lender loses the interest that would have been paid during the rest of the loan period. However if the actual interest is baked into the sale price of an item and the loan to pay for it is nominally \"\"0%\"\" then the borrower still pays all the interest even if they pay off the loan immediately. If you think this game is being played then you can ask for a \"\"cash discount\"\" (or similar wording: I once had problems with a car salesman who thought I meant a suitcase full of used £20s), meaning you want to avoid paying the interest as you are not taking a loan.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "304407", "title": "", "text": "(a) you give away your money - gift tax The person who receives the gift doesn't owe any tax. If you give it out in small amounts, there will be no gift tax. It could have tax and Estate issues for you depending on the size of the gift, the timing, and how much you give away in total. Of course if you give it away to a charity you could deduct the gift. (b) you loan someone some money - tax free?? It there is a loan, and and you collect interest; you will have to declare that interest as income. The IRS will expect that you charge a reasonable rate, otherwise the interest could be considered a gift. Not sure what a reasonable rate is with savings account earning 0.1% per year. (c) you pay back the debt you owe - tax free ?? tax deductible ?? The borrower can't deduct the interest they pay, unless it is a mortgage on the main home, or a business loan. I will admit that there may be a few other narrow categories of loans that would make it deductible for the borrower. If the loan/gift is for the down payment on a house, the lender for the rest of the mortgage will want to make sure that the gift/loan nature is correctly documented. The need to fully understand the obligations of the homeowner. If it is a loan between family members the IRS may want to see the paperwork surrounding a loan, to make sure it isn't really a gift. They don't look kindly on loans that are never paid back and no interest collected." }, { "docid": "506161", "title": "", "text": "And so what was the logical alternative? How does Hank Paulson: 1. Get $150-300 billion dollars into the hands of individual taxpayers so that they don't default on their home mortgages and wipe out the banking system? 2. Make sure the $150-300 B is going to individuals who actually need the capital, weren't bad actors in taking on too much debt and causing everyone else significant harm by engaging in risky borrowing? 3. Sufficiently protect the $150-300 B in loans so that the US Gov't can get paid back and not have it be some massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars? And all this had to be done within a matter of days. Ontop of which, why aren't you railing against the irresponsible automakers who didn't pay back their TARP loans and instead were forgiven, while the banks paid back their loans in full with interest and a profit to the US Taxpayer? The automakers and the unions basically got free money (after Obama came into office and under his direction) on the back of the taxpayer. Isn't that crony capitalism when unions who are Democratic sympathizing voters get loans that are ultimately forgiven by the federal government? The whining you make about private entities like Berkshire, who did nothing to create the crisis and merely took advantage of it, with little to no help from the federal government is remarkable. It's like straight out of a socialist playbook." }, { "docid": "249831", "title": "", "text": "\"Ditto mhoran_psprep. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Where does the money come from? When someone starts a bank, they normally get together a bunch of investors -- perhaps people they know personally, perhaps they sell stock -- to raise initial capital. But most of the money in the bank comes from depositors. Fundamentally, what a bank does is take money from depositors and loan it to borrowers. (Banks also borrow money from other banks and from the government.) They charge the borrowers interest on the loan, and they pay depositors interest on their deposits. The difference between those two interest rates is where the bank gets their profit. Where does the money go when you pay it back? As mhoran_psprep said, some of it goes to pay interest to the depositors; some of it goes to pay the bank's expenses like employee salaries, cost of the building, etc; and some of it goes as profit to the owners or stockholders of the bank. If you're thinking, \"\"Wow, I'm paying back a whole lot more than I borrowed\"\", well, yes. But remember you're borrowing that money for 20 or 30 years. The bank isn't making very much money on the loan each year that you have it -- these days something like 4 or 5% in the U.S., I don't know what the going rates are in other countries.\"" }, { "docid": "93248", "title": "", "text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more." }, { "docid": "41807", "title": "", "text": "Basically the balance you see in your account is the amount of money you currently have a right to (based on the fact that you have deposited it with the bank) you can of course take this money out pretty well whenever you like or move it however you like. However your bank account is not physical money, the currency you deposite is warehoused and used as the bank sees fit, your account is simply a statement keeping track of how much money the bank is holding for you. The banks ability to use deposited funds to make money relies on the fundamental assumption that not everyone is going to withdraw all of there deposited funds at once. All banks will have legislated liquidity requirements (how much money needs to be kept in cash or near cash securities (short term interest bearing paper basically) in order to allow for pretty much any reasonable number of people to withdraw any amount of money.Additionally the bank as you said makes money on its loans, securities trading and investment banking activities, that money belongs to the bank and gives them even more money to play around with. Obviously there have historically been instances in which bank runs occur (everyone tries to withdraw all there money at once, bank dosent acctually have enough liquid assets to pay) or cases in which a bank experiences solvency issues for other reasons (having to pay out poorly thought out speculative securities transactions RE north american housing crash in 2008) in these cases there are consumer protection agencies that insure financial institutions against insolvency (varies by country) But under most normal circumstances the bank uses some portion of deposited funds to make money and has systems in place to ensure an individual person can access there deposited funds as needed. TLDR: account statement just shows how much money you have given the bank and can thus claim back from them (in the form of withdraw) bank has legally dictated cash reserve percentage to allow for everyone to withdraw money when they need it under most normal circumstances." }, { "docid": "330229", "title": "", "text": "\"I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment. I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation. When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you. But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank. The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front. The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a \"\"95% Loan-to-Value ratio\"\" is 2.75%. Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling. Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP? There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy. I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada. Read here, here, and here.\"" }, { "docid": "13656", "title": "", "text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !" }, { "docid": "144177", "title": "", "text": "\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"" }, { "docid": "273759", "title": "", "text": "\"The wording of this question is very confusing because \"\"primary signer\"\" would, in ordinary parlance, mean the person borrowing the money and the co-signer (not consigner) would mean the one who is guaranteeing the repayment of the loan: if the borrower does not pay, the co-signer is liable for making the payments. Whose name is on the title of the car? Who borrowed the money to buy the car? Is the loan in your name and your son co-signed the loan to induce the bank to loan you money to purchase the car, or is it the other way around, that your son borrowed the money and you co-signed the loan in order to induce the bank to loan your son the money? If the car title and the loan are in your name, are you defaulting on the loan and so your son is making the loan payments that should have come from you? Or is it that your son borrowed the money to buy the car, his name is on the title, he is making the payments, and you are no longer interested in backing him up in case he defaults and the bank comes after you for the money?\"" }, { "docid": "120090", "title": "", "text": "Short answer: yes, you can put up collateral for someone else's loan. The bank will be happy to take your money, give it to the other person, and return it to you on completion of the loan (keeping the interest the security makes on the money market and the interest they're charging the other person for themselves). If the above doesn't sound very appealing (you don't see any benefit from your investment, and can be left holding the bag if your friend defaults on their loan), it really isn't a great way to spend your money. However, as assistance to someone else, it provides several advantages over directly transferring the money:" }, { "docid": "94279", "title": "", "text": "It certainly is possible for a run on the bank to drive it into insolvency. And yes, if the bank makes some bad loans, it can magnify the problem. Generally, this does not happen, though. Remember that banks usually have lots of customers, and people are depositing money and making mortgage payments every day, so there is usually enough on-hand to cover average banking withdrawl activity, regardless of any bad loans they have outstanding. Banks have lots of historical data to know what the average withdrawl demands are for a given day. They also have risk models to predict the likelihood of their loans going into default. A bank will generally use this information to strike a healthy balance between profit-making activity (e.g. issuing loans), and satisfying its account holders. In the event of a major withdrawl demand, there are some protections in place to guard against insolvency. There are regulations that specify a Reserve Requirement. The bank must keep a certain amount of money on hand, so they can't take huge risks by loaning out too much money all at once. Regulators can tweak this requirement over time to reflect the current economic situation. If a bank does run into trouble, it can take out a short-term loan. Either from another bank, or from the central bank (e.g. the US Federal Reserve). Banks don't want to pay interest on loans any more than you do, so if they are regularly borrowing money, they will adjust thier cash reserves accordingly. If all else fails and the bank can't meet its obligations (e.g. the Fed loan fell through), the bank has an insurance policy to make sure the account holders get paid. In the US, this is what the FDIC is for. Worst case, the bank goes under, but your money is safe. These protections have worked pretty well for many decades. However, during the recent financial crisis, all three of these protections were under heavy strain. So, one of the things banking regulators did was to put the major banks through stress tests to make sure they could handle several bad financial events without collapsing. These tests showed that some banks didn't have enough money in reserve. (Not long after, banks started to increase fees and credit card rates to raise this additional capital.) Keep in mind that if banks were unable to use the deposited money (loan it out, invest it, etc), the current financial landscape would change considerably." }, { "docid": "458485", "title": "", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"" }, { "docid": "143593", "title": "", "text": "the best thing to do is file bankrupt. your credit will be shot for 7 to 10 years. however usually 3 years after the bankrupt people will give you small lines of credit. then you rebuild on the small credit lines. and never get into a bad loan again you learn from mistakes. there is no shame in a mistake if you learned from it. I rebuilt my credit by using fingerhut. small credit limit on a cap 1 credit card 300 dollars unsecured card. personal loan of 1500 dollars to buy a old clunk for a car as I did not want to have five years of car payments. you can also get a secured credit card. and build credit with that. the bank will explain how to build credit using your own money. also you should know a lot of banks like your bankrupt stat. because they no you cant file for several more years. meaning if you don't pay your loan they can garnish you and you cant file bankrupt. you can get a new car loan with good interest rate. by taking 5000 dollars of your 15000 dollars savings down on the new loan. making your new car loan have better payments cheaper and better interest. and get a secured credit card of 2000 to build towards a unsecured credit card. keep all your new credit tabs small and pay on time.i would not use all your nest egg savings. that is not smart. get a lawyer and file. stay in school you will have a fresh start and you learned about upside down loans. don't listen to people trying to tell you bankruptsy is bad. it in a lot of ways gives you the upper hand in a no win debt or debts." }, { "docid": "64456", "title": "", "text": "1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money." }, { "docid": "57517", "title": "", "text": "Some places banks/Credit Unions will allow you to refinance a auto loan. My credit Union only does this if the original loan was with another lender. They will send the money to the old lender, then give you a loan under the new terms. They are trying to get your business, not necessarily looking for a way make less money for themselves. You will have to see how much you will save. Which will be based on the delta of the length of the loan or the change in interest rate, or both. My Credit Union has a calculator to show you the numbers based on keeping the size of the payments the same, or keeping the number of payments the same. Make sure you understand any limitations regarding the refinance based on the age of the car, and if you are underwater." }, { "docid": "574432", "title": "", "text": "\"If I understand you situation correctly, then the accepted answer is extremely misleading and incorrect. Your arrangement with your parents is definitely unreasonable. It is definitely not \"\"similar to an interest-only loan\"\". In an interest-only loan, like you can get from a bank, you will loan a sum of money, which you are expected to pay back at a certain time in the future, or when you sell the condo. But you pay back the original sum, not the value of property at selling time. For the access to the money you pay an interest to the bank. The bank gets their profits from the interest. The property only serves as collateral in case you are not able to make your interest payments. Another way to view it, is that your parent bought (a share of) your condo for investment reasons. In that case, they would expect to get their profits from the increase of the value of the property over time. That looks most like your situation. Granted, that is more risky for them, but that is what they choose to sign up for. But in that case it is not reasonable to charge your for interest as well, because that would mean they would get double profits. So how does the $500 monthly payment fit in? If it is interest, then it would work out to a yearly interest of about 5.2%. Where I live, that would nowadays be extremely high even for an interest-only mortgage from a bank. But I don't live in the USA, so don't know whether that is true there. I think in your situation, the $500 can only be seen as rent. Whether that is reasonable for your situation I cannot judge from here. It should be 75% of a reasonable rent for a condo like that. But in that case, your parents should also stand for 75% of the maintenance costs of the property, which you don't mention, and most of the property taxes and insurance fees. In short, no it is not a reasonable arrangement. You would be better of trying to get a morgage from the bank, and buy out your parents with it.\"" }, { "docid": "112195", "title": "", "text": "\"Repurchase agreements are a way of financing a security position. You have a collateralized loan where you give your security in exchange for cash. Let's say you have a 10 year Treasury note paying 3.5% while the 1-week repurchase rate is 0.5%. You loan the security to someone with a promise to repurchase it from them some time in the future. You collect the 3.5% coupon and you pay the 0.5% interest. Clearly it makes no sense for someone to collect interest on money and also collect coupon payments. And for the counter-party it makes no sense to be not getting coupon payments and also to be paying interest. This how one website explains the process: During the transaction, any coupon payments that come due belong to the legal owner, the \"\"borrower.\"\" However, when this happens, a cash amount equal to the coupon is paid to the original owner, this is called \"\"manufactured payment.\"\" In order to avoid the tax payment on the coupon, some institutions will repo the security to a tax exempt entity and receive the manufactured payment and avoid the tax (\"\"coupon washing\"\") I find this unequivocal description to be the clearest During the life of the transaction the market risk and the credit risk of the collateral remain with the seller. (Because he has agreed to repurchase the asset for an agreed sum of money at maturity). Provided the trade is correctly documented if the collateral has a coupon payment during the life of the repo the buyer is obliged to pay this to the seller.\"" }, { "docid": "546874", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards). And the government does not subsidize this. In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free. Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing \"\"fine print\"\" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways. However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates). So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent. The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting \"\"subsidized\"\" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers. And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent. Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends. (or you'll forget). And this works - that's why they do it. By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month. So if that's your goal, you already have it. In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest. That doesn't work, though. The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances. That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults. The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve you. They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor.\"" }, { "docid": "571920", "title": "", "text": "\"No. The full text of the Landlord-Tenant Act (specifically, section 554.614 of Act 348 of the year 1972) makes no mention of this. Searching the law for \"\"interest\"\" doesn't yield anything of interest (pardon the pun). Specifically, section 554.604 of the same law states that: (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is written or his legal representative may bring an action in the district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides or does business for collection on the bond. While it does sound like the landlord is required to deposit the money in a bank or other secured form, e.g. the Secretary of State, he/she isn't required to place it in an account that will earn interest.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "130850", "title": "", "text": "Very good answers as to how 0% loans are typically done. In addition, many are either tied to a specific large item purchase, or credit cards with a no interest period. On credit card transactions the bank is getting a fee from the retailer, who in turn is giving you a hidden charge to cover that fee. In the case of a large purchase item like a car, the retailer is again quite likely paying a fee to cover what would be that interest, something they are willing to do to make the sale. They will typically be less prone to deal as low a price in negotiation if you were not making that deal, or at times they may offer either a rebate or special low to zero finance rates, but you don't get both." } ]

[ { "docid": "196237", "title": "", "text": "\"Debt increases your exposure to risk. What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment? Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however. It's all about what you do with the money you borrow. Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education. How much more money will you make with a college degree? Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan? Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan? For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return? The money goes to better use if it is invested. (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them. (Stocks don't always go up.) You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts. Paying down the debt is more of a \"\"sure thing\"\". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest. Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move. Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest! (And check for early repayment penalties.)\"" }, { "docid": "120090", "title": "", "text": "Short answer: yes, you can put up collateral for someone else's loan. The bank will be happy to take your money, give it to the other person, and return it to you on completion of the loan (keeping the interest the security makes on the money market and the interest they're charging the other person for themselves). If the above doesn't sound very appealing (you don't see any benefit from your investment, and can be left holding the bag if your friend defaults on their loan), it really isn't a great way to spend your money. However, as assistance to someone else, it provides several advantages over directly transferring the money:" }, { "docid": "257483", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\"" }, { "docid": "553328", "title": "", "text": "\"I am neither a lawyer nor a tax accountant, and if you're dealing with serious money I suggest you consult a professional. But my understanding is: If you make a loan at zero interest or at below-market rates, the IRS will consider the difference between the interest that you do charge and the market rate to be a gift. That is, if someone could get a loan from a bank and he'd pay $1000 in interest for the year, but instead you loan him the money as a friend interest free, than as far as the IRS is concerned you have given him a $1000 gift, and you could potentially have to pay gift tax. Or they might \"\"impute\"\" the interest to you and tax you on $1000 of additional income. If you have no agreement on repayment terms, if it's all, \"\"Hey Joe, just pay me back when you can\"\", then the IRS is likely to consider the entire \"\"loan\"\" to be a gift. There's an annual exclusion on gifts -- I think it's now $13,000 -- so if you loan your buddy fifty bucks to tide him over until next pay day, the IRS isn't going to get involved in that. They're worried about more serious money. And yes, the IRS does \"\"police loan rates\"\". The IRS examines exact numbers for all sorts of things. If, say, you go on a 100-mile overnight business trip, and the company gives you $10,000 for travel expenses, the IRS is likely to say that this is not a tax-deductible travel expense at all but a sham to hide part of your salary from taxes. Or if you donate a pair of old socks to charity and declare a $500 charitable contribution deduction, the IRS will say that that is not a realistic value for a pair of old socks and disallow the deduction. Etc. A small discrepancy from market rates can be justified for any number of reasons. If the book value of a used car is $5000 and you sell it to your neighbor for $4900, the IRS is unlikely to question it, there are any number of legitimate business reasons why you had to give a discount to make the sale. But if you sell it to him for $50, they may declare that this is not a sale but a gift. Etc.\"" }, { "docid": "8480", "title": "", "text": "It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter. When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid. When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property. If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable. This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss. For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage. Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered). If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk. There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk. It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side. Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying. Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble." }, { "docid": "273759", "title": "", "text": "\"The wording of this question is very confusing because \"\"primary signer\"\" would, in ordinary parlance, mean the person borrowing the money and the co-signer (not consigner) would mean the one who is guaranteeing the repayment of the loan: if the borrower does not pay, the co-signer is liable for making the payments. Whose name is on the title of the car? Who borrowed the money to buy the car? Is the loan in your name and your son co-signed the loan to induce the bank to loan you money to purchase the car, or is it the other way around, that your son borrowed the money and you co-signed the loan in order to induce the bank to loan your son the money? If the car title and the loan are in your name, are you defaulting on the loan and so your son is making the loan payments that should have come from you? Or is it that your son borrowed the money to buy the car, his name is on the title, he is making the payments, and you are no longer interested in backing him up in case he defaults and the bank comes after you for the money?\"" }, { "docid": "186127", "title": "", "text": "A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market. A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k. The loan has two components. a. The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b. The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top). The originating bank lends $180k of their own money. Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it. The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less. The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient. Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around. One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1. One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for." }, { "docid": "521233", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all \"\"depositor\"\" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms \"\"risky\"\". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their \"\"investment banking\"\" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on \"\"risky\"\" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money. So, the upshot of all this is that the bank simply won't give you more on your money than it is allowed to make on it. In addition, there are several tools that the Fed has to regulate economic activity, and three big ones play a part. First is the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\"; this is the interest rate that the Fed charges on loans made to other banks (which is a primary source of day-to-day liquidity for these banks). Money paid as interest to the Fed is effectively removed from the economy and is a way to reduce the money supply. Right now the FFR is .25% (that's one quarter of one percent) which is effectively zero; borrow a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) from the Fed for one month and you'll pay them a scant $208,333. Banks lend to other banks at a rate based on the FFR, called the Interbank Rate (usually adding some fraction of a percent so the lending bank makes money on the loan). This means that the banks can get money from the Fed and from other banks very cheaply, which means they don't have to offer high interest rates on savings to entice individual depositors to save their money with the bank. Second is \"\"quantitative easing\"\", which just means the Fed buys government bonds and pays for them with \"\"new\"\" money. This happens all the time; remember those interest charges on bank loans? To keep the money supply stable, the Fed must buy T-debt at least in the amount of the interest being charged, otherwise the money leaves the economy and is not available to circulate. The Fed usually buys a little more than it collects in order to gradually increase the money supply, which allows the economy to grow while controlling inflation (having \"\"too much money\"\" and so making money worth less than what it can buy). What's new is that the Fed is increasing the money supply by a very large amount, by buying bonds far in excess of the (low) rates it's charging, and at fixed prices determined by the yield the Fed wants to induce in the markets. In the first place, with the Fed buying so many, there are fewer for institutions and other investors to buy. This increases the demand, driving down yields as investors besides the Fed are willing to pay a similar price, and remember that T-debt is one of the main things banks are allowed to invest your deposits in. Inflation isn't a concern right now despite the large amount of new money being injected, because the current economy is so lackluster right now that the new cash is just being sat upon by corporations and being used by consumers to pay down debt, instead of what the Fed and Government want us to do (hire, update equipment, buy houses and American cars, etc). In addition, the \"\"spot market price\"\" for a T-bond, or any investment security, is generally what the last guy paid. By buying Treasury debt gradually at a fixed price, the Fed can smooth out \"\"jitters\"\" in the spot price that speculators may try to induce by making low \"\"buy offers\"\" on T-debt to increase yields. Lastly, the Fed can tell banks that they must keep a certain amount of their deposits in \"\"reserve\"\", basically by keeping them in a combination of cash in the vault, and in accounts with the Fed itself. This has a dual purpose; higher reserve rates allow a bank to weather a \"\"run\"\" (more people than usual wanting their money) and thus reduces risk of failure. An increased reserves amount also reduces the amount of money circulating in the economy, because obviously if the banks have to keep a percentage of assets in cash, they can't invest that cash. Banks are currently required to keep 10% of \"\"deposited assets\"\" (the sum of all checking and savings accounts, but not CDs) in cash. This compounds the other problems with banks' investing; not only are they not getting a great return on your savings, they can only use 90% of your savings to get it.\"" }, { "docid": "577201", "title": "", "text": "As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend." }, { "docid": "143728", "title": "", "text": "\"Not unless you have something else to put up as collateral. The bank wants a basic assurance that you're not going to immediately move the money to the Caymans and disappear. 999 times out of 1000, the collateral for a home mortgage is the home itself (which you wouldn't be able to take with you if you decided to disappear), so signing up for a 30 year mortgage on a nonexistent house is probably going to get you laughed out of the bank. It's sometimes possible to negotiate something else as collateral; you may, for instance, have a portfolio of securities worth the loan principal, that you can put in escrow for the term of the loan (the securities will stay in your name and make you money, but if you default on the loan the bank goes to the escrow company and takes the portfolio for their own). The bank will consider the risk of value loss on the securities in the portfolio, and may ask for a higher collateral value or only allow a lower loan amount. In all cases, it's usually a bad idea to go into long-term personal debt just to get \"\"cheap money\"\" that you can use to beat the interest rate with some business plan or investment. If you have a business plan, take that to the bank with an LLC and ask for a business loan. The business itself, if the plan is sound, should become valuable, and the terms of business loans take that into account, allowing for a \"\"shrinking collateral\"\" transferring the initial personal risk of the loan to the business.\"" }, { "docid": "239611", "title": "", "text": "\"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you. Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No \"\"payday loans\"\" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with \"\"interest free credit\"\", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you. Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan.\"" }, { "docid": "57517", "title": "", "text": "Some places banks/Credit Unions will allow you to refinance a auto loan. My credit Union only does this if the original loan was with another lender. They will send the money to the old lender, then give you a loan under the new terms. They are trying to get your business, not necessarily looking for a way make less money for themselves. You will have to see how much you will save. Which will be based on the delta of the length of the loan or the change in interest rate, or both. My Credit Union has a calculator to show you the numbers based on keeping the size of the payments the same, or keeping the number of payments the same. Make sure you understand any limitations regarding the refinance based on the age of the car, and if you are underwater." }, { "docid": "285033", "title": "", "text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\"" }, { "docid": "112195", "title": "", "text": "\"Repurchase agreements are a way of financing a security position. You have a collateralized loan where you give your security in exchange for cash. Let's say you have a 10 year Treasury note paying 3.5% while the 1-week repurchase rate is 0.5%. You loan the security to someone with a promise to repurchase it from them some time in the future. You collect the 3.5% coupon and you pay the 0.5% interest. Clearly it makes no sense for someone to collect interest on money and also collect coupon payments. And for the counter-party it makes no sense to be not getting coupon payments and also to be paying interest. This how one website explains the process: During the transaction, any coupon payments that come due belong to the legal owner, the \"\"borrower.\"\" However, when this happens, a cash amount equal to the coupon is paid to the original owner, this is called \"\"manufactured payment.\"\" In order to avoid the tax payment on the coupon, some institutions will repo the security to a tax exempt entity and receive the manufactured payment and avoid the tax (\"\"coupon washing\"\") I find this unequivocal description to be the clearest During the life of the transaction the market risk and the credit risk of the collateral remain with the seller. (Because he has agreed to repurchase the asset for an agreed sum of money at maturity). Provided the trade is correctly documented if the collateral has a coupon payment during the life of the repo the buyer is obliged to pay this to the seller.\"" }, { "docid": "64456", "title": "", "text": "1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money." }, { "docid": "330229", "title": "", "text": "\"I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment. I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation. When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you. But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank. The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front. The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a \"\"95% Loan-to-Value ratio\"\" is 2.75%. Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling. Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP? There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy. I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada. Read here, here, and here.\"" }, { "docid": "517299", "title": "", "text": "You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance." }, { "docid": "336847", "title": "", "text": "our mortgage has been sold to a secondary market player. There are multiple ways in which the deal is struck. At times the risk of default is with Original FI [with recourse], at times it is with secondary FI [without recourse]. The rate can be discounted. So the Original FI collects the EMI as per 3.75 and pays to the secondary FI at 3.25. Or it can also be one time fixed amount. How could this possibly be financially beneficial for the original loan holder? As indicated, there are multiple ways the Original FI makes money, either one time or over the period, depending on how the deal is struck. Are they truly making enough money from the mortgage fees and first payment's interest to to warrant their need to clear up their credit line for new mortgages? Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No broadly speaking the mortgage fees cover the cost for initiating the loan. There may be a very small amount banks may make. This is incidental. The actual money is made in the interest that is collected every month. If a Bank as say 5 loans for 100K each. It is very reputed brand and 10 people need 100K loans. Then it makes sense for the First FI to give loan to 5 people for 100K each, and sell this at profit to secondary FI. Take the 100K * 5 and give it off to new 5 people. Effectively making more money on the original 500K the bank had." }, { "docid": "37189", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question points out how most fractional reserve banks are only a couple of defaults away from insolvency. The problem arises because of the terms around the depositors' money. When a customer deposits money into a bank they are loaning their money to the bank (and the bank takes ownership of the money). Deposit and savings account are considered \"\"on-demand\"\" accounts where the customer is told they can retrieve their money at any time. This is a strange type of loan, is it not? No other loan works this way. There are always terms around loans - how often the borrower will make payments, when will the borrower pay back the loan, what is the total time frame of the loan, etc.. The bank runs into problems because the time frame on the money they borrowed (i.e. deposits) does not match the time frame on the money they are lending.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "581889", "title": "", "text": "First thing to do when you notice a credit card fraud is to call the respective banks who issues the credit card and most banks immediately (as far as my experience goes - twice) they will cancel the credit card and issue a new card with different number. Your credit card account will remain the same, no effect on credit score as the account is still active, its just the credit card number is changed. If you are more concerned about Identity Theft, there are two further options you can pursue. Place a Fraud Alert : Ask 1 of the 3 credit reporting companies to put a fraud alert on your credit report. They must tell the other 2 companies. An initial fraud alert can make it harder for an identity thief to open more accounts in your name. The alert lasts 90 days but you can renew it. - as per Federal Trade Commission Credit Freeze : If you’re concerned about identity theft, those reported mega-data breaches, or someone gaining access to your credit report without your permission, you might consider placing a credit freeze on your report. - as per Federal Trade Commission" } ]

[ { "docid": "452121", "title": "", "text": "One rule of thumb is that having regular activity on at least three different revolving accounts will improve your score: I agree that it may not be a great idea to have too many open credit accounts (Trade Lines) reporting on your credit report but if you don’t have enough active accounts, it will prevent you from being approved for a home mortgage. Both Conventional (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) mortgage loans and Government loans (such as FHA and VA) require that you have a minimum number of reporting trade lines that are active or have been active within the most recent 24 month period of time. An example of meeting the mortgage loan requirement is having a revolving account (credit card) that has been reporting activity for the past 24 months plus 2 other trade lines that have had activity reported for 12 months each, both within the past 24 months." }, { "docid": "156259", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; The laws just mean you can't make your decision on the basis of religion. Make your decision because they don't interview well, they can't do the job, they have poor qualifications, etc. Which means people are being forced to lie and make up excuses to hide the real reason they don't want to hire someone. &gt; Substitute, say, \"\"black people\"\" for the reference to religious expression and you see where this is a problem. Paraphrased, you've got: \"\"Why should I be forced to hire black people who I fundamentally oppose (and do not wish to support, however indirectly via a paycheck), why is their right to be black more valid than my right to not like black people?\"\" There is a MORAL problem with this insfar as I object to bigotry. There should not, however, be a LEGAL problem with it. If the local bigot business owner does not wish to serve blacks, they shouldn't be forced to do it - it is THEIR business. They took the risk, they pay the bills, and they should be free to hire, fire, and serve whomever they wish as long as they to not use fraud, force, or threat to do so. if you think otherwise, then you're asking goverment to be in the morality business and this does not end well. it is EXACTLY because of this that we see the right trying to enforce morality codes when they are in power, the left trying to enforce some version of fairness codes when they are in power. I want one code: a code liberty that applies to everyone equally. Yes, that means there will be bigots that do not serve blacks or gays. But it also means that I can start a business, hire whom I wish, serve whom I wish, and thereby create community-specific value.\"" }, { "docid": "197093", "title": "", "text": "\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"" }, { "docid": "16068", "title": "", "text": "I have not opened any NRE/NRO account before coming to Finland. This is in violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Please get this regularized ASAP. All your savings account need to be converted to NRO. Shall I transfer funds from abroad to both NRE and NRO account or I can transfer only to NRE account in India? You can transfer to NRE or NRO. It is advisable to transfer into NRE as funds from here can be repatriated out of India without any paperwork. Funds from NRO account need paperwork to move out of India. I am a regular tax payer in abroad. The Funds which i'll transfer in future will attract any additional tax in India? As your status is Non Resident and the income is during that period, there is no tax applicable in India on this. Few Mutual Fund SIPs (monthly basis) are linked with my existing saving account in india. Do these SIPs will stop when the savings account will turn into NRO account? Shall I need to submit any documents for KYC compliance? If yes, to whom I should submit these? is there any possibility to submit it Online? Check your Bank / Mutual Fund company. Couple of FDs are also opened online and linked with this existing saving account. Do the maturity amount(s) subject to TDS or any tax implication such as 30.9% as this account will be turned into NRO account till that time and NRO account attracts this higher tax percentage. These are subject to taxes in India. This will be as per standard tax brackets. Which account (NRE/NRO) is better for paying EMIs for Home Loan, SIPs of Mutual Funds, utility bills in India, transfer money to relative's account etc Home Loan would be better from NRE account as if you sell the house, the EMI paid can be credited into NRE account and you can transfer this out of India without much paperwork. Same for SIP's. For other it doesn't really matter as it is an expense. Is there any charge to transfer fund from NRE to NRO account if both account maintain in same Bank same branch. Generally No. Check with your bank. Which Bank account's (NRE/NRO) debit/ATM card should be used in Abroad in case of emergency. Check with your bank. NRE funds are more easy. NRO there will be limits and reporting. Do my other savings accounts, maintained in different Banks, also need to be converted into NRO account? If yes, how can it be done from Abroad? Yes. ASAP. Quite a few leading banks allow you to do this if you are not present. Check you bank for guidance." }, { "docid": "64246", "title": "", "text": "Is it difficult to ask the credit card issuer for two cards, even if the account belongs to one person? You can most definitely get two cards for one account. People do it all the time. You just have to add her on as an authorized user. Would it be better for me to apply for the card on my own, or would there be an advantage to having her co-sign? It depends. If she co-signed, then that means she is also responsible for the credit card payments - which can help her credit score. If its is just you applying, then you are the only one responsible. If you don't want her lower credit score to impact what you could be approved for, then only you should apply. However, if you are the sole account holder, then you are responsible for the payments, which means, if in the event you guys break up and she maxes out the card before you cancel it, then you are on the hook for what she spend. As for improving her credit score, I do know that some banks report to the credit bureaus for the authorized user as well, so that could help her out too." }, { "docid": "24138", "title": "", "text": "You're going to have a huge problem getting approved for anything as long as you have an unpaid bill on your report. Pay it and make sure its reported as paid in full - ASAP. Once that settled, your credit will start to improve slowly. Can't do anything about that, it will take time. You can make the situation improve a bit faster by lending money to yourself and having it reported regularly on your report. How? Easy. Get a secured credit card. What does it mean? You put X amount of money in a CD and the bank will issue you a credit card secured by that CD. Your credit line will be based on the amount in that CD, and you'll probably pay some fees to the bank for the service (~$20-50/year, shop around). You might get lucky and find a secured card without fees, if you look hard enough. Secured cards are reported as revolving credit (just as any other credit card) and are easy to get because the bank doesn't take the risk - you do. If you default on your payments - your CD goes to cover the debt, and the card gets cancelled. But make absolutely sure that you do not default. Charge between 10% and 30% of the credit limit each month, not more. Pay the balance shown on your credit card statement in full every month and by the due date shown on your monthly statement. It will take a while, but you would typically start noticing the improvement within ~6-12 months. Stop applying for stuff. Not store cards, not car loans, you're not going to get anything, and will just keep dragging your scores down. Each time you have a pull on your report, the score goes down. A lot of pulls, frequent pulls - the score goes down a lot. Lenders can see when one is desperate, and no-one wants to lend money to desperate people. Optimally lenders want to lend money to people who doesn't need loans, but in order to keep the business running they'll settle for slightly less - people who don't usually need loans, and pay the loans they do have on time. You fail on both, as you're desperate for a loan and you have unpaid bills on your report." }, { "docid": "336468", "title": "", "text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\"" }, { "docid": "323310", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. About that you are correct, however during any sort of forensic investigation they are going to ask to see a signature receipt if one is available. &gt; For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. No that isn't true. Retailers are required by many card processing vendors to send in a signed receipt. This is changing, because employees are lazy, and retailers don't care about their customers at all so they don't bother enforcing any standards on their minimum wage register jockeys. However many of them are still required to send signed receipts in. When I was younger I worked at a store that would not get paid by the bank if it did not send in a signed receipt for every transaction. Go on, try walking away without signing your credit card receipt at stores where they present it for signature, and see what happens. &gt; I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. You and everyone else. Big deal. Different credit card processors have different requirements for their customers (merchants). &gt; The credit card companies don't really care. I think the real lesson here is **nobody cares**. Not the banks, not the credit card companies, and not the merchants. The only thing any of them give a fuck about is keeping the money flowing, especially into their own wallets, and if that means customers get ripped off sometimes because of inadequate protections, so what. My only point is, if I have one at all, **merchants _should_ care** about protecting the customer, and **customers _should_ care** about what protections are in place to prevent fraud. **PIN numbers are fine** as an authentication method, **but they should be completely shielded from view** by people standing in line or cameras overhead." }, { "docid": "177946", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the \"\"right\"\" way to approach this is for your personal books and your business's books to be completely separate. You would need to really think of them as separate things, such that rather than being disappointed that there's no \"\"cross transactions\"\" between files, you think of it as \"\"In my personal account I invested in a new business like any other investment\"\" with a transfer from your personal account to a Stock or other investment account in your company, and \"\"This business received some additional capital\"\" which one handles with a transfer (probably from Equity) to its checking account or the like. Yes, you don't get the built-in checks that you entered the same dollar amount in each, but (1) you need to reconcile your books against reality anyway occasionally, so errors should get caught, and (2) the transactions really are separate things from each entity's perspective. The main way to \"\"hack it\"\" would be to have separate top-level placeholder accounts for the business's Equity, Income, Expenses, and Assets/Liabilities. That is, your top-level accounts would be \"\"Personal Equity\"\", \"\"Business Equity\"\", \"\"Personal Income\"\", \"\"Business Income\"\", and so on. You can combine Assets and Liabilities within a single top-level account if you want, which may help you with that \"\"outlook of my business value\"\" you're looking for. (In fact, in my personal books, I have in the \"\"Current Assets\"\" account both normal things like my Checking account, but also my credit cards, because once I spend the money on my credit card I want to think of the money as being gone, since it is. Obviously this isn't \"\"standard accounting\"\" in any way, but it works well for what I use it for.) You could also just have within each \"\"normal\"\" top-level placeholder account, a placeholder account for both \"\"Personal\"\" and \"\"My Business\"\", to at least have a consistent structure. Depending on how your business is getting taxed in your jurisdiction, this may even be closer to how your taxing authorities treat things (if, for instance, the business income all goes on your personal tax return, but on a separate form). Regardless of how you set up the accounts, you can then create reports and filter them to include just that set of business accounts. I can see how just looking at the account list and transaction registers can be useful for many things, but the reporting does let you look at everything you need and handles much better when you want to look through a filter to just part of your financial picture. Once you set up the reporting (and you can report on lists of account balances, as well as transaction lists, and lots of other things), you can save them as Custom Reports, and then open them up whenever you want. You can even just leave a report tab (or several) open, and switch to it (refreshing it if needed) just like you might switch to the main Account List tab. I suspect once you got it set up and tried it for a while you'd find it quite satisfactory.\"" }, { "docid": "348313", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't say you should have any particular limit, but it can't hurt to have a higher limit. I'd always accept the increase when offered, and feel free to request it sometimes, just make sure you find out if it will be a hard or soft inquiry, and pass on the hard inquires. From my own experience, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the increases. I believe each bank acts differently based on the customer's credit, income, and even the bank's personal quotas or goals for that period. Here is some anecdotal evidence of this: I got my first credit card when I was 18 years old and a freshman in college. It had a limit of $500 at the time. I never asked for a credit line increase, but always accepted when offered one, and sometimes they didn't even ask, and in the last 20 years it worked it's way up to $25K. Another card with the same bank went from $5K to $15K in about 10 years. About 6 years ago I added two cards, one with a $5K limit and one with a $3K limit. I didn't ask for increases on those either, and today the 5K is up to $22K, and the 3K is still at $3K. An even larger disparity exists on the business side. Years ago I had two business credit cards with different banks. At one point in time both were maxed out for about 6 months and only minimums were being paid. Bank 1 started lowering my credit limit as I started to pay off the card, eventually prompting me to cancel the card when it was paid in full. At the same time Bank 2 kept raising my limit to give me more breathing room in case I needed it. Obviously Bank 1 didn't want my business, and Bank 2 did. Less than a year later both cards were paid off in full, and you can guess which bank I chose to do all of my business with after that." }, { "docid": "293363", "title": "", "text": "\"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However, when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used, this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported \"\"heavy use\"\" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores. However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two. Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future. Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt.\"" }, { "docid": "170481", "title": "", "text": "Good credit is calculated (by many lenders) by taking your FICO score which is calculated based upon what is in your credit report. Building credit generally means building up your FICO score. Your FICO score is impacted my many factors, one small one of which is your utilization ratio of your installment loans like student loans. This is the ratio of the current balance to your original balance. To improve your score (slightly) you would want a lower ratio. I would recommend paying your student loan down to 75% ratio as fast as you can and then you can go back to $50/month. A much better way to improve your FICO score is to have revolving credit. Your student loans are not revolving, they are installment loans. Therefore, you should open at least one credit card (assuming you currently have none) right away. The longer you have had a credit card open, the better your FICO score gets. Your revolving credit utilization ratio is way more important than your installment loan ratio. Therefore, to maximize your FICO, try to never have more than 10% utilization on your revolving credit report to the credit bureaus each month. Only the current month's ratio affects your score at any given moment. You can ensure you don't go above 10% by paying your balance before the statement cuts each month to get it below 10% way before any payment would be due. (You should always pay your remaining credit card statement balance in full each month by the due date after the statement cuts to avoid any interest charges.) Note that there is a slight FICO advantage to having at least one major bank credit card instead of just only credit union credit cards. Also, never let all your revolving credit report a zero balance in a month, you must always have at least $1 reporting to the credit bureaus on at least one of your open credit cards or your FICO score will take a big negative hit. If you cannot get a normal credit card, go to a credit union and find one that offers secured credit cards, or a bank that does. A secured credit card is where you place a deposit with the bank that they hold and give you a credit limit to match your security. Ideally it would be a card that graduates to unsecured after your demonstrate good history with them. For example, the Navy Federal Credit Union secured card unsecures for many people. I also believe the Wells Fargo Bank credit card (you can join if there is a family member who served or a roomate who did) also will unsecure. The reason you want it to unsecure and not be forced to open a new account to get an unsecured account is that you want your average age and oldest age of open revolving credit accounts to be as high as possible as this is another impact on your FICO score. Credit unions that anyone can join include, Digital Federal Credit Union, the Pentagon Federal Credit Union (which offers a secured card that does not graduate), and The State Department Federal Credit Union (also offers secured card that I think does not graduate). One other method to boost your FICO score is to get added as an authorized user on one of your parent's credit cards that has been open a long time. Not all lenders will report such an authorized user, however, ones that are known to do so are: Bank of America, Citi Bank, and Capital One. It is a good sign that it will report if they ask for the social security number of the authorized user. However, note that the Authorized User addition can have no impact if the lender is using one of the newer versions of the FICO scoring model, only the older versions reward you for the age of accounts for which you are an authorized user. A very long term boost is to open your first American Express card underwritten directly by Amex such as their Zync card which is pretty easy to get. The advantage of American express is that they remember the date your first credit card was opened with them and if you open new accounts in the future they will back date the date of their opening to match the date your first card was opened. If you let your membership lapse, be sure to record the account number and date opened in your personal files so that you can help them locate it again if you reopen as they can have trouble if it has been on the order of ten years or more. Finally, note that the number of accounts opened in the last twelve months is a small negative mark on your score (along with number of inquiries), so if you open a lot of accounts all at once, in addition to bringing down your average age of accounts, you will also get dinged for how many were opened in the last year." }, { "docid": "353980", "title": "", "text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\"" }, { "docid": "169980", "title": "", "text": "Canadians can email or text each other money through Interac. It is fast - the longest it's ever taken for me is 20 minutes, often it's less - and secure. You don't need to know each other's banking details or even real names. I've used this to send money to my children, each of whom uses a different bank than I do, and they've used it to send money to friends to pay for concert tickets and the like. You add a security question so if someone else got to the email or text first, they wouldn't get the money. I also get an email once the transfer has gone through, so I know they got it. Some banks limit this to $1000 a day, mine to $3000. Typically there is no fee for the recipient and $1 or $2 for the sender. A dollar on $1000 is way better than a 2 or 3% cc processing fee. But even for $30, a dollar is like 3% and you didn't need to apply for anything or set anything up, and your customers don't need a credit card or to trust you with their credit card details. I keep meeting people who don't know about this. Everyone with a Canadian bank account and an email address or smartphone should know about it." }, { "docid": "412542", "title": "", "text": "As per Chad's request, I recommend that you keep at least one card in each name as primary card holder, with the spouse being the secondary card holder, most easily done by each adding the spouse as the secondary holder to his/her own card. Since credit reporting is usually in the name of the primary credit card holder, this allows both to continue to have credit history, important when the marriage ends (in death or divorce as the case may be). When you travel, each should carry only the cards on which he/she is the primary card holder; not all cards. This helps in case of a wallet or purse being stolen; you have to report only one set of cards as lost and request their replacement, and you have a set of cards that you can use in the mean time (as long as you are not in different places when the loss occurs)." }, { "docid": "5191", "title": "", "text": "Credit card fraud protection (by law), credit card cash back programs (provided by most CC issuers), and debit card fees (commonly imposed by the merchant). The crux is that with CC transactions, a small percentage is remitted to the issuing bank. Since the banks are already making money hand over fist on CC's, they incentivize people to use them. CC security is also lax because the merchant is responsible for fraudulent charges instead of the bank. If the merchant fails to check a signature, they are held liable for all charges if the card holder reports a fraudulent transaction." }, { "docid": "467195", "title": "", "text": "\"You say Also I have been the only one with an income in our household for last 15 years, so for most of our marriage any debts have been in my name. She has a credit card (opened in 1999) that she has not used for years and she is also a secondary card holder on an American Express card and a MasterCard that are both in my name (she has not used the cards as we try to keep them only for emergencies). This would seem to indicate that the dealer is correct. Your wife has no credit history. You say that you paid off her student loans some years back. If \"\"some years\"\" was more than seven, then they have dropped off her credit report. If that's the most recent credit activity, then she effectively has none. Even if you get past that, note that she also doesn't have any income, which makes her a lousy co-signer. There's no real circumstance where you couldn't pay for the car but she could based on the historical data. She would have to get a job first. Since they had no information on her whatsoever, they probably didn't even get to that.\"" }, { "docid": "317461", "title": "", "text": "I have the mortgage from Lender A. Can I get a HELOC from Lender B? Yes. Do banks pull my credit to approve a HELOC account? Yes. How is it reported to the credit bureaus and how does it affect my credit (Let's say my limit is $30k and I use all of $30k)? It is reported as HELOC and the current balance. Similar to credit cards (in fact, some banks report it exactly as credit cards). Anything unique about it's tax deduction? Same as mortgage, except that the limit is $100K unless used for home improvement. Anything else to watch out for? LTV - Loan to Value. This is the ratio of your overall home value to the indebtedness secured by the home. Currently, your LTV is 93% (you have 7% equity). For HELOC, most banks require the LTV, including the HELOC, not to exceed 75%. So the chances you'll get a HELOC are pretty slim." }, { "docid": "326094", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "315875", "title": "", "text": "You need to run a virus scan on your computers to make sure you do not have a key-logger program running on either. I would also think about designating one old computer to only access your bank accounts and not do anything but that. If your computer is infected then every time you login your credit cards can be compromised." } ]

[ { "docid": "125204", "title": "", "text": "I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)" }, { "docid": "326094", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\"" }, { "docid": "456771", "title": "", "text": "Just to put in one more possibility: my credit card can have a positive balance, in which case I earn interest. If more money is due, it will automatically take that from the connected checking account. If that goes into negative, of course I have to pay interest. I chose (argued with the bank in order to get) only a small credit allowance. However, I'll be able to access credit allowance + positive balance. That allows me within a day or so to make larger amounts accessible, while the possible immediate damage by credit card fraud is limited at other times. Actually, the credit card pays more interest than the checkign account. Nevertheless, I don't keep high balance there because the risk of fraud is much higher for the credit card." }, { "docid": "388685", "title": "", "text": "Some years ago a call center operator told me a bit more than they probably should have. They like to see a lot of money go through the card, but very little staying on the card. Yes, they make money on the interest but one card defaulting blows away the profit on a lot of other cards. The 3% take from the merchants is both reliable and up-front, not 6 months down the line when (and if) you pay the interest. So if you want to make your credit card company happy, pay your bills in full every month. I have credit far beyond my actual means because I run work expenses on my personal card, I was told they didn't care (and had already guessed) that it wasn't my money. The point was I was handling things in a way they liked. Not quite at Palladium status, but cards with $200 annual fees are mine for the asking, and I haven't paid interest since the early 1990's." }, { "docid": "153729", "title": "", "text": "\"One advantage of the chip cards is that the card information needed to make purchases can't be easily skimmed or \"\"stolen\"\". Another is that it is more difficult to create a fake physical card. These advantages still exist regardless of what form of verification is used (or even if no verification is used). The type of fraud you're describing, in which your card is physically lost or stolen, is a relatively small proportion of total fraud (14% according to this site). One reason this is not as big a problem is that often, if you lose your card or get robbed, you know the card is compromised and you can cancel it. (Even if it takes you a while to do this, at least you are on the alert.) The real danger comes when your card info is stolen without your knowledge, and this is harder to do with a chip card. It's also worth noting that there are more ways for a fraudster to get nabbed than being caught red-handed entering the wrong PIN at the point of sale. The credit card companies are still tracking card usage and watching for unusual purchases that might indicate fraud. Also, sometimes fraudsters do surprisingly dumb stuff, like use the card to buy something online and mail it to themselves. So it's not correct to say that there is \"\"zero risk of getting caught\"\". With both stripe and chip cards, you can catch the person by tracking them via their usage of the card. The biggest security risk with the new cards is that many vendors don't actually require use of the chip at all -- they still let you swipe. However, with changes to credit card liability policies, this is a risk for the vendors, not for you.\"" }, { "docid": "590234", "title": "", "text": "In how much trouble can I get exactly if the IRS finds out? I understand that there's a 6 year statute of limitations on criminal charges and no limitation at all on fraud. Is this considered fraud? I'm assuming not. There's no statute of limitations for fraud (which is a criminal charge). The statute of limitations is for failure to report income which is not fraud. In your case, since you willingly decided to not report it knowingly that you should, it can most definitely account for fraud, so I wouldn't count on statute of limitations in this case. I should amend my taxes for those years That would be the easiest way to go. would the IRS go all the way and file criminal charges considering the amount of money I owe They have the legal right to, and if you do get caught - likely they will. Easy money for them, since you obviously have income and can pay all the fines and penalties. Practically speaking, what's the worst case scenario? Theoretically - can be jail as well. Being charged in a criminal court, even if the eventual punishment is just a penalty, is a punishment of its own. You'll have troubles finding jobs, passing security checks, getting loans approved, etc. For $3200, when you're in 25% bracket as an individual for years, I'd say not worth it." }, { "docid": "483018", "title": "", "text": "Hits to your credit rating for canceling one of the newer cards will be a small hit for a few months. You do have some options. I also believe that a person with good credit should have multiple cards: I like having a cash back card for the majority of our transactions. Unfortunately that card isn't accepted everywhere, so I have two other cards with broad market coverage to make sure we always have an option if the vendor doesn't take the main card. Also having multiple cards makes sure that if there is an issue with one card you are never caught without a card. One time the main card was rejected by a gas station because my wife just used the same account to buy gas across town. When we got home their was a fraud alert message on our phone." }, { "docid": "170248", "title": "", "text": "\"If you were making that large of a payment (via a cashiers check or other withdrawal means from a cash account) to a credit card, would the payment generate a Cash Transaction Report? Probably, yes. If it does require the bank to make a CTR, then is there any harm in that or anything to be concerned about (like that transaction appearing suspicious, personal reporting implications, etc.)? Are there any other reasons why one might want to make sure payments to a credit card are broken up made* in amounts smaller than $10K? You should be concerned if you cannot explain the source of the money (legally...). If you withdrew cash from your own account and paid your credit card with it, in case of questions asked you can show the account statement with the matching withdrawal, and you're done. The point in this report is to point at people who move around large amounts of cash. Usually, people pay credit cards with checks or ACH transactions, but if you want cash - it's your right, as long as the cash was obtained legally. But if you're paying your credit cards off with the cash you got as a bribe or by selling cocaine on the streets, then you should be worried. By the way, breaking into smaller payments may not save you from being reported to the money laundering detection agencies. The report is per transaction, not per payment, so if the credit card statement is $11K and you pay $5K and $6K - the transaction is still $11K. Also, the bank can file a report even if it is not required (it was clarified in the other answer to the same question you're referring to), if the clerk thinks the transaction is suspicious. This leaves the decision on filing a report solely on the banks \"\"common sense\"\" and internal policies which you don't know. So even paying $10 in cash may trigger a report if the bank suspects wrongdoing.\"" }, { "docid": "156259", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; The laws just mean you can't make your decision on the basis of religion. Make your decision because they don't interview well, they can't do the job, they have poor qualifications, etc. Which means people are being forced to lie and make up excuses to hide the real reason they don't want to hire someone. &gt; Substitute, say, \"\"black people\"\" for the reference to religious expression and you see where this is a problem. Paraphrased, you've got: \"\"Why should I be forced to hire black people who I fundamentally oppose (and do not wish to support, however indirectly via a paycheck), why is their right to be black more valid than my right to not like black people?\"\" There is a MORAL problem with this insfar as I object to bigotry. There should not, however, be a LEGAL problem with it. If the local bigot business owner does not wish to serve blacks, they shouldn't be forced to do it - it is THEIR business. They took the risk, they pay the bills, and they should be free to hire, fire, and serve whomever they wish as long as they to not use fraud, force, or threat to do so. if you think otherwise, then you're asking goverment to be in the morality business and this does not end well. it is EXACTLY because of this that we see the right trying to enforce morality codes when they are in power, the left trying to enforce some version of fairness codes when they are in power. I want one code: a code liberty that applies to everyone equally. Yes, that means there will be bigots that do not serve blacks or gays. But it also means that I can start a business, hire whom I wish, serve whom I wish, and thereby create community-specific value.\"" }, { "docid": "270449", "title": "", "text": "Using a virtual credit card doesn't stop them from reporting it. Virtual credit cards are about avoiding fraud, not about avoiding responsibility for money you owe." }, { "docid": "64246", "title": "", "text": "Is it difficult to ask the credit card issuer for two cards, even if the account belongs to one person? You can most definitely get two cards for one account. People do it all the time. You just have to add her on as an authorized user. Would it be better for me to apply for the card on my own, or would there be an advantage to having her co-sign? It depends. If she co-signed, then that means she is also responsible for the credit card payments - which can help her credit score. If its is just you applying, then you are the only one responsible. If you don't want her lower credit score to impact what you could be approved for, then only you should apply. However, if you are the sole account holder, then you are responsible for the payments, which means, if in the event you guys break up and she maxes out the card before you cancel it, then you are on the hook for what she spend. As for improving her credit score, I do know that some banks report to the credit bureaus for the authorized user as well, so that could help her out too." }, { "docid": "24138", "title": "", "text": "You're going to have a huge problem getting approved for anything as long as you have an unpaid bill on your report. Pay it and make sure its reported as paid in full - ASAP. Once that settled, your credit will start to improve slowly. Can't do anything about that, it will take time. You can make the situation improve a bit faster by lending money to yourself and having it reported regularly on your report. How? Easy. Get a secured credit card. What does it mean? You put X amount of money in a CD and the bank will issue you a credit card secured by that CD. Your credit line will be based on the amount in that CD, and you'll probably pay some fees to the bank for the service (~$20-50/year, shop around). You might get lucky and find a secured card without fees, if you look hard enough. Secured cards are reported as revolving credit (just as any other credit card) and are easy to get because the bank doesn't take the risk - you do. If you default on your payments - your CD goes to cover the debt, and the card gets cancelled. But make absolutely sure that you do not default. Charge between 10% and 30% of the credit limit each month, not more. Pay the balance shown on your credit card statement in full every month and by the due date shown on your monthly statement. It will take a while, but you would typically start noticing the improvement within ~6-12 months. Stop applying for stuff. Not store cards, not car loans, you're not going to get anything, and will just keep dragging your scores down. Each time you have a pull on your report, the score goes down. A lot of pulls, frequent pulls - the score goes down a lot. Lenders can see when one is desperate, and no-one wants to lend money to desperate people. Optimally lenders want to lend money to people who doesn't need loans, but in order to keep the business running they'll settle for slightly less - people who don't usually need loans, and pay the loans they do have on time. You fail on both, as you're desperate for a loan and you have unpaid bills on your report." }, { "docid": "309909", "title": "", "text": "Are you allowed to have two personal current accounts with a debit card attached to each one? Yes, you may have as many current accounts you want, but you should ask why should I have more than one. It is cumbersome and time consuming to keep track of ongoing incoming credits and outgoing debits. Open to bank fraud too, if you aren't careful. If yes, can a sole trader in the UK use the second personal account for business transactions? Yes, but no payments to the business. At the end of the year you file you P11D, even if you have a business bank account. You would need to justify the expenses by keeping the bills and stuff. As it will be a personal account, you have to little more careful, not to mix personal and business expenses. If you are allowed to use a second personal account for business transactions, then why would someone choose to open a business bank account, where you have to pay? What are the benefits? First of all no company will pay into you personal account, for any transactions, they need to pay you. They will only pay to an account registered with the business, with whom they are dealing with. Benefits are you have your business expenses sorted out in one account and personal expenses in other. Pure business expenses comes out of the business account, rather than from your personal purse, keeps the accounts smooth. No need to sort out expenses at the end of each quarter or at the end of each month." }, { "docid": "131906", "title": "", "text": "\"I would actually disagree with MrChrister on this. You can afford yourself the car in this price range paid cash. I don't know how exactly you spend your income, but from my experience, in expensive California, saving $20K a year from $70K income with $800/mo rent is feasible. Having a loan on your credit report which is paid on time and in full will definitely help you rebuilding your credit. Your calculations re the costs of the loan are based on the assumption that you're going to keep the loan for the whole period. Don't do that. See #1 - you can repay this loan much quicker than the 3 years it should originally have been. 6 months of the loan which is then paid off will do marvels to your credit report and credit score. Yes, it is going to cost you some, but in your particular case I would argue that its worth it. You're an adult now, you need credit cards, you'll need a mortgage at some point, you need to rent a place to live - all these require a good credit report. Just waiting, as MrChrister suggests, will help, but much much slower. Having said that, a seller that \"\"cannot discuss the terms over the phone\"\" is most likely a dishonest person. Once you're there and in front of him it is harder for you to verify information, resist signing papers, and negotiating.\"" }, { "docid": "169980", "title": "", "text": "Canadians can email or text each other money through Interac. It is fast - the longest it's ever taken for me is 20 minutes, often it's less - and secure. You don't need to know each other's banking details or even real names. I've used this to send money to my children, each of whom uses a different bank than I do, and they've used it to send money to friends to pay for concert tickets and the like. You add a security question so if someone else got to the email or text first, they wouldn't get the money. I also get an email once the transfer has gone through, so I know they got it. Some banks limit this to $1000 a day, mine to $3000. Typically there is no fee for the recipient and $1 or $2 for the sender. A dollar on $1000 is way better than a 2 or 3% cc processing fee. But even for $30, a dollar is like 3% and you didn't need to apply for anything or set anything up, and your customers don't need a credit card or to trust you with their credit card details. I keep meeting people who don't know about this. Everyone with a Canadian bank account and an email address or smartphone should know about it." }, { "docid": "16068", "title": "", "text": "I have not opened any NRE/NRO account before coming to Finland. This is in violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Please get this regularized ASAP. All your savings account need to be converted to NRO. Shall I transfer funds from abroad to both NRE and NRO account or I can transfer only to NRE account in India? You can transfer to NRE or NRO. It is advisable to transfer into NRE as funds from here can be repatriated out of India without any paperwork. Funds from NRO account need paperwork to move out of India. I am a regular tax payer in abroad. The Funds which i'll transfer in future will attract any additional tax in India? As your status is Non Resident and the income is during that period, there is no tax applicable in India on this. Few Mutual Fund SIPs (monthly basis) are linked with my existing saving account in india. Do these SIPs will stop when the savings account will turn into NRO account? Shall I need to submit any documents for KYC compliance? If yes, to whom I should submit these? is there any possibility to submit it Online? Check your Bank / Mutual Fund company. Couple of FDs are also opened online and linked with this existing saving account. Do the maturity amount(s) subject to TDS or any tax implication such as 30.9% as this account will be turned into NRO account till that time and NRO account attracts this higher tax percentage. These are subject to taxes in India. This will be as per standard tax brackets. Which account (NRE/NRO) is better for paying EMIs for Home Loan, SIPs of Mutual Funds, utility bills in India, transfer money to relative's account etc Home Loan would be better from NRE account as if you sell the house, the EMI paid can be credited into NRE account and you can transfer this out of India without much paperwork. Same for SIP's. For other it doesn't really matter as it is an expense. Is there any charge to transfer fund from NRE to NRO account if both account maintain in same Bank same branch. Generally No. Check with your bank. Which Bank account's (NRE/NRO) debit/ATM card should be used in Abroad in case of emergency. Check with your bank. NRE funds are more easy. NRO there will be limits and reporting. Do my other savings accounts, maintained in different Banks, also need to be converted into NRO account? If yes, how can it be done from Abroad? Yes. ASAP. Quite a few leading banks allow you to do this if you are not present. Check you bank for guidance." }, { "docid": "336922", "title": "", "text": "Is it possible to pay off my balance more than once in a payment period in order to increase the amount I can spend in a payment period? Yes, but you should only do that if you expect an expense that is larger than your limit allows. Then, provide an extra payment before your expense occurs since it will take longer for the issuer to apply it to the outstanding balance. For instance, when going on holiday you could deposit additional money to increase your balance temporarily. That said if your goal is to improve your credit score I would recommend using the card, staying within your limit and pay it off every month. The 2 largest factors going into calculating your credit score are: By paying off the balance each month you After 6-9 months you can probably get a bigger limit, to improve your score. I wouldn't change to a different card or get a second one, as some issuers will run a check on your creditscore that lowers it temporarily. Also: you're entitled to a free credit report each year. I'd recommend asking for one every year so you can keep track on how your credit score improves. It also gives you the opportunity to check for mistakes on your report. Check here for more information: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx" }, { "docid": "197093", "title": "", "text": "\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"" }, { "docid": "571567", "title": "", "text": "I think that a prepaid card would have more risk for loss than a traditional credit card. I've had a various credit cards for about the last 20 years. In all that time, I haven't lost a penny due to fraud. Of course, I've had some fraudulent charges show up, I've had merchants charge too much, and I've had my card number stolen. In every case, my bank has been able to undo any damage and issue me a new card number, if necessary. I really don't spend any time worrying about credit card security, other than checking my statement each month. Security is the bank's problem, not mine. Prepaid cards are often anonymous. If you are using an anonymous card, how can the bank verify that you are the owner of the card and that you did not make a certain charge? I think, with this type of card, you are very much at risk for losing whatever you have loaded on the card to fraudulent charges." } ]

[ { "docid": "482343", "title": "", "text": "\"The rate for \"\"checks and transfers\"\" is set by each bank multiple times during the day based on the market. It is as opposed to the rate for \"\"cash/banknotes\"\", also set by each bank, and the \"\"representative rate\"\" (שער היציג) set by the Bank of Israel. These rates can be found on the websites of most banks. Here is Bank Hapoalim and Bank Leumi. The question is which bank's rate will be used. It might be the bank that issued your card, El Al's bank, or the credit card company (ie Poalim for Isracard or Leumi for CAL). You will need to call El Al to verify, but since these are market rates, they shouldn't be too different.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "333041", "title": "", "text": "An addition to the other answers more than a real answer I suspect. Note that fees are not the only way that you pay for foreign exchange; where no foreign exchange fee is charged the issuer makes it back by giving an appalling spread on the rate. Be very careful not to go for a card that has no fees but an exorbitant spread. I personally would open a CAD denominated account in Canada and convert a larger amount into that account when CAD is historically weak. The spreads will be better that way but don't attempt to use it to mitigate exchange rate risk or to trade the two currencies for profit as that way madness and penury lie." }, { "docid": "158515", "title": "", "text": "Lets look at possible use cases: If you ever converted your cryptocurrency to cash on a foreign exchange, then **YES** you had to report. That means if you ever daytraded and the US dollar (or other fiat) amount was $10,000 or greater when you went out of crypto, then you need to report. Because the regulations stipulate you need to report over $10,000 at any point in the year. If you DID NOT convert your cryptocurrency to cash, and only had them on an exchange's servers, perhaps traded for other cryptocurrency pairs, then NO this did not fall under the regulations. Example, In 2013 I wanted to cash out of a cryptocurrency that didn't have a USD market in the United States, but I didn't want to go to cash on a foreign exchange specifically for this reason (amongst others). So I sold my Litecoin on BTC-E (Slovakia) for Bitcoin, and then I sold the Bitcoin on Coinbase (USA). (even though BTC-E had a Litecoin/USD market, and then I could day trade the swings easily to make more capital gains, but I wanted cash in my bank account AND didn't want the reporting overhead). Read the regulations yourself. Financial instruments that are reportable: Cash (fiat), securities, futures and options. Also, http://www.bna.com/irs-no-bitcoin-n17179891056/ whether it is just in the blockchain or on a server, IRS and FINCEN said bitcoin is not reportable on FBAR. When they update their guidance, it'll be in the news. The director of FinCEN is very active in cryptocurrency developments and guidance. Bitcoin has been around for six years, it isn't that esoteric and the government isn't that confused on what it is (IRS and FinCEN's hands are tied by Congress in how to more realistically categorize cryptocurrency) Although at this point in time, there are several very liquid exchanges within the United States, such as the one NYSE/ICE hosts (Coinbase)." }, { "docid": "14781", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\"" }, { "docid": "465106", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you still need to pay income tax on your capital gain regardless of whether you converted your USD proceeds back into CAD. When you calculate your gains for tax purposes, you'll need to convert all of your gains to Canadian dollars. Generally speaking, CRA will expect you to use a historical USD to CAD exchange rate published by the Bank of Canada. At that page, notice the remark at right: Are the Exchange Rates Shown Here Accepted by Canada Revenue Agency? Yes. The Agency accepts Bank of Canada exchange rates as the basis for calculations involving income and expenses that are denominated in foreign currencies." }, { "docid": "94315", "title": "", "text": "La empresa ofrece los mejores alojamientos en Cuba. Si quieres hacer paquetes turísticos en Cuba, entonces puedes venir a nuestro sitio web de la compañía. Son diferentes tipos de instalaciones para alquileres de vacaciones. Tenemos una amplia gama de apartamentos, hostales, casas privadas, económicos y lujos distribuidos en las casas de campo. La empresa ofrece la mejor oferta de vacaciones, Cuba es país agradecido por disfrutar de las vacaciones. Tal como la variedad permite al visitante tener Hospedaje en Cuba, ubicados en zonas rurales, ideales para el disfrute del ecoturismo, Alquileres de vacaciones en ciudades con estilo colonial donde el tiempo parece haber dejado de permitir revivir tiempos antiguos. Hasta alojamiento en ciudades o ubicación de playas para el disfrute de nuestro eterno verano." }, { "docid": "493198", "title": "", "text": "You havent indicated the duration of your visit. The best way to do this is carry GBP. Exchange this into local currencies in the Thailand/Indonesia. Do not convert at Airport as the rates are bad. Go around shopping for rates. Most of the malls have tons of delears, bargain hard to get a good price. For hotel stay, most of the hotels in Thailand/Indonesia charge you a USD rate for room. You can check with them, if so its better to get a Pre-paid USD card or even if you swipe your regular card, you would get a decent rate for USD-GBP. The other option to make hotel payments is using Travellers cheques." }, { "docid": "499436", "title": "", "text": "\"If you invest in a foreign bank you are subject to their financial rules and regulations. If you put your money with their CD it will be converted to UAH (grivna) and you will be paid back in UAH, which introduces the exchange rate risk. FDIC is not the only reason why a CD in a US bank pays a lower interest, but it could be seen as a contributing factor. It all comes down to risk and what the bank is willing to pay for your money, when a bank issues a CD they are entering the debt market and competing against other banks, governments, or anyone looking for money. If the yield from lending to one bank is the same as the yield of another, the logical choice would be whichever loan is less risky. So in order for the riskier bank to receive loans they must entice investors by offering a greater rate of return. In addition, if a bank isn't looking for loans they might be less inclined to pay for them. - See \"\"What is the “Bernanke Twist” and “Operation Twist”? What exactly does it do?\"\" If your looking to invest in the CD's of foreign banks I would suggest doing research on their regulations. Especially if and how your money is protected in the event the bank goes bust.\"" }, { "docid": "576025", "title": "", "text": "Cheaper and faster are usually mutually exclusive. If you want faster, nothing is faster than cash. I would recommend using an ATM to withdraw cash from your USD account as Florints and then use as appropriate. If you want cheaper, then the cheapest currency conversion commonly available is foreign exchange / transfer services like OFX / XE Trade / Transferwise. Turn around time on these can be as little as a business day or two but more commonly takes a few business days, but they typically offer the best currency exchange rates at the lowest cost. If you must make regular payments to 3rd parties, you can set these services up to send the converted currency to a 3rd party rather than back to your own account." }, { "docid": "322456", "title": "", "text": "\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"" }, { "docid": "93518", "title": "", "text": "\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \"\"lending\"\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \"\"saver\"\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \"\"Savers\"\" therefore \"\"shop around\"\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \"\"invisible hand\"\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\"" }, { "docid": "551451", "title": "", "text": "El BOEX es esa plataforma para usted donde usted puede estudiar y obtener visa a un precio muy asequible. Hay miles de cursos ofrecidos, y tenemos la guía número uno para ayudarle desde el principio hasta el final. Nuestra búsqueda de escuela en Australia puede ayudarle a encontrar la escuela adecuada, nuestras páginas de recursos le ayudarán a estudiar, trabajar y vivir en Australia, e incluso tenemos información sobre qué esperar después de la graduación. Como estudiar inglés en Australia los programas y todo tipo de herramientas útiles, es fácil convertir sus estudios en el extranjero sueños en realidad. Si usted está interesado en estudiar en Australia - usted está en el lugar correcto! El BOEX está diseñado para ayudarlo a tener éxito. Stick con nosotros para bajar bajo." }, { "docid": "328443", "title": "", "text": "\"Your mortgage terms are locked in; the servicer/new owner cannot change the terms without your consent, but the servicer can be more aggressive in taking action (as specified in your mortgage contract) against you. For example, if the mortgage agreement calls for penalties for missing a payment or making it late, your friendly neighborhood banker might waive the penalty if the payment is received a day late once (but perhaps not the second or the third time), but the servicer doesn't know you personally and does not care; you are hit with the penalty right away. If the payment was received a day late because of delays in the post office, too bad. If you used a bank bill payment service that \"\"guarantees\"\" on-time arrival, talk to the bank. All perfectly legal, and what you agreed to when you signed the contract. If you can set up electronic payments of your mortgage payments, you can avoid many of these hassles. If you are sending in more money than what is due each month, you should make sure that the extra money reduces the principal amount owed; easy enough if you are sending a physical check with a coupon that has an entry line for \"\"Extra payment applied to principal\"\" on it. But, the best mortgage contracts (from the bank's point of view) are those that say that extra money sent in applies to future monthly installments. That is, if you send in more than the monthly payment one month, you can send in a reduced payment next month; the bank will gladly hold the extra amount sent in this month and apply it towards next month's payment. So, read your mortgage document (I know, I know, the fine print is incomprehensible) to see how extra money is applied. Finally, re-financing your mortgage because you don't like the servicer is a losing proposition unless you can, somehow, ensure that your new bank will not sell your new mortgage to the same servicer or someone even worse.\"" }, { "docid": "480808", "title": "", "text": "Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount. Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY." }, { "docid": "65578", "title": "", "text": "There is one basic principle to apply here: to compare money paid at different times, all the amounts must be compounded or discounted to the same point in time. In this case, the moment of the initial $225,000 loan is convenient. At that moment, you get $225,000 You then make 30 payments on the 40% mortgage. The amount of these payments has to be calculated; they're paying off a $90,000 mortgage with 30 monthly payments at a monthly rate of 0.5% Finally, you make 30 payments of an amount X, starting one month after the 40% mortgage ends. So far we've just listed the amount and time of all the payments back and forth. A time-line type diagram is a huge help here. Finally, use compound interest and annuity formulas to bring all the payments to the starting point, using an interest rate of 1% a month! Equate money in with money out and solve for X" }, { "docid": "16051", "title": "", "text": "The formula for determining the number of payments (months) you'll need to make on your loan is: where i=monthly interest rate (annual rate / 12), A=loan amount (principal), and P=monthly payment. To determine the total interest that you will pay, you can use the following formula: where P=monthly payment, N=number of payments (from above formula), and A=loan amount (principal). A quick example: using the numbers in the screenshot above ($10,000 loan, $500 monthly payment, 10% APR), the number of payments ends up to be 21.97 (which means that payment number 22 is slightly less than the rest). In the second formula, you take that number times your $500 payment and determine that you have paid $10,984.81 over the course of the entire loan period. Subtracting the principal, you have paid $984.81 in total interest. On your spreadsheet, the function you are looking for is NPER: NPER(rate, payment_amount, present_value, [future_value, end_or_beginning]) rate - The interest rate. (This should be the monthly rate, or the annual rate divided by 12.) payment_amount - The amount of each payment made. (For a loan payment, this should be a negative number.) present_value - The current value of the annuity. (The initial principal of the loan) future_value - [ OPTIONAL ] - The future value remaining after the final payment has been made. (This should be 0, the default if omitted.) end_or_beginning - [ OPTIONAL - 0 by default ] - Whether payments are due at the end (0) or beginning (1) of each period." }, { "docid": "324874", "title": "", "text": "Pre-qualification is only a step above what you can do with a rate/payment calculator. They don't check your credit history and credit score; they don't ask for verification of your income; or verify that you have reported your debts correctly. They also don't guarantee the interest rate. But if you answer truthfully, and completely, and nothing else changes you have an idea of how much you can afford factoring in the down payment, and estimates of other fees, taxes and insurance. You can get pre-quaified by multiple lenders; then base your decision on rates and fees. You want to get pre-approved. They do everything to approve you. You can even lock in a rate. You want to finalize on one lender at that point because you will incur some fees getting to that point. Then knowing the maximum amount you can borrow including all the payments, taxes, insurance and fees; you can make an offer on a house. Once the contract is accepted you have a few days to get the appraisal and the final approval documents from the lender. They will only loan you the minimum of what you are pre-approved for and the appraisal minus down-payment. Also don't go with the lender recommended by the real estate agent or builder; they are probably getting a kick-back based on the amount of business they funnel to that company." }, { "docid": "506066", "title": "", "text": "\"There are no \"\"on-line\"\" banks in Israel. There were various attempts to create something that would look like an online bank (HaYashir HaRishon comes to mind, Mizrahi did something similar recently), but that essentially is a branch of a brick and mortar bank (Leumi and Mizrahi, respectively) that allows you online management and phone service instead of walking into a branch, not a replacement for a traditional bank. Thus there are no significant operational savings for the banks through which they could have afforded higher savings rates. I agree with the other responder that the banking system in Israel is very well regulated, but I agree with you also - it is not competitive at all. That said, at the current inflation rate and the current strength of the currency, the 2.02% that you have is actually pretty good. Israel has no interest in paying high rates on incoming money since its currency is too strong and it hurts exports, so don't expect much at home on this issue. Opening an account outside of Israel poses a different problem - tax reporting. You'll have to file an annual tax return and pay your taxes on the interest you earn, something most Israelis never have to do. That will cost you and will probably eat up much, if not all, of the gain. Also, currency fluctuations will hurt you, as no-one will open an account in Shekels outside of Israel and you'll have to convert back and forth. In fact, the first thing to happen when the rates in Israel go up would be for the currency to go down, so whatever you might gain abroad will disappear when you actually decide to move the money back. And you will still be taxed on the interest income (can't deduct capital loss from interest income). Your options, as I see them, are either the stock market or the bonds market (or, more likely, a mix). In Israel, the bonds similar to the US T-Bills (short term bonds) are called \"\"makam\"\" and you can either invest in them directly or through mutual funds. These are traded at TASE and can be held for free (banks are not allowed to charge you for holding them). They're taxed at lower rates than capital gains (15% vs 25%). During the times of low interest these may provide much better alternative than bank savings (pakam).\"" }, { "docid": "401454", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm pretty sure that the banks here will only allow a joint account with either all citizens or all \"\"foreign resident\"\" or tourists. You may be able to do something with Leumi since they have a US branch in NYC. What many people do (who are US citizens) is open a bank account either at a physical branch or online and then it can be managed all online. Make sure no monthly balance fees or atm fees etc. If you need to transfer money most banks will \"\"buy\"\" a US check (I have done this with Leumi) or you can go to the ATM and pull out a few thousand shekel from the USA account and deposit it right back into the Israeli account. My wife and I did this when we first arrived. Discount Bank seemed to have no fees for pulling money out and a good USD/ILS rate. Just make sure you don't have foreign transaction fees / high rates on the US account. If you need to deposit checks for him you can use the remote deposit feature and just take a picture. בהצלחה!\"" }, { "docid": "474573", "title": "", "text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "348955", "title": "", "text": "In older days the merchants and their merchant banks[or service providers] would take funds in their currency. Say in this case USD. When the charge hits the issuer bank, the merchant and merchant bank gets there USD and were happy. The user would get charged in local currency Shekel in this case. The rate applied by his bank [and card provider, Visa/Master also take a cut] is the standard shelf rate to individuals. When business growing and banking becoming more sophisticated, lots of Merchant Banks and Merchants have created a new business, if you offer Shekel to all users then you have lots of Shekel that you can convert into USD. So in this model, the Merchant makes some more profit from Fx spread, the Merchant Bank makes good money in Fx. Your Bank [and card network] loose out. You stand to gain because you potentially get a better rate. All this theory is good. But the rates are moving and its quite difficult to find out if the rates offered directly by EI AI would be better than those offered by your bank. I have no experience in this example, but I have tried this with large shops, buy 2 items one charge in GBP and other in local currency around 2-3 times spread over a year. The difference in rate was close to identical, at times better or worse in range of .02%" } ]

[ { "docid": "42951", "title": "", "text": "Currency speculation is a very risky investment strategy. But when you are looking for which currency to denote your savings in, looking at the unit value is quite pointless. What is important is how stable the currency is in the long term. You certainly don't want a currency which is prone to inflation, because it means any savings denoted in that currency constantly lose purchasing power. Rather look for a currency which has a very low inflation rate or is even deflating. Another important consideration is how easy it is to exchange between your local currency and the currency you want to own. A fortune in some exotic currency is worth nothing when no local bank will exchange it into your local currency. The big reserve currencies like US Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling and Japanes yen are usually safe bets, but there are regional differences which can be easily converted and which can't. When the political relations between your country and the countries which manage these currencies is unstable, this might change over night. To avoid these problems, rather invest into a diverse portfolio of commodities and/or stocks. The value of these kinds of investments will automatically adjust to inflation rate, so you won't need to worry about currency fluctuation." }, { "docid": "333339", "title": "", "text": "\"4) Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? There seems to be confusion behind this question. A company does not set the price for their stock, so they can't \"\"reduce\"\" it either. In fact, nobody sets \"\"the price\"\" for a stock. The price you see reported is simply the last price that the stock was traded at. That trade was just one particular trade in a whole sequence of trades. The price used for the trade is simply the price which the particular buyer and particular seller agreed to for that particular trade. (No agreement, well then, no trade.) There's no authority for the price other than the collection of all buyers and sellers. So what happens when Nokia declares a 55 cent dividend? When they declare there is to be a dividend, they state the record date, which is the date which determines who will get the dividend: the owners of the shares on that date are the people who get the dividend payment. The stock exchanges need to account for the payment so that investors know who gets it and who doesn't, so they set the ex dividend date, which is the date on which trades of the stock will first trade without the right to receive the dividend payment. (Ex-dividend is usually about 2 days before record date.) These dates are established well before they occur so all market participants can know exactly when this change in value will occur. When trading on ex dividend day begins, there is no authority to set a \"\"different\"\" price than the previous day's closing price. What happens is that all (knowledgeable) market participants know that today Nokia is trading without the payment 55 cents that buyers the previous day get. So what do they do? They take that into consideration when they make an offer to buy stock, and probably end up offering a price that is about 55 cents less than they would have otherwise. Similarly, sellers know they will be getting that 55 cents, so when they choose a price to offer their stock at, it will likely be about that much less than they would have asked for otherwise.\"" }, { "docid": "196653", "title": "", "text": "For #1, I see no advantage in putting money from your non-retirement savings into a Roth just for the purpose of using it as a down payment on your house. Why not just put the $5.5K directly toward the down payment? For #2, dollars converted from a traditional 401K or IRA to a Roth are considered income, and will be taxed at your marginal rate. So if your marginal tax rate is 25%, you will need to pay $5K in order to convert the $20K. Usually this payment is done independent of the conversion amount--in other words, you would convert the full $20K but pay the $5K in taxes out of other funds (checking/savings). Based on your stated goals of using the money for a down payment on a house, I don't see any advantage to contributing (or converting) to a Roth IRA." }, { "docid": "107068", "title": "", "text": "I'm also a UK, Ltd company contractor that has pondered the same topic. I afraid, however, that I don't understand the maths in the original question. Mortgage interest is flat for the term of the mortgage rather than compounded, so, ignoring the tapering at the end of the lifespan of the mortgage, I get the amount of interest to something like £9,300 (7500 x 0.05 x 25). Does this make the decision any easier for you? As you point out, the total cost of this overpayment from your company account is £12,500. Using the above figure, it would take over 13 years to recoup the £5,000 difference (at £375 interest a year). I used to be of the same opinion that the mortgage should be paid off at all costs first. But now I'm coming round to the American way of thinking; £12,500 invested in a pension with a 5% yield will easily outstrip the interest saved by making the over payment - 12500 x 1.05 ^ 25 = £43,300 - over 250% better off (£43,300 / (£9,300 + £7,500)). I now make no mortgage overpayments at all and instead pay all the money into my pension. This (amongst other things) keeps me below the upper earnings tax threshold, so I'm only paying corporation tax for the money I'm drawing as dividends. There's a massive caveat to this though; I'm 49. I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time." }, { "docid": "128048", "title": "", "text": "\"When you invest in an S&P500 index fund that is priced in USD, the only major risk you bear is the risk associated with the equity that comprises the index, since both the equities and the index fund are priced in USD. The fund in your question, however, is priced in EUR. For a fund like this to match the performance of the S&P500, which is priced in USD, as closely as possible, it needs to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. If the fund simply converted EUR to USD then invested in an S&P500 index fund priced in USD, the EUR-priced fund may fail to match the USD-priced fund because of exchange rate fluctuations. Here is a simple example demonstrating why hedging is necessary. I assumed the current value of the USD-priced S&P500 index fund is 1,600 USD/share. The exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR. If you purchase one share of this index using EUR, you would pay 1230.77 EUR/share: If the S&P500 increases 10% to 1760 USD/share and the exchange rate remains unchanged, the value of the your investment in the EUR fund also increases by 10% (both sides of the equation are multiplied by 1.1): However, the currency risk comes into play when the EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Take the 10% increase in the price of the USD index occurring in tandem with an appreciation of the EUR to 1.4 USD/EUR: Although the USD-priced index gained 10%, the appreciation of the EUR means that the EUR value of your investment is almost unchanged from the first equation. For investments priced in EUR that invest in securities priced in USD, the presence of this additional currency risk mandates the use of a hedge if the indexes are going to track. The fund you linked to uses swap contracts, which I discuss in detail below, to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. Since these derivatives aren't free, the cost of the hedge is included in the expenses of the fund and may result in differences between the S&P500 Index and the S&P 500 Euro Hedged Index. Also, it's important to realize that any time you invest in securities that are priced in a different currency than your own, you take on currency risk whether or not the investments aim to track indexes. This holds true even for securities that trade on an exchange in your local currency, like ADR's or GDR's. I wrote an answer that goes through a simple example in a similar fashion to the one above in that context, so you can read that for more information on currency risk in that context. There are several ways to investors, be they institutional or individual, can hedge against currency risk. iShares offers an ETF that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index and uses a over-the-counter currency swap contract called a month forward FX contract to hedge against the associated currency risk. In these contracts, two parties agree to swap some amount of one currency for another amount of another currency, at some time in the future. This allows both parties to effectively lock in an exchange rate for a given time period (a month in the case of the iShares ETF) and therefore protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations in that period. There are other forms of currency swaps, equity swaps, etc. that could be used to hedge against currency risk. In general, two parties agree to swap one quantity, like a EUR cash flow, payments of a fixed interest rate, etc. for another quantity, like a USD cash flow, payments based on a floating interest rate, etc. In many cases these are over-the-counter transactions, there isn't necessarily a standardized definition. For example, if the European manager of a fund that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index is holding euros and wants to lock in an effective exchange rate of 1.4 USD/EUR (above the current exchange rate), he may find another party that is holding USD and wants to lock in the respective exchange rate of 0.71 EUR/USD. The other party could be an American fund manager that manages a USD-price fund that tracks the FTSE. By swapping USD and EUR, both parties can, at a price, lock in their desired exchange rates. I want to clear up something else in your question too. It's not correct that the \"\"S&P 500 is completely unrelated to the Euro.\"\" Far from it. There are many cases in which the EUR/USD exchange rate and the level of the S&P500 index could be related. For example: Troublesome economic news in Europe could cause the euro to depreciate against the dollar as European investors flee to safety, e.g. invest in Treasury bills. However, this economic news could also cause US investors to feel that the global economy won't recover as soon as hoped, which could affect the S&P500. If the euro appreciated against the dollar, for whatever reason, this could increase profits for US businesses that earn part of their profits in Europe. If a US company earns 1 million EUR and the exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR, the company earns 1.3 million USD. If the euro appreciates against the dollar to 1.4 USD/EUR in the next quarter and the company still earns 1 million EUR, they now earn 1.4 million USD. Even without additional sales, the US company earned a higher USD profit, which is reflected on their financial statements and could increase their share price (thus affecting the S&P500). Combining examples 1 and 2, if a US company earns some of its profits in Europe and a recession hits in the EU, two things could happen simultaneously. A) The company's sales decline as European consumers scale back their spending, and B) the euro depreciates against the dollar as European investors sell euros and invest in safer securities denominated in other currencies (USD or not). The company suffers a loss in profits both from decreased sales and the depreciation of the EUR. There are many more factors that could lead to correlation between the euro and the S&P500, or more generally, the European and American economies. The balance of trade, investor and consumer confidence, exposure of banks in one region to sovereign debt in another, the spread of asset/mortgage-backed securities from US financial firms to European banks, companies, municipalities, etc. all play a role. One example of this last point comes from this article, which includes an interesting line: Among the victims of America’s subprime crisis are eight municipalities in Norway, which lost a total of $125 million through subprime mortgage-related investments. Long story short, these municipalities had mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios that were derived from, far down the line, subprime mortgages on US homes. I don't know the specific cities, but it really demonstrates how interconnected the world's economies are when an American family's payment on their subprime mortgage in, say, Chicago, can end up backing a derivative investment in the investment portfolio of, say, Hammerfest, Norway.\"" }, { "docid": "117509", "title": "", "text": "What kind of financial analysis would make you comfortable about this decision? The HELOC and ARM are the biggest red flags to me in your current situation. While I don't expect interest rates to skyrocket in the near future, they introduce an interest rate risk that is easy to get rid of. Getting rid of the HELOC and converting to a fixed mortgage would be my first priority. If you also want to upgrade to a new home at the same time (meaning buy a new home contingent on the sale of your first, paying off the HELOC and mortgage), that's fine, but make sure that you can comfortably afford the payment on a fixed-rate mortgage with at least 20% down. I would not take additional cash out of your equity just to save it. You're going to pay more in interest that you're going to get in savings. From there things get trickier. While many people would keep the first property on a mortgage and rent it out, I am not willing to be a landlord for a part-time job, especially when the interest on the mortgage gouges my return on the rent. PLus leverage increases the risks as well - all it takes is to go one or two months without rent and you can find yourself unable to make a mortgage payment, wrecking your credit and possibly risking foreclosure. So my options in order of precedence would be: At what point does it make sense to become a landlord? The complicated answer is when the benefits (rent, appreciation) relative to the costs (maintenance, interest, taxes, etc.) and risks (lost rent, bad renters, home value variance) give you a better return that you could find in investments of similar risk. The simple answer is when you can pay cash for it. That takes interest and lost rent out of the equation. Again, some are willing to take those risks and pay 20% down on rental property. Some are able to make it work. Some of those go broke or lose their properties. when calculating the 20% down of a new property, does that need to be liquid funds, or can that be based on the value of the home you are selling You can make the purchase of the new home contingent on the sale of the first if you need to get the equity out of it to make the 20%. Do NOT refinance the first just to pull out the equity to make a down payment. It's not worth the fees of a refinance." }, { "docid": "538677", "title": "", "text": "Can't I achieve the exact same effect and outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one year from now? Sure, assuming that the company has the money now. More commonly they don't have that cash now, but will earn it over the time period (presumably in Euros) and will make the large payment at some point in time. Using a forward protects them from fluctuations in the exchange rate between now and then; otherwise they'd have to stow away USD over the year (which still exposes them to exchange rate fluctuations)." }, { "docid": "229777", "title": "", "text": "In the event that payment is not made by the due date on the invoice then the transaction is essentially null and void and you can sell the work to another client. For your particular situation I would strongly suggest that you implement a sales contract and agreement of original transfer of work of art for any and all future sales of your original works of art. In this contract you need to either enforce payment in full at time of signing or a deposit at signing with payment in full within (X) amount of days and upon delivery of item. In your sales contract you will want to stipulate a late fee in the event that the client does not pay the balance by the date specified, and a clause that stipulates how long after the due date that you will hold the artwork before the client forfeiting deposit and losing rights to the work. You will also want to specify an amount of time that you provide as a grace period in the event client changes their mind about the purchase, and you can make it zero grace period, making all sales final and upon signing of the agreement the client agrees to the terms and is locked into the sale. In which point if they back out they forfeit all deposits paid. I own a custom web design business and we implement a similar agreement for all works that we create for a client, requiring a 50% deposit in advance of work being started, an additional 25% at time of client accepting the design/layout and the final 25% at delivery of finished product. In the event that a client fails to meet the requirements of the contract for the second or final installment payments the client forfeits all money paid and actually owes us 70% of total quoted project price for wasting our time. We have only had to enforce these stipulations on one client in 5 years! The benefit to you for requiring a deposit if payment is not made in full is that it ensures that the client is serious about purchasing the work because they have put money in the game rather than just their word of wanting to purchase. Think of it like putting earnest money down when you make an offer to buy a house. Hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "328443", "title": "", "text": "\"Your mortgage terms are locked in; the servicer/new owner cannot change the terms without your consent, but the servicer can be more aggressive in taking action (as specified in your mortgage contract) against you. For example, if the mortgage agreement calls for penalties for missing a payment or making it late, your friendly neighborhood banker might waive the penalty if the payment is received a day late once (but perhaps not the second or the third time), but the servicer doesn't know you personally and does not care; you are hit with the penalty right away. If the payment was received a day late because of delays in the post office, too bad. If you used a bank bill payment service that \"\"guarantees\"\" on-time arrival, talk to the bank. All perfectly legal, and what you agreed to when you signed the contract. If you can set up electronic payments of your mortgage payments, you can avoid many of these hassles. If you are sending in more money than what is due each month, you should make sure that the extra money reduces the principal amount owed; easy enough if you are sending a physical check with a coupon that has an entry line for \"\"Extra payment applied to principal\"\" on it. But, the best mortgage contracts (from the bank's point of view) are those that say that extra money sent in applies to future monthly installments. That is, if you send in more than the monthly payment one month, you can send in a reduced payment next month; the bank will gladly hold the extra amount sent in this month and apply it towards next month's payment. So, read your mortgage document (I know, I know, the fine print is incomprehensible) to see how extra money is applied. Finally, re-financing your mortgage because you don't like the servicer is a losing proposition unless you can, somehow, ensure that your new bank will not sell your new mortgage to the same servicer or someone even worse.\"" }, { "docid": "246733", "title": "", "text": "Cross-listing shouldn't be an issue, as the sole reason stocks would behave differently on different exchanges would be due to exchange rates (sure, noise and time differences, but weekly data should take care most of that). If you're using MSCI World index figures in USD, you either have to convert stocks denominated in other currencies to USD at their historical fx rates, or just save a lot of time and use data from stocks listed in the US, when available." }, { "docid": "83543", "title": "", "text": "\"In the Netherlands specifically, there are several reasons to pay extra off on your mortgage. First, house prices have dropped significantly in the last several years. They are rising slowly now, but it's region specific and you can still borrow more than 100% of the price of the house. Under these conditions, if you choose to sell your house and the outstanding mortgage amount is greater than the value of your house, you are left with a gap (restschuld) to finance. I think the rules have changed recently around this, allowing you to finance this gap with a new mortgage, but this is not a good idea. The tax implications of this are likely to be complicated in the long run and your new house may not cover this gap for some time. Second, the less you owe on your house, the lower mortgage rates you can get. Mortgages in the Netherlands usually fall into categories based on percentage of the auction price at a foreclosure sale (executiewaarde). If you pay more of your mortgage off, you may qualify for a lower interest rate, possibly making refinancing interesting. This is especially important if interest rates continue to drop but the value of your house does not increase or even decreases. Third, if you choose to keep your house and rent it out, the banks in the Netherlands have very strict rules on this if you want to do it above board. I've read that some banks require the mortgage amount (NB not the value you may have built up in a linked savings or insurance account) to be less than 50% of the foreclosure auction price (executiewaarde). Also, related to point 2, if you have something other than a linear or annuity mortgage, you will need to refinance to do this as the tax advantages around savings mortgages ([bank]spaarhypotheken) do not apply if it is not used as your own residence. Finally, if you choose to sell and you are in the happy position of having the value of your house be greater than the value of your mortgage (you have an overwaarde), there may still be some obstacles. Any value you have accumulated in a linked savings or life insurance account is not available until after you sell your house. Extra value derived purely from the difference between mortgage value and sale price may be easier to deal with. EDIT: As a final note, I've made extra payments on both a \"\"Spaarhypotheek\"\" (linked life insurance) and a \"\"Bankspaarhypotheek\"\" (linked savings account). In one, the principal paid each month reduced and the mortgage lifetime stayed the same. In the other, the principal paid each month stayed the same and the lifetime reduced. In both cases, interest payments were less each month. I would contact your mortgage provider to understand what the expected impact of extra payments will be.\"" }, { "docid": "534493", "title": "", "text": "\"You owe only $38,860 to pay off your loan now, possibly less. From what you say about your loan, tell me if I got this right: 30 year loan $75,780 original loan amount 9% annual interest rate $609.74 monthly payment You have made 272 payments Payment number 273 is not due until late 2019, possibly early 2020 If I have correctly figured out what you have done, you have been making monthly payments early by pulling out payment coupons before they are due and sending them in with payment. You are about 4 years ahead on your payments. If I have this correct, if you called the bank and asked \"\"what is my payoff amount if I want to pay this loan off tomorrow\"\" they would answer something like $38,860. When you pay a loan off early, you don't just owe the sum of the coupons still remaining. In your case, you owe at least $16,000 less! Indeed, if there is some way to convert your 4 years of pre-payments into an early payment, you would owe even less than $38,860. I don't know banking law well enough to know if that is possible. You should stop pulling coupons out of your book and paying them early. Any payments you make between now and when your next payment is actually due (late 2019 sometime?) you should tell the bank you want applied as an early payment. This will bring your total owed amount down much faster than pulling coupons out of your book and making payments years early. If there is someone in your family who understands banking pretty well, maybe they can help you sort this out. I don't know who to refer you to for more personal help, but I really do think you have more than $16,000 to gain by changing how you are paying your mortgage. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "499436", "title": "", "text": "\"If you invest in a foreign bank you are subject to their financial rules and regulations. If you put your money with their CD it will be converted to UAH (grivna) and you will be paid back in UAH, which introduces the exchange rate risk. FDIC is not the only reason why a CD in a US bank pays a lower interest, but it could be seen as a contributing factor. It all comes down to risk and what the bank is willing to pay for your money, when a bank issues a CD they are entering the debt market and competing against other banks, governments, or anyone looking for money. If the yield from lending to one bank is the same as the yield of another, the logical choice would be whichever loan is less risky. So in order for the riskier bank to receive loans they must entice investors by offering a greater rate of return. In addition, if a bank isn't looking for loans they might be less inclined to pay for them. - See \"\"What is the “Bernanke Twist” and “Operation Twist”? What exactly does it do?\"\" If your looking to invest in the CD's of foreign banks I would suggest doing research on their regulations. Especially if and how your money is protected in the event the bank goes bust.\"" }, { "docid": "324874", "title": "", "text": "Pre-qualification is only a step above what you can do with a rate/payment calculator. They don't check your credit history and credit score; they don't ask for verification of your income; or verify that you have reported your debts correctly. They also don't guarantee the interest rate. But if you answer truthfully, and completely, and nothing else changes you have an idea of how much you can afford factoring in the down payment, and estimates of other fees, taxes and insurance. You can get pre-quaified by multiple lenders; then base your decision on rates and fees. You want to get pre-approved. They do everything to approve you. You can even lock in a rate. You want to finalize on one lender at that point because you will incur some fees getting to that point. Then knowing the maximum amount you can borrow including all the payments, taxes, insurance and fees; you can make an offer on a house. Once the contract is accepted you have a few days to get the appraisal and the final approval documents from the lender. They will only loan you the minimum of what you are pre-approved for and the appraisal minus down-payment. Also don't go with the lender recommended by the real estate agent or builder; they are probably getting a kick-back based on the amount of business they funnel to that company." }, { "docid": "306842", "title": "", "text": "I would move some or all of the money. With £30K savings, you have a 20% deposit, whereas you can get a much better mortgage rate with a 40 or 50% deposit. That's true no matter how good/bad your credit rating, and it's possible that with a bad credit rating you may not even be able to get a mortgage with a small deposit. Also, you will almost certainly save significantly more by paying less mortgage interest compared to the interest rates on your savings in the Netherlands. Shop around for a cheap option to transfer money. I had a quick look at Transferwise (no affiliation, they just happen to have a convenient calculator on their website), and the all-in cost for a large one-way transfer seems to be about 0.5%. I think you'll more than make that back in terms of savings on your mortgage. If you intend to move back to the Netherlands at some point, then you are taking some exchange rate risk by moving your savings to the UK - you don't know if it'll be better or worse when you want to transfer money back. But I guess it won't be that soon if you want to buy a house, so I think the risk is probably worthwhile. (I calculated the cost of the transfer by converting €100k into GBP, and then converting the resulting amount back again. That left €99k, so a two-way transfer cost 1% and from that I deduced that a one-way transfer costs roughly 0.5%)" }, { "docid": "480808", "title": "", "text": "Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount. Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY." }, { "docid": "114886", "title": "", "text": "You probably can get away with only updating the exchange rates once a day and specify that any prices quoted in units other than your home currency are estimates only. If you're planning to accept more than one currency as payment, I'd (a) see about whatever regulations there are for doing so, and (b) build in a nice spread for yourself if you're allowed to, since it is a service you're providing to your customers. If you Google currency converter the first result is just that: a currency converter." }, { "docid": "551275", "title": "", "text": "Is that an FHA loan you have? And you're wanting to do one of those low cost FHA re-fi's, right? The answer is that in between when you first got that loan and now, the government's changed the rules on PMI for FHA loans. It more than doubled the amount of monthly PMI you have to pay. The new rates, efective April 18th, 2011, as as follows: It used to be 0.50% per year for the 30 year. So that's why the PMI would go up. There is another rule in play too, specific to that no-cost FHA refi -- the government requires that the combined (principal+interest+pmi) monthly payment after the refi is at least 4% lower than the current payment. Note that the no-cost refi does not require a new appraisal. Some options present themselves, but only if you can show some equity in a appraisal: 1) if an appraisal shows at least 10% equity, you can go refi to a standard mortgage. You might even be able to find one that doesn't require PMI at that level. If you have 20% equity, you're golden -- no pmi. 2) See what the monthly payment will be if you refi to the 15 year FHA mortgage. Between the much lower PMI, and the much lower interest rates (15 year is usually about 0.75% less than a 30 year), it might not be much more than what you're paying now. And you'd save a huge amount of money over time, and get out from that PMI much earlier (it stops when your principal drops below 80% of the loan amount). This would require that reappraisal." }, { "docid": "279775", "title": "", "text": "The reason it's not automatic is that Questrade doesn't want to force you to convert in margin accounts at the time of buying the stock. What if you bought a US stock today and the exchange rate happened to be very unfavorable (due to whatever), wouldn't you rather wait a few days to exchange the funds rather than lose on conversion right away? In my opinion, Questrade is doing you a favor by letting you convert at your own convenience." } ]

[ { "docid": "428533", "title": "", "text": "\"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's \"\"systematic\"\" and how much is \"\"significant\"\" is up to a lawyer to tell you.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "79552", "title": "", "text": "I was able to find several references that claim that the Indo-US treaty provision is limited to five years: Here it says this (on page 20): Generally the treaty exemption for students is limited to the first five calendar years that the international student is in the U.S. However there is no set time limit for students from Belgium, Bulgaria, China, The Netherlands, and Pakistan. However, I couldn't find any specific time limit neither in the treaty nor in the technical explanation. The explanation says: Thus, for example, an Indian resident who visits the United States as a student and becomes a U.S. resident according to the Code, other than by virtue of acquiring a green card, would continue to be exempt from U.S. tax in accordance with this Article so long as he is not a U.S. citizen and does not acquire immigrant status in the United States. The saving clause does apply to U.S. citizens and immigrants. However, the treaty explicitly says this: The benefits of this Article shall extend only for such period of time as may be reasonable or customarily required to complete the education or training undertaken. The reason for this last paragraph is to ensure that you don't artificially prolong your student status, and the 5 year limit may come out of the interpretation of this specific paragraph. Similar paragraph exists in the US-China treaty, and the explanation for that treaty says this: These exemptions may be claimed only for the period reasonably necessary to complete the education or training. In some cases, the course of study or training may last less than year. For most undergraduate college or university degrees the appropriate period will be four years. For some advanced degrees, such as in medicine, the required period may be longer, e.g., seven years. Based on this, it is my personal impression that if you're an undergraduate student and studying the same degree (and not, for example, finished your BA, and started your MS) - you are no longer eligible for the treaty benefit. But I suggest you ask a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for a more reliable tax advice on the matter. I'm not a tax professional and this is not a tax advice." }, { "docid": "103093", "title": "", "text": "Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase." }, { "docid": "33810", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Not everyone has the ability to eat the refund losses that Amazon does. Why is this Amazon's problem? Those sellers are free to take their business to Ebay or anywhere else they can sell things. Amazon is trying to set a standard for their own marketplace, which seems perfectly reasonable (assuming they are not identified as a monopoly across the marketplace). Personally, I've avoided those sellers on Amazon because I know I don't get the same level of service I expect from Amazon (fantastic), so now they'll see more business from me." }, { "docid": "158297", "title": "", "text": "There isn't a formula like that, there is only the greed of other market participants, and you can try to predict how greedy those participants will be. If someone decided to place a sell order of 100,000 shares at $5, then you can buy an additional 100,000 shares at $5. In reality, people can infer that they might be the only ones trying to sell 100,000 shares right then, and raise the price so that they make more money. They will raise their sell order to $5.01, $5.02 or as high as they want, until people stop trying to buy their shares. It is just a non-stop auction, just like on ebay." }, { "docid": "294598", "title": "", "text": "You can buy anything low and sell high. I've been buying hype sneakers, clothes, and popular concert tickets and selling them for more on apps like GOAT, StockX, StubHub, or on local Facebook groups! Buying stuff from yard sales can be useful too! If you have some around you, sometimes they'll have BRAND NEW stuff that you can sell on eBay or something similar! I've made a goal for myself to hit $10k by flipping stuff, and I'm currently at $6k!" }, { "docid": "299211", "title": "", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"" }, { "docid": "164263", "title": "", "text": "Hasbro is also in this mindset with a lot of their properties. Look at how they handle the MyLittlePony thing going on. Every single episode of that cartoon is on YouTube in full 1080p, but Hasbro doesn't really care. They don't make money off the episodes, they make money off the merchandise so they let the episodes stay online. Same thing with custom pony models and plushies, these things [sell on eBay for over $2000 using Hasbro's IPs](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fluttershy-Galloping-Gala-Custom-Plush-My-Little-Pony-Friendship-is-Magic-/120792470190?nma=true&amp;si=lA3t7kbBPFukGe0nnpU9m4g7c7Y%3D&amp;orig_cvip=true&amp;rt=nc&amp;_trksid=p2047675.l2557). Yet even though all these things are a clear violation of their copyright, Hasbro just stands back and lets it run. That's one of the reasons the brony thing spread so fast as it did." }, { "docid": "233007", "title": "", "text": "The psychology around money is the subject of a lifetime of study. Your observations are not uncommon. The market daily fluctuation is out of our control. Hopefully, by the time the 1% volatility impacts you by say $1,000, you'll have grown accustomed to it, so when the 1% is then $10,000, you won't lose sleep. The difference between the $1000 up/down and the $3 sandwich is simple - one is in your control, the other isn't. When you're out, you need to try to cut down on the math, it will only bring you unhappiness. You're paying for the socializing and can't let the individual items on the check bother you. I'm at the point in my life when I prefer a more expensive restaurant meal that I can't make at home to a moderate one that I'd make myself. For me, that logic works, and it's not keeping us home. Funny how my own sense of value for the dollar pushes me to a more expensive experience, but one that I'll enjoy. By the way - eBay has done an amazing thing, it's created a market for you to sell your stuff, but it's also pulled everyone's collection of junk out for sale. Books I thought might be worth selling go for $1-$2 plus shipping. It's not worth my time or effort, and I need to just break the emotional ties to 'stuff.' I box them up and bring them to the library for their sale. If that picture frame isn't antique, throw it out or have a yard sale. This may be right on track to your question or a complete tangent...." }, { "docid": "48104", "title": "", "text": "We don't have all the relevant numbers to give you the perfect answer. Knowing your income is pretty important for this question, but, since you have 200K in student loans, I'm going to guess (and hope) you probably make more than 80K/yr which is the cutoff for deducting student loan interest. (It starts phasing out once you make over 65K and fully phases out at 80K, or 160K if you're married.) Even if you make less than 65K, you can only deduct a max of 2500/yr in student loan interest and you'll be maxing that out for at least the next 4 years. So, my take is: Throw it at the student loan. Your mortgage interest is (probably) fully deductible, which means your mortgage interest rate is effectively reduced by your tax bracket. E.g. if you are in the 28% tax bracket a 4% mortgage rate would effectively become 2.88%. Outside of that, if you were to make minimum payments on your mortgage and student loans starting now, as soon as your student loan is paid off I would start making that same student loan payment amount towards your mortgage. This way you won't have any change in cash flow, but it will significantly lower the term of your mortgage. (Which is what would happen if you choose to pay down the mortgage now, but then you don't get the tax advantage on the difference.)" }, { "docid": "344838", "title": "", "text": "I shrug...if you're selling high quality products, this won't be a problem for you. If you're selling garbage, well, take it to Ebay. The reality is they're competing with Wal-Mart who's the rent-a-center of returns. This lines them up brick and mortar policy now." }, { "docid": "55954", "title": "", "text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)" }, { "docid": "275677", "title": "", "text": "\"One of the things that make internet companies so profitable is that there is no additional costs to \"\"sell another widget\"\". With something like EBay, there is no additional cost to add another auction/sale. While this is true for a single auction, it eventually becomes untrue. If you add one million auctions, the company may pay additional bandwidth, storage fees, system engineering fees, and even development fees to make the site able to handle that much volume. Sorry that I am unfamiliar with GoodGuide but I am sure you can extrapolate.\"" }, { "docid": "176415", "title": "", "text": "In your case it's all going to come down to the rates and how long you expect to live in the new house: As for whether to pay down the student loans or the mortgage first, you'll need to compare the rates, and also adjust for the tax deduction you'll get on the mortgage interest. (You make too much money to deduct any of the student loan interest.) If the student loan and morgage rates are similar, then most likely you're going to be better off paying down the student loans first. As for 15 vs 30 year, typically the rates are better on the 15 year. If they were somehow the same, then you'd be better off with the 30 yr and making the equivalent payments to the 15 year simply so you have the choice of making a lower payment in the future if you ever want to. But generally, if you plan on always making the 15 year payment amount, then you would be better off going with the 15 year just to secure the lower rate. In your case though, sticking with the 30 year and throwing the difference at the student loan may actually benefit you even more, again due to the tax deduction of mortgage interest." }, { "docid": "187510", "title": "", "text": "Every single expensive book you buy - make sure you relist on eBay, Half.com, local craigslist, university boards, whatever ... the second after your final exam for that class. I figured that out when I went back to grad school, and the impact to my wallet was substantially less than undergrad (scaled for the number of classes). I ended up only being unable to sell maybe 2 or 3 books out of a dozen or so. And out of like $1000 on books, recovered probably $800." }, { "docid": "232423", "title": "", "text": "\"I grew up when eBay started long before Amazon. For the past 20 years, eBay has been a total \"\"no-option\"\" service. The amount of fraud has been out of control for two decades. If you can't afford something, just don't buy that item. Buy something lesser. Going on eBay for something cheap will burn you every time. This has been common sense for twenty years. It's garbage and it profits off bad transactions. Just drop it altogether as a service and align your wants to your means.\"" }, { "docid": "527416", "title": "", "text": "If i look to the future ,i see the general retail revenue growing pretty slowly, but the online retailers growing fast. Why ? First, they grew historically around 20% per year for the last few years. Second there's a lot of big important innovation. Amazon prime, Tablets and phones as great sales tools and comparison tools(and they're becoming common), Ebay investing heavily in logistics to enable small non u.s. companies to sell onshore without big shipping costs, Online apparel shopping improving rapidly and maybe becoming competitive with offline shopping,using social networks for shopping, interesting new models to sell merchandise online like etsy, subscription shopping and the the general rate of internet innovations. Third, people are improving in their e-commerce capability and trust. On the other hand , i don't see any big growth opportunity for brick and mortar retailers.So it means they'll shrink. The problem is that retail is a low margin business. That means that losing 5-15% percent of revenue is enough to close you , because you have a lot of fixed costs(rent, employees, financing the goods)." }, { "docid": "63755", "title": "", "text": "This is rubbish. Universities will be empty long before the price ever gets that high. As prices rise, you sell less product - it's that simple. The US has decided that only a small percentage of its citizens should be able to afford to go to college, making it exclusive. But a smart country makes tertiary education cheap, and encourages people to attend. The fact that should disturb Americans more than any other, is that China has more Ph.D. students *than America has students*." }, { "docid": "479276", "title": "", "text": "I don't mean to be rude, but if you have to ask if you can earn a living from home, the answer is 'probably not.' Most people are more financially productive at a traditional workplace, otherwise more people would quit the jobs they hate and work at home or develop their hobbies into businesses. Making a living from home requires being a self-starter and finding clients/customers who accept such arrangements. First, be assured no one earns a living stuffing envelopes, being a mystery online shopper, or selling low to moderate quantities of stuff to their circle of friends. A few earn a living flipping houses, cars, or shares, or stuff on eBay, but with considerable risk, capital, effort, luck, contacts, and experience/skill. A few more find success by inventing something or developing a business. Once again, not as easy as it sounds. You can look for professional work freelancing, or find grunt work on something like vWorker. But these are easily as competitive as the job market, perhaps moreso. In the case of vWorker you are competing against people in southern asia who almost surely can beat you on price." }, { "docid": "378755", "title": "", "text": "All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost." } ]

[ { "docid": "478514", "title": "", "text": "\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "40312", "title": "", "text": "I would personally look at consolidating your debt at a lower interest rate by refinancing your mortgage. I would leave any retirement funds alone unless it was absolutely necessary to touch it with no other avenues available. However, once you have consolidated your debt into the mortgage I would pay more than the minimum amount so that you don't take too long to pay it off. I would put about 50% of the freed-up cash flow back into the repayments, that way you will be paying more debt off quicker and you will have additional cash flow to help your monthly budget. Another good point would be to go through your monthly budget to see if there is any expenses you could reduce or eliminate." }, { "docid": "164982", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; The long-run goal is to eliminate poverty through wealth creation. If that makes for some weird new social interactions, I'd say that's a reasonable cost. Yes, I agree but there's a problem if we \"\"allow\"\" income inequality to become so rampant it causes macro-geopolitical issues. I'm not sure how that would be solved, it seems almost inherent in a captalistic model. I suppose mitigating rent seeking in favour of actual wealth creation and spreading meritocracy in proportion rather than exponentiality might be a start. The current wave of green energy, climate change and focus on health might be an indirect mitigating factor to this. Perhaps the limitation of land is the *real* issue. Space colonization would be an interesting scenario but there's likely a lot of time before that happens. &gt; I mention comparing to earlier periods simply as a measure of progress to determine whether or not there is a problem that needs correction, such as a specific group in society experiencing real wage stagnation, or truly anemic growth rates relative to earlier periods. It's the slope of the trend line for each group that I'd be worried about, where linear or exponential is good, and logarithmic should indicate a potential crisis. That actually makes sense. &gt; Ultimately, I believe that it's not a persons absolute circumstances that matter, but the rate at which those circumstances are improving throughout their lives that most strongly affects their subjective well-being (but that's just my theory). I have not read enough in both economics or human psychology to really have an opinion on this but so far, I would lean towards an agreement. &gt; As for real estate costs, you're absolutely correct that this is a problem, but it's as easily explainable problem. Supply is artificially constrained in most of the US due to the need for explicit government permission (in the form of building permits and zoning laws) in order to build new units. Basic economics says that when supply is artificially restricted, prices will rise. I'm on the fence on this issue because real estate is based on rent seeking and promotion of debt slavery. While I won't argue against the principle of government restriction -&gt; higher prices, what exactly keeps private interests from raising living cost as high as it can? Even in the developed world people spend as much as half of their income on rent / mortgage alone. Other than competition of course but in a high competitive area the incentive is to eat up market share. The laws of accumulation would then argue that in the end a few, large institutions would own the majority of residential homes and living apartments. They can now set their own prices and that will, in effect, be as bad as government regulation.\"" }, { "docid": "171216", "title": "", "text": "Since you acknowledge that you legitimately owe this money and the debts are relatively small, you should pay them without trying to settle for less. Don't bother with a consolidation loan for these. The loan, if you can get approved, would be more trouble than it is worth, at the time frame you are looking at. Just pay these off in full as fast as you can. Once you do that, your credit will start to heal. Get a written statement from the collectors to ensure that you and they are in agreement on exactly how much you owe. When you pay them, don't pay electronically; use a check. (Debt collectors have been known to clean out bank accounts if you set up an electronic payment.) After you've cleaned these up, I would encourage you to aggressively tackle your student loans and any other debt you have. Now, when you are starting your career, is the time to dig yourself out of the hole and eliminate your debt. This will set you up for success in the future." }, { "docid": "427044", "title": "", "text": "You absolutely can be put in jail in America for debt... if that debt is to a government or government agency (like a municipal government). If you have unpaid court costs, fines, etc., it's common practice in most municipalities to issue an arrest warrant for those, even if non-payment is due to being indigent. In a lot of cases, even if you show up to explain why you can't pay or make a partial payment on the due date, you'll be arrested and jailed until a judge is available to hear your explanation, if one isn't available right when you go in. What's supposed to happen is that if you're indigent (can't pay), a judge will hear your explanation and, provided it's determined that you're indigent, make adjustments to what you owe (cancel or reduce the amount, extend the due date, setup a payment plan, etc.) and send you on your way. It bears mentioning that even in cases where the system works like it should, there's still a very real chance of being put in jail, which isn't harmless - people can and do lose their jobs while they're sitting in jail waiting to plead indigence to a judge. And of course, what's supposed to happen isn't what always does. The police shootings of the past couple years in Missouri have shone some light in a lot of dark corners down there, where there are, in fact, de-facto debtor prisons in many municipalities. In addition to civil rights groups filing suit over this in many Missouri municipalities, the US Department of Justice has filed suit against the city of Ferguson over their municipal practices (including their use of the courts and jails to generate municipal revenue). Some forms of private debt (like child support) also fall under this umbrella where an arrest warrant will be issued for failure to pay for any reason, and this was determined to be a factor in the Walter Scott shooting - Walter Scott ran to avoid being put in jail over child support debt, and losing his job while in jail. The New York Times highlighted his case in an article titled: Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat. Rodney Scott said that he sometimes thought his brother did not do everything he could to catch up, but that Walter seemed to consider it a hopeless cause. He recalled seeing his brother plead to a judge that he just did not make enough money. “He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”" }, { "docid": "267940", "title": "", "text": "\"Whether or not PayPal itself reports to the credit bureaus, the collector **will**. That said, you can demand the collector \"\"validate\"\" the debt, which if you were scammed could make for an interesting scenario - PayPal *doesn't* normally play the role of a creditor, so the very fact that you \"\"owe\"\" them money is an unusual situation in and of itself. I'm not entirely sure how they would go about validating that debt - They haven't provided you any goods or services, you don't have any form of loan outstanding with them... The legitimacy of the \"\"debt\"\" consists **entirely** of them siding with the other party in a he-said-she-said dispute. I'd be interested to hear what the collector replies with when you demand validation of the debt!\"" }, { "docid": "339017", "title": "", "text": "\"Coming from someone who has worked a in the account servicing department of an actual bank in the US, other answers are right, this is probably a scam, the phone number on the letter is probably ringing to a fraudulent call center (these are very well managed and sound professional), and you must independently locate and dial the true contact number to US Bank. NOW. Tell them what happened. Reporting is critical. Securing your money is critical. Every piece of information you provided \"\"the bank\"\" when you called needs to be changed or worked around. Account numbers, passwords, usernames, card numbers get changed. Tax ID numbers get de-prioritized as an authentication mechanism even if the government won't change them. The true bank probably won't transfer you to the branch. If the front-line call center says they will, ask the person on the phone what the branch can do that they cannot. Information is your friend. They will probably transfer you to a special department that handles these reports. Apparently Union Bank's call center transfers you to the branch then has the branch make this transfer. Maybe their front-line call center team is empowered to handle it like I was. Either way, plug your phone in; if the call takes less than 5 minutes they didn't actually do everything. 5 to 8 minutes per department is more likely, plus hold time. There's a lot of forms they're filling out. What if that office is closed because of time differences? Go online and ask for an ATM limit increase. Start doing cash advances at local banks if your card allows it. Just get that money out of that account before it's in a fraudsters account. Keep receipts, even if the machine declines the transaction. Either way, get cash on hand while you wait for a new debit card and checks for the new account you're going to open. What if this was fraud, you draw your US Bank account down to zero $800 at a time, and you don't close it or change passwords? Is it over? No. Then your account WILL get closed, and you will owe EVERYTHING that the fraudsters rack up (these charges can put your account terrifyingly far in the negative) from this point forward. This is called \"\"participation in a scam\"\" in your depository agreement, because you fell victim to it, didn't report, and the info used was voluntarily given. You will also lose any of your money that they spend. What if US Bank really is closing your account? Then they owe you every penny you had in it. (Minus any fees allowed in the depository agreement). This closure can happen several days after the date on the warning, so being able to withdraw doesn't mean you're safe. Banks usually ship an official check shipped to the last known address they had for you. Why would a bank within the United States close my account when it's not below the minimum balance? Probably because your non-resident alien registration from when you were in school has expired and federal law prohibits them from doing business with you now. These need renewed at least every three years. Renewing federally is not enough; the bank must be aware of the updated expiration date. How do I find out why my account is being closed? You ask the real US Bank. They might find that it's not being closed. Good news! Follow the scam reporting procedure, open a new account (with US Bank if you want, or elsewhere) and close the old one. If it IS being closed by the bank, they'll tell you why, and they'll tell you what your next options are. Ask what can be done. Other commenters are right that bitcoin activity may have flagged it. That activity might actually be against your depository agreement. Or it set off a detection system. Or many other reasons. The bank who services your account is the only place that knows for sure. If I offer them $500 per year will they likely keep the account opened? Otherwise I got to go to singapore open another account Legitimate financial institutions in the United States don't work this way. If there is a legal problem with your tax status in the US, money to the bank won't solve it. Let's call the folks you've talked to \"\"FraudBank\"\" and the real USBank \"\"RealBank,\"\" because until RealBank confirms, we have no reason to believe that the letter is real. FraudBank will ask for money. Don't give it. Don't give them any further information. Gather up as much information from them as possible instead. Where to send it, for example. Then report that to RealBank. RealBank won't have a way to charge $500/year to you only. If they offer a type of account to everyone that costs $500, ask for the \"\"Truth in Savings Act disclosures.\"\" Banks are legally required to provide these upon request. Then read them. Don't put or keep your money anywhere you don't understand.\"" }, { "docid": "555280", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \"\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\"\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\"" }, { "docid": "231280", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer to all of this is that it depends on the loan and on the collections agency. It's an \"\"interesting\"\" time to be a collections agency right now. On the one hand, people are defaulting on debts, and those creditors want to be paid and are beating down the agencies' doors. On the other hand, if you can't pay you can't pay, and the threat of collections action is not much of a motivation when you're already 90 days out, and so collections agencies are having to consult crystal balls and tea leaves to try to determine which debts they're likely to collect if they buy. Many collections agencies have begun subscribing to the \"\"you catch more flies with honey than vinegar\"\" philosophy; \"\"we know it may be very difficult for you right now, so we'll make you a deal to settle the debt for 80% of face value, and you'll never hear from us again\"\". Other agencies continue to live by the threat model; \"\"we're heartless and cruel and we don't care that it's tough; we own you and you will pay us everything we ask for or we will make your life hell every way we can\"\". There are advantages, and a certain synergy, to both approaches. You really do get more success by making a deal, so the agency that is willing to work with the debtor and offer them a good deal is going to be more likely to collect. However, that quickly becomes an incentive to not pay; \"\"Yeah, they sent me this outrageous bill for my sprained ankle, so I just ignored it and let 'em sweat, and ended up paying half what they billed me\"\". Sprinkle in just a few cases of \"\"Yeah, I couldn't pay my cell phone bill so I just let them cut it off, but the collections agency started calling and mailing me every day and I had to pay twice what I owed in the first place to make it stop\"\", which filters through the collective psyche of the masses, and all of a sudden if and when they do offer a deal on a debt you fell behind on, you jump on it. Now, to the question at the end of your post. It's always better for your credit to pay than to not pay. An open collections account on your credit score will always be a bigger ding than a closed one. But, open or closed, that collections activity remains part of your history unless the collections agency agrees to retract it. Even then, you may have to go around to the big three credit bureaus and get the account removed, using documentation which the agency must provide stating something to the effect of \"\"we agree that this never happened\"\". If the agency refuses to remove this black mark, how black it will be depends on the terms by which the account was settled. The reporting agencies will be told the face value of the debt that was sent to collections, and they will be told the amount paid to settle it. If the debt was settled for face value, that tells people reading your report that, well, you were very late and only paid under duress, but at least you did make good on the debt in full. If you settle for less than the face value, that says something different entirely; not only could you not pay the original creditor, you had to negotiate to reduce the amount to pay the debt collector. That makes extending you credit very risky; not only are you a proven risk for being late to pay, not only are you a proven risk for them having to write off the debt, but if and when they sell it to a collections agency, the agency will see that a past debt was settled for less than face value and assume they'll get the same treatment, and so will offer less to buy the debt. Both of those cases are still better than an open collection; that says to someone considering loaning you money that not only will you default, not only will they have to write it off, not only will the collections agency make less profit... the collections agency is unlikely to see ANYTHING from this bad debt and may not even agree to buy it.\"" }, { "docid": "214518", "title": "", "text": "\"It is likely a scam. In fact the whole mystery shopping \"\"job\"\" may be a scam. There is a Snopes page about cashier's check scams, as well as a US government page which specifically mentions mystery shopping as a scam angle. As for how the scam works, from the occ.gov site I just linked: However, cashier’s checks lately have become an attractive vehicle for fraud when used for payments to consumers. Although, the amount of a cashier’s check quickly becomes \"\"available\"\" for withdrawal by the consumer after the consumer deposits the check, these funds do not belong to the consumer if the check proves to be fraudulent. It may take weeks to discover that a cashier’s check is fraudulent. In the meantime, the consumer may have irrevocably wired the funds to a scam artist or otherwise used the funds—only to find out later, when the fraud is detected—that the consumer owes the bank the full amount of the cashier’s check that had been deposited. It is somewhat unusual in that, from what you say, there has been no attempt thus far to get money back. However, your sister-in-law may have received that info separately, or received it as part of her mystery shopping job but didn't mention it to you with regard to this check. Typically the scam involves telling the recipient to transfer money to a third party (e.g., by buying goods as a mystery shopper, or via wire transfer to \"\"reimburse\"\" someone associated with a sham operation). By the time the cashier's check is revealed as fraudulent, the victim has already transferred away his/her own real money. It's probably worth taking the check to your or her bank and asking them about it. They may have more info. Also, banks usually want to know about scams like this because, in the long run, they accumulate data on them and share that with law enforcement and can eventually catch some of the scammers. Edit: Just to help anyone who may be reading this later. The letter you added confirms it is absolutely a scam. My boss was once contacted via a scam operation very similar to this. The huge red flag (in addition to others already mentioned) is that you are being \"\"given\"\" a check for over $2000, of which only $25 is purportedly for actual mystery shopping and $285 is payment for you, the mystery shopper. The whole rest of the $2000+ amount is for you to wire to \"\"another Mystery/Secret Shopper in order for them to complete their assignment\"\". They are giving you $2000 to give to someone else who is supposedly another one of their own employees/contractors. Ask yourself what sane business would conduct their operations in this way. If you work at a law office, or a hamburger stand, or a school, or anything you like, does your boss ever say \"\"Here is your paycheck for $5000. I know you only earned $1000, but I'm just going to give you the whole $5000, and you're supposed to use $4000 of it to pay your coworker Joe his wages.\"\" No. There is no reason to do that except that the \"\"other mystery shopper\"\" is actually the scammer.\"" }, { "docid": "37960", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, all of the previous answers already mentioned the upcoming scam and danger situation for your financial position. I thoroughly read all answers and wanted to add a few more lines on it. Cort Ammon) already shows details of it. Any kind of financial transaction involving a complete stranger is the first big scam tag that shows up and this should always 'Never Fall In' type situation. If you open a new bank account or give away any existing bank account to this lady, other than just losing some amount, you might pay earlier than clearing checks you deposited on behalf of your 'stranger' partner. Depending on their target/plan/experience with your bank account they can make you a victim of a bigger crime. There is a full length of scam plans, like sending you false checks to deposit and ask you withdrew money to send them back to even having very big incoming transaction to your account sitting idle on your account which might originate from a crime beyond the financial domain. You can try to be smart, thinking in mind, well, let them send some, I will never send them back before bank declare the deposited checks got horned and clear (and send back the amount after keeping your share). But, still you will face problems later. Even if your account fills up with real money and after confirming with bank you find it OK and never return them (scam a scammer). Still you will not have any valid authority or answer describing how/why you got this money if someone ask you later. Depending on scammer's ability, they might even give you control over fund to spend for your own (to gain some trust from your part). On this type of scam it is a sign of an even bigger danger. I live such a country, Bangladesh, from where recently they successfully transferred out around US$10 millions using a bank account of an outsider like you keeping in between source of money and final unknown destination. The result is the owner / operator of those accounts used for these transfers are now under law enforcement pressure, not only just to find out where ultimately money has gone, but for sure they will face some degree of charge for helping transfer of illegal money overseas\"\". For someone who is not part of a full scam chain it is a big deal. It might ruin their life forever. To be on the safe side, and help protect others from falling on the same type of problem you may contact your local law enforcement agency. Depending on the situation, they might be interested to run a sting operation using your information and support to catch and stop the crime going to happen soon or later. I would give a rare chance of 2% legitimate reason for anyone to use a third-party bank account to pay some other living either different country (still it is not legal, but a lower-type crime). But obviously they will not ask randomly over the Internet/social network sites. In your case this is a real scam. Be careful and stay safe; Good Luck.\"" }, { "docid": "394298", "title": "", "text": "This can mean a few things to me. Some of which has been mentioned already. It can mean one (or all) of the following to me: You take out a new credit card and transfer ALL other credit balances to it. (Only good if you destroy the others, this is a 0% offer, AND you plan on paying this card off furiously.) You do the loan thing mentioned earlier. You go to a credit consolidation service who will handle your paying your payments and you send them one payment each month. (Highly discourage using them. A majority of them are shady, and won't get do what they say they will do. Check Better Business Bureau if you find yourself considering them as an option.) In the first two cases, you are just reducing the number of hands reaching into your bank account. But keep in mind, doing this is not the same as paying off debt. You can't borrow your way out. You can do this as part of your plan, but do so CAREFULLY." }, { "docid": "153679", "title": "", "text": "\"A business can refuse cash (paper currency) payment pretty much in all cases provided it's a reasonable policy and/or notified during/in advance of contracting. Details in this link. \"\"all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.\"\" Even if the payment is being made to settle a debt or other obligation, the creditor may refuse payment if their rationale is reasonable (as determined by the courts).\"" }, { "docid": "475497", "title": "", "text": "\"This is another version of an old scam -- \"\"let me have a check deposited in your account because I can't open one for some reason, and I'll share some of the money with you.\"\" Here the scammer is promising to \"\"start a business\"\" with you as a way to gain your confidence and trust. The first danger sign is that you only know this person from online. They are not someone you are friends with in the \"\"real\"\" world. They could be anybody. They used the name of a big company as a way to make what they're doing sound legitimate, but it's all a fraud. They could be depositing a faked Exxon check into your account, which could land YOU in huge trouble. Here's the thing -- The only way Exxon (or any other company) can deposit money in a bank under someone's name is if that person provides the account and routing numbers to an account that already exists. No company can just create an account in another person's name. That's Hollywood movie stuff, but it's not how banking works. To open an account, the bank would need identification on the account holder, so your \"\"friend\"\" already has an account if Exxon has allegedly deposited money. Further, Exxon isn't going to take back money that has already been deposited. In fact, they can't take it back. If the account is in his name, they can't do anything to the account or with the account. This is a situation you should run away from and never look back. Nothing about this story sounds right or legitimate, but this is one of the oldest scams out there since the beginning of the Internet. You would be well advised to stay VERY far away from your supposed friend, because they're anything but your friend. You are being SCAMMED. Don't be a victim. Stop communicating with this person immediately, and DON'T give them any personal information of any kind. They're crooks! I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "252691", "title": "", "text": "My point was that we have the safest debt for **right now**. I agree that we can still afford to spend money to fix the economy. The problem is that the spending we have been doing so far isn't doing a whole lot considering what we are investing. We have spent trillions and our GDP growth rate is two thirds what it was over the last 70 years. If we were still at the beginning of the recovery that could be acceptable. But it's been three and a half years now. We are going to need to start getting some bang for our buck to turn this around. If we are still doing the same thing two years from now, investors may not have faith in the safety of the United States anymore. They will realize we have taken on 30 years of deficits and then taken trillions more to save the economy. If we are still stagnant, the world will start to question how great our economy really is and whether we even deserve the world reserve currency. So yes I agree that we currently have the safest debt in the world and can try to save our economy through deficit spending. I did off on a tangent, but I think it was a necessary point. We need to make sure that the deficit spending we do from here on in actually creates real value for the economy and gets real GDP growth. The reason I am sick of the argument is that many people seem to have this idea that the U.S. will always have the reserve currency and the world will always consider it to be the safest debt. We can keep going this way for now, but if we don't back up that claim then sooner or later they won't buy it anymore. I agree with the government spending but we need to spend in areas that are going to generate real GDP growth rather than randomly building projects and hoping for the best. edit:so in other words, I think I agree with you. I just want to make sure people understand how perilous things can get in the future and we don't all buy into a sense of entitlement that we can spend whatever we want forever." }, { "docid": "35534", "title": "", "text": "\"Once upon a time (not all that long ago), British cheques used to say something like \"\"Pay to the order of ..,,,, or bearer the sum of ...,..\"\" (emphasis added) and could be cashed by anyone unless the cheque-writer drew two parallel lines in the upper left corner of the cheque. These lines converted the instrument into a crossed cheque which could only be deposited into a bank account of the payee; a bearer of the cheque could not walk into the bank and waltz out with the cash equivalent. Perhaps British banks no longer use this styling (Indian banks still do) but if that cheque for 60k is not a crossed cheque, it better be sent securely with lots of insurance. An uncrossed cheque is the same as cash since it can be cashed by anyone. That being said, I am with @mhoran_psprep in thinking that all this is just a scam with the OP (mug) being asked to send 3600 bucks to \"\"girlfriend\"\" (scammer) to cover the cost of sending the check with full insurance, and when the check arrives and is deposited by OP into his bank, it will turn out to be a dud, and \"\"girlfriend\"\" will be long gone. The description of how the girlfriend signed a contract for 90k and received 60k of this amount upfront, but in the form of a check payable to boyfriend (!) OP reeks of scam; is this scenario realistic? In the past, I have received offers (usually from Nigeria) from \"\"women\"\" wanting to be my girlfriend, and I am sure that such offers will continue to come in the future....\"" }, { "docid": "330994", "title": "", "text": "\"Wot.com or Web of Trust is a website where people add reviews/complaints of websites for things such as child safety, hate propaganda, fraudulent claims, phishing scams, etc. Anyone can post a review, there's no standard or criteria for reviewers. Using WOT to prove a websites information is accurate would be like using a Yelp review as a source in an academic journal or in court. &gt; what would constitute \"\"scientific methodology\"\" regarding political analysis? When researching for media bias, you'll need: A. Clearly defined terms B. Objective criteria for doing measurements C. Accounting for error/bias on the part of researchers D. Having experts in relevant fields peer-review and publicly scrutinize your research This isnt just about science, these are the foundations of any attempts at determining truthhood. You're trying to tell me what websites are biased and which are legit, you don't even understand how to go about determining what bias or truth is without basing it on someone else's unevidenced opinion. I understand that we might be able to intuitively recognize bias on the part of overtly right-wing (Brietbart) or left-wing (CNN) news sources, but websites like this can't call themselves fact-checkers when its based entirely on their own intuitive opinions. Sourcing blog posts and unsourced websites is the level of research you'd expect from a conspiracy theorist.\"" }, { "docid": "394551", "title": "", "text": "\"add the interest for the next 5 payments and divide that by how much you paid on the principal during that time Let's see - on a $200K 6% loan, the first 5 months is $4869. Principal reduction is $1127. I get 4.32 or 432%. But this is nonsense, you divide the interest over the mortgage balance, and get 6%. You only get those crazy numbers by dividing meaningless ratios. The fact that early on in a mortgage most of the payment goes to interest is a simple fact of the the 30 year nature of amortizing. You are in control, just add extra principal to the payment, if you wish. This idea sounds like the Money Merge Account peddled by UFirst. It's a scam if ever there was one. I wrote about it extensively on my site and have links to others as well. Once you get to this page, the first link is for a free spreadsheet to download, it beats MMA every time and shows how prepaying works, no smoke, no mirrors. The second link is a 65 page PDF that compiles nearly all my writing on this topic as I was one of the finance bloggers doing what I could to expose this scam. I admit it became a crusade, I went as far as buying key word ads on google to attract the search for \"\"money merge account\"\" only to help those looking to buy it find the truth. In the end, I spent a few hundred dollars but saved every visitor the $3500 loss of this program. No agent who dialoged with me in public could answer my questions in full, as they fell back on \"\"you need to believe in it.\"\" I have no issue with faith-based religion, it actually stands to reason, but mortgages are numbers and there's order to them. If you want my $3500, you should know how your system works. Not one does, or they would know it was a scam. Nassim Taleb, author of \"\"The Black Swan\"\" offered up a wonderful quote, \"\"if you see fraud, and do not say 'fraud,' you are a fraud.\"\" The site you link to isn't selling a product, but a fraudulent idea. What's most disturbing to me is that the math to disprove his assertion is not complex, not beyond grade school arithmetic. Update 2015 - The linked \"\"rule of thumb\"\" is still there. Still wrong of course. Another scam selling software to do this is now promoted by a spin off of UFirst, called Worth Unlimited. Same scam, new name.\"" }, { "docid": "243410", "title": "", "text": "Thanks! &gt; How do you believe it should be approached? Businesses should be more cognizant of the fact that they have enormous amounts of technical debt, or what will be considered to be debt, that will suddenly need to be solved. Infrastructure or applications that haven't seen a dime in 5+ years. Shadow IT that was stood up (e.g. hey we use this access database that everyone completely forgot about to meet this one specific need) and has somehow managed to survive. That's one of the most frequent issues that will grind consolidations to a halt. The business need to involve IT as early as possible in the M&amp;A process. Cross-platform can usually be solved by some form of extraction, translaton, load processes. That's straightforward but it does take time. If you're a company that cares enough to have a disaster recovery team you should also have an IT M&amp;A team that meets regularly to have a dry-run of an M&amp;A that covers the processes from end to end for 2-3 worst-case-scenarios. New scenarios should be identified. If you do enough M&amp;As you'll have compiled a fairly decent playbook of scenarios after the third or fourth. You'll have a well oiled machine that your investors can and should be proud of. For perspective the best M&amp;A team I've seen was Microsoft's and even then shit regularly hits the fan for those guys when it comes to technical debt. That's something to keep in mind." }, { "docid": "480646", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; What's their benchmark for considering the deal \"\"done\"\"? Getting out employee checks with the name of the new company? Well, there's usually about an 18-month consolidation window after the deal closes to combine operations before the market really starts wondering why you're burning through cash supporting a closed M&amp;A. That's going to include the removal and/or consolidation of redundant business units from HR, to marketing, etc. From an IT perspective though, the business *usually* completely ignores the fact that modern white-collar businesses are essentially different formulations of businesses leveraging IT or severely underestimates how reliant they are on technology. That is, the consolidation of business units needs to include the consolidation of IT for economies of scale to be realized. It's fine and dandy to say your direct reports are being consolidated under business unit X but what if your HR program PeopleSoft and theirs is successfactors? How much time and money is that going to take to select the best system and get all of your shit in one place? Rule of thumb? 4x whatever the buisness thinks and 1.5x what the IT guy says. What about your identity platforms? What if, god forbid, you are an entirely IBM shop and the acquired company is entirely Microsoft? What about those old fuckin mainframes plenty of insurance companies and banks are keeping around? All that data needs to get moved/consolidated/etc. I'm there to annoy the shit out of the business so when the board says \"\"did this ever come up\"\" our VPs and CIO can say \"\"yeah, here are the documents\"\" and then they start firing management. :D\"" } ]