vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this. Perhaps (I don't know) there is some way to do that, if you have your ex's cooperation and a lawyer (and perhaps a judge). You haven't said what portions of your payments are for Child support, versus Spousal support (nor, who has custody, etc). If a large part of the support is for the children, then perhaps the children can rent the place. (/wild idea) Note that, in Ontario, there are two trusteeship decisions to make: 1) financial; and 2) personal care, which includes housing and medical. Someone can retain their own 'self-care' authority even if they're judged financially incapable (or vice versa if there's a personal-care or medical decision which they cannot understand). The technical language is, ""Mentally Incapable of Managing Property"" This term applies to a person who is unable to understand information that is relevant to making a decision or is unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision about his or her property. Processes for certifying an individual as being mentally incapable of managing property are prescribed in the SDA (Substitute Decisions Act), and in the Mental Health Act."" The Mental Heath Act is for medical emergencies (only); but Ontario has a Substitute Decisions Act as well. An intent of the law is to protect vulnerable people. People may also acquire and/or name their own trustee and/or guardian voluntarily: via a power of attorney, a living will, etc. I don't know: how about offering the landlord a year's rent in advance, or in trust? I guess that 1) a court order can determine/override/guarantee the way in which the child support payments are directed 2) it's easier to get that order/agreement if you and your ex cooperate 3) there are housing specialists in your neighborhood: They can buy housing instead of renting it. Or be given (gifted) housing to live in."
Yes, in 2 ways: As you mention, the price of a home generally grows with inflation - along with other factors (supply and demand in local markets, etc.). Through financing. If you finance 80% of your purchase today, in 2014 dollars, you will pay back in future dollars. Those future dollars are worth less, because of inflation.
"I had the same thing happen to my house. I bought it in 2011 for 137,000, which was the same as the FHA appraised value (because FHA won't guarantee a loan for more than their appraiser thinks its worth). January of last year, I get the letter from the tax office and see that my house has been assessed at only 122,000. I was shocked too, until I read a similar document that Phil told you to read. The short of it is, no matter what the tax assessor calls their calculation, it is an assessment. It was mass-produced along with everyone else's in your neighborhood by looking at its specs on paper (acreage, house square footage, age, beds/baths) and by driving by your home to see its general condition. The fact that your lawn may be less well-kept than the last time they drove by could have affected the decision a little. It's very unlikely to have been a major determinant of the assessment. The assessment value affects taxes, and taxes only. It is, in most states, a matter of public record, and so it could be used by a potential buyer to negotiate a lower price. However, everyone in the housing business knows that the assessed value is not the market value, and the buyer's agent will be encouraging their client to make a more realistic bid. This ""assessed value"" is not an ""appraisal value"". An appraisal is done by someone actually walking into and through your home, inspecting the general condition inside and out, to try to make a fair evaluation of what the home is actually worth. That number is almost always going to be more than the assessment value, because it takes into account all the amenities of the home; the current fixtures, the well-kept (or recently-replaced) flooring, the energy-efficient HVAC and hot water system, etc etc. It also takes into account recent comparables; what have other houses, with the same general statistics, the same amenities, relatively close in location, sold for recently? That will still generally be different from the true market value of the home.
"I don't buy the ""house prices will always increase due to the increased cost of raw materials"" argument. In a lot of countries you will find that the cost of (re)building a property is substantially lower than its perceived sale value. If it wasn't, there would be no incentive for developers to take the risk of buying the land and building houses on it. Say the cost of building the house is 50% of the sale price (which might already be generous). Materials probably account for half of the building cost so you've got 25% tail wagging 75% dog? I'd start to worry if people buy property as a get rich quick scheme, which seems to be what you're describing."
Aside from everyone else's explanation about bundling them with other mortgages, a buddy of mine who worked at a boutique lending group basically said that they KNOW these people can't pay the loans back and thus the bank will be able to take over ownership of the home.  Since **housing prices are guaranteed to go up**, they'll be able to make money once they re-sell the property.
I wonder if it would be possible to become a demo house in a new market for this roof at a discounted rate, provided a person were to place a sign out front as is done with companies like ADT and the like.
A $100K house and $100K are not equivalent assets. Here's a hypothetical... You and I both work for the same company, and both get a $100K bonus (yes, I said it's hypothetical). You decide to use the $100K to pay off your house. I put the money in the bank. Six months later, our company lays both of us off. I have $100K in the bank. I can last for quite a while with that much money in the bank. You have a house, but you can't get a mortgage or home equity loan, because you don't have a job. The only way you can access the money is by selling the house, which requires you to pay money to a real estate agent and perhaps taxes, and leaves you looking for a place to live. That assumes there isn't something systemic going on - like the credit crash - and there is credit available for somebody else to buy your house.
The contract should address this issue. It will specify the types of remedies and damages that would result if either side tries to back out of the deal. There can be monetary penalties, and the courts can force the seller to complete the deal. Where I have experienced this it generally takes only a gentle reminder from the agent regarding the consequences. There is also limited indirect protection via the contract between the seller and their real-estate agent. Many times that contract will require the seller to pay the agent their commission if there isn't a valid reason to cancel the deal. The contract was to find a fully qualified buyer. The threat of having to pay 6% of list price to the agent, and not selling the house can be enough to get them to complete the deal. All this assumes there was fraud, which could bring in criminal penalties.
Would a rose smell as sweet if you called it a stench blossom? Excerpt on gifts from an LBMC article: The payment must be in the nature of “something for nothing.” It is   not a gift if the payment is a reward for services rendered. With   regard to payments made by an individual to a service provider, it is   difficult to argue that such payments constitute gifts, even when the   amounts are paid at the holidays. You can pretend it's a gift, but if you got it at your place of work after performing a service for the patron, it's a tip.
No. A company cannot bill you for services you did not request nor receive. If they could, imagine how many people would just randomly get bills in their mail. Ignore them. They don't have a contract or agreement with you and can't do anything other than make noise. If they get aggressive or don't stop requesting money, hire an attorney and it will be taken care of.
Your best bet is to use a payment processor that charges ONLY a fixed monthly fee and not a fee per transaction.
You'll need to read all the fine print with your particular credit card, but in general, if there is no annual fee and you don't make any purchases, you don't pay anything.
In the end, I was not required to pay the fee. After some frustrating initial attempts, I ended up writing a letter and sending a copy to card services, customer support, complaints and the legal department. It basically said: 1 - I never signed anything. 2 - I spoke to a very aggressive person at the airport who told me that she was just taking down my information in order to send information about the card, and that I was under no obligation 3 - I never received a card, activated a card, or used a card. 4 - I want this charge canceled immediately  5 - If this ever shows up on my credit report, I will contact my lawyer regarding this unscrupulous business practice. After that I received a notice in the mail confirming that everything had been cancelled and all charges were reversed.
"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)."
No. Not in the Uk anyway, they are just an extra person/company that you have to pay.
Many people, especially with lower income/skill/education, have poor money management skills to the point where they will not be able to ration their money for a full month. If the payment schedule is reduced to weekly or bi-weekly it becomes easier for such people to make non-discretionary payments.
You don't need credit cards but there are few benefits, if you pay them off right away I assume you do have a debit card, since sometimes (like unattended gas stations or shopping on the web) cash is not accepted.
Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings.  This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch! It has always been the case that the only way to talk to a human is to pay (because the human needs a salary), but the only difference is that in the past the cost was obscured to you because it was bundled in with the cost of the primary product or service. Now they're unbundling it so you see it as a separate cost. This is actually a good idea in my opinion.
"The opposite of a cost is an investment. Buying a car is an expense, usually a sunk cost, whereas purchasing real-estate, e.g. productive farmland, is an investment. (Some investments are wasting assets, as the value decreases over time, but they are still investments with market value, not costs.) ""Sunk cost"" isn't a fallacy. It just means an expenditure that one cannot expect to recoup. The action item is, ""Don't throw good money after bad."" The opposite of a sunk cost is an investment."
&gt; I agreed to eat the food with an implied contract that I will pay for it.   You stay in the state's territory voluntarily, you agree to benefit from the services they fund with an implied contract that you contribute to their funding one per year.  Trying to insist you never did consent, at this point, isn't an argument. You could say the same thing after you're done eating and your given a bill.
"The math on this only works if the workers who are ""choosing no income at all"" are being paid by something else.  In first world countries, humans cannot live (eat food or sleep in a bed, etc) without some sort of money.  The only question is - what else is paying them?  Government programs, friends, family support?"
As a general premise: In most of the online transactions in case of dispute the benefit of doubt is given to the customer. IE if the customer refuses to pay and claims that its not his transaction, the card company reverses the charges and does not pay the merchant (or recovers if its already paid).   There are many types of online vendors who use a variety of methods to ensure that they are not at loss. Some of these are:
"You have a subscription that costs $25 They have the capabilities to get that $25 from the card on file if you had stopped paying for it, you re-upping the cost of the subscription was more of a courtesy. They would have considered pulling the $25 themselves or it may have gone to collections (or they could courteously ask if you wanted to resubscribe, what a concept) The credit card processing agreements (with the credit card companies) and the FTC would handle such business practices, but ""illegal"" wouldn't be the word I would use. The FTC or Congress may have mandated that an easy ""opt-out"" number be associated with that kind of business practice, and left it at that."
"Charging interest by non financial institutions is allowable. There is only one definition of illegal or criminal interest and this is regarding loan sharks.  Section 347 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to charge more than 60% annually.   The biggest debate was whether or not ""pay day"" loan companies were breaking the law.  The recent bill C-26 amends this section to exempt ""pay day"" loans from this definition."
"I would use a ""virtual credit card"" which is basically a fake card that cannot be charged.  http://credit-card-generator.2-ee.com/q_virtual-credit-card-generator.htm"
"A non-trading stock or non-marketable security or unlisted security is one that does not trade continually on an exchange. For tax purposes, this can mean a whole new ball of wax which I would prefer the experts address with an edit to this answer or a new answer. For financial accounting purposes, this is when, say, one owns shares in an unlisted corporation and should be treated very carefully less one delude oneself. For trading stock, the value can be known immediately by checking any valid data provider's price and marking to market.  For non-trading stock, the value has to be ""marked to model"".  This can get one into Enron sized trouble. In this case, it's best to either leave the value of the stock at the purchase price and recognize gains upon sale, use a price from another honest transaction by third parties which are most likely difficult to attain, or to use some shorthand measure like applying the market P/E. Be wary of strangely high figures for value from the purchase price by using a market average, and don't throw away the shares just yet if a strangely low one arises.  This method can lead to strange results."
The U.S. Treasury said the same thing on the lawfulness of retailers refusing legal tender at point of sale - retailers are allowed to refuse any denomination of U.S. currency: [...]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. [...]
Original text: http://sci-hub.io/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303982  Most of these were speaking fees. In addition, 'payments' includes any transfer of value. If a pharma company rep buys a doctor a coffee, they're classed as paying them. Same thing if they sponsor a lunch at a conference. That's where the 1 in 12 figure comes from.  Most of the money is from speakers fees, which is limited to a very small subsection of doctors.
These are unrelated.  If I subscribe to the paper and pay a month by check, they will just keep billing and delivering the paper.  The virtual card would work for a service that will cancel when the billing attempt fails. i.e. A service that won't just keep active without being paid in advance.
"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)."
Hence why I pay bill by bill and don't authorize automatic withdrawals. Are you telling me your online banking and/or utility company don't allow you to make non automatic payments online?  If so I guess thats the answer to OP's question...
I would guess that this is due to the card issuer, not Paypal. Credit card transactions are tagged with a code describing the type of purchase, and some issuers disallow certain types (such as gambling).
Really?  His desire for food makes him no more willing to pay?  I doubt that will hold any further than a test environment.  If he was starving and only had a little cash, I could see he would have less desire to pay.  But when he has wealth and is starving, stubbornness may be the only holdback.  How many people charge more for water because their oasis is the only one around?  You think the travelers they see won’t ever pay?  They may not WANT to, but they will if they have no other choice.  The value is immediate.    Unless you are thinking of some other sort of pseudo value, value is what you are willing to give for what you will get at any particular point in time.  A man dying of dehydration may give much more than a man sated.  Once the first man is sated, what he would probably give is less.    This is called “Diminishing Marginal Utility”.
The pharma company gets paid for the use of a drug, regardless of what they are used for.  FDA rules prohibit pharma companies from promoting (in any fashion) the use of their products for non-labelled uses. This includes situation where there is some scientific and clinical evidence for the products use, but they do not have formal approval yet.  In these situations, doctors are allowed to use their judgement on what would work for their patient. If the doctor chooses to use a particular product for treatment, then they can.  However, payers (i.e. insurance companies) can choose whether or not to reimburse a drug for off-label use. If they don't, then the patient would need to pay out of pocket.
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."
"There are number of reasons why someone doesn't want to give you a receipt for cash payment. Anything ranging from not wanting to pay taxes, to being able to deny you gave them money for service in the event you're not happy with the service and ask for money back. You won't get in trouble for giving him cash, however you should be worried because any ""reputable"" person providing any type of service/product will provide a receipt regardless of payment type."
There is nothing called free lunch. The 2% fee indirectly covers the cost of funds and in effect would be a personal loan. Further the repayment period would typically be 3 months and roughly would translate into 7-9% loan depending of repayment schedule etc. There is no harm in trying to get the fee waived, however one thing can lead to another and they may even go and do an credit inquiry etc, so be cautious.
"&gt; It should go without saying (should being the key word) that you must pay employees enough so that they stop thinking about money.  I agree with that. At my retail job I would often think, ""I don't get paid enough to do that, so I'm not going to."" Now I'm in a tech job and money isn't even a thought. I just do my work."
"I wrote about it above... my employer doesn't pay for the service,  and isn't under any contract (other peer companies do pay for it). I'm partially a hero for completing the project for free, but that's another story.   I also created the company and did the work outside of business hours, so that I wouldn't breach any conflict of interest rules.   And being a government body, rather than a ""for profit"" corporation actually makes this kind of thing a lot easier to do, assuming you don't charge your employer money."
&gt;  it was no longer free to deliver that sort of content  It's not free.  Content providers pay for the right to access the network, just like you or I.  Their bandwidth (**not** usage) needs are greater, and they therefore pay a notably larger monthly bill than most individuals.    But it's not free.
Talk to a lawyer.  Most will give a free consult and let you know your options.  One of the options you will likely have is a letter from a lawyer threatening further legal action if payment is not received.  Reluctant clients are often more willing to pay if they know you aren't willing to take it in the shorts.
This is not allowed, and there is a name for it: IBAN discrimination. Searching for that term will give you some pointers what to do about it. The EU regulation that prohibits this is 260/2012, article 9, paragraph 2: A payee accepting a credit transfer or using a direct debit to collect funds from a payer holding a payment account located within the Union shall not specify the Member State in which that payment account is to be located, provided that the payment account is reachable in accordance with Article 3. You can report this at the relevant national authorities. In the Netherlands, this is De Nederlandsche Bank, which has a special e-mail address for this: meldpuntIBANdiscriminatie@dnb.nl