vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Advantage of cash: You can spend the money without having to pay any fees or taxes to get it out. Disadvantage: When inflation is greater than zero, which it has been for many decades, your cash is continually losing value. Advantages of an IRA (Roth or classic): Your money will usually grow as the investments return a profit. You get special tax benefits. Disadvantages: There's risk -- you may lose money. There are tax penalties for withdrawing the money before retirement. In general, you should only put money in an IRA if you expect to leave it there until you retire. Or at least, for a long time. Whole life is a combination of a life insurance policy and an investment. Advantages: Combines insurance and investment into one convenient monthly payment. Disadvantages: The investment portion typically has lower returns than you could get elsewhere. If you have no need for life insurance -- if you're not supporting anyone or you're confidant they could get along without you or you don't like them and don't care what happens to them when you're gone or whatever -- then there's no point buying life insurance, whole or term. You're paying for a product that you don't need. It's pretty common advice to tell people that instead of buying a whole life policy, they should buy a term policy with the same coverage, and then invest the difference in the premium. For example, if you were considering getting a $100,000 whole life policy that costs $50 per month (just making up numbers, of course it depends on your age, health, etc), and you see you could get a $100,000 term life policy for $30 per month, you will almost certainly do better in the long run to buy the $30 term policy and put the other $20 into investments. The catch to this plan is that there are usually transaction costs to investing. Even a discount broker like Ameritrade or Scott Trade charges around $10 per transaction. So if you tried to invest $20 each month, you'd lose half of it to transaction fees. Which means that in practice, you'd have to save that money up until you had at least a few hundred. And at that point many people find other things always seem to come up to spend the money on, so that while they start out with every intention of investing this money, they don't.
One of the main advantages is that duplication from a few sources is no longer a vector.  The two big examples, the lesser first, card skimming and breaches like Target's.  The chip essentially generates a unique transaction code, and that is generated inside the chip.  So even if you installed a chip skimmer, you'd have to beat the merchant to using the code, and it would only be good once.  The same is true if you get something like the Target breach.  Instead of a giant dump of card numbers, you get a giant dump of used codes, which aren't very useful for getting money.  Even if the risk of stolen cards goes up, it should be a huge advantage for the banks.   Additionally, a number of the banks are now implementing quick and short term freezes, like the Discover It card app.  You simply click freeze in the app if you aren't sure where your card is, and unfreeze it when you do.  The assumption here is that people are more likely to freeze it and do so sooner than if they have to wait for a new card in the mail.  Theoretically, there's nothing stopping a consumer from keeping the card frozen all the time, and unfreezing it when they walk into a store, except the impracticality of it.
Are there any advantages to layaway? There are two main advantages. First, when you pay the initial deposit the seller reserves the item for you at a given price. This is helpful with unique products, like a high-end custom-made watch. If there is only one of those watches in the entire world, then it's nice to know that the seller won't sell it to anyone else while you're getting together the remaining funds and the price you're paying is locked in. Second, layaway agreements often allow for a payment plan. This is helpful for people who have a hard time saving up money. For many, it's easier to make smaller monthly payments than a large one-time payment. Of course the cost of layaway is that you're $30,000 short for up to 6 months. This money could be generating a significant amount of interest during a half-year period. You'll need to make sure that reserving the item and locking in the price are worth this cost.
There is also security aspect. By reducing the number of active credit/debit cards, one significantly reduces the surface of attack. There is smaller chance of getting one of your card information stolen and misused (cf Target data leaks and others).
There is no advantage to using one type of account or the other if you are in the same tax bracket at retirement that you are in during your working years. However, for tax planning reasons, it is good to have some money in both a Roth and a traditional IRA plan.  JoeTaxpayer has often advocated a good rule of thumb to use a Roth when your tax bracket is 15% or lower, and use a traditional account when in the 25% bracket or above. The reason for this rule of thumb is that you are less likely to be in the higher tax bracket when you are living off retirement savings unless you put away an awful lot of money between now and then. If you are making enough money to be paying a 25% marginal rate on some of the money you would be putting away for retirement, then by all means, put all of that money in a traditional 401k. If after contributing that portion of your savings taxed at the higher rate, you still have money to put away for retirement, put the rest in a Roth and pay the 15% taxes on it. When you are younger, it is likely that you are making less than you will a few years hence, and it is also likely that a larger portion of your income will be paying tax deductible interest on a mortgage. If those are true for you, then by all means, use the Roth. That was true of me when I was single and just getting started. When you do finally retire, it is possible that the tax brackets will be increased to match inflation, and if so, then there is no benefit to having tax free money at retirement vs. paying taxes on deferred accounts, but there is also usually more flexibility in when to spend money. You may find that you have a year where you have to spend a lot, so it is good to be able to pull money out without it increasing your marginal rate for that year, and other years where you spend relatively smaller amounts, and you can withdraw taxable money and pay a lower rate on that money. No one knows what the tax code will look like in 40 years, but having some money in each type of account will give you flexibility to minimize your tax bill at retirement.
Putting your money in the same account as a parent could cause many problems, with very few benefits. One of you would have to claim the dividends and capital gains that the fund might earn during the year. That person might have to pay taxes on those earnings. You would have to find some way of figuring out how to split the costs, and somebody would have to reimburse the other. If one person wanted to sell, figuring out which shares to sell would be much more complex. If these are retirement accounts, which have maximum limits based on income, and the use of other retirement accounts, there is no way to co-mingle the funds. Even if it was possible to combine the funds, the reality is that two people decades apart have different investment goals, and risk tolerances, so the types of investments that a great for one, are very poor for the other. The only benefit is that an existing account would already have more than the minimum investment, so some investments would be easier to make. Also some investments have lower fees if you meet specific investment thresholds. If the fund increases in value by 10% in a year, it doesn't make a difference if the value at the start of the year was 10K or 100K. The rate is the same. The benefits are minor and few; the drawbacks are many; and some situations make it impossible to co-mingle the funds.
Yes, you can do everything that Fidelity promises with the cash management account.  Your benefits are: The downsides?  They don't have branches everywhere, so if you do need to see a person, you may not be able to do so.  Likewise, you won't be able to do cash deposits.   Before anyone says it's too good to be true, brokerages like Schwab and Fidelity offer this because the hope is that you'll end up establishing or using other services they offer, so they do have ways to profit from this.  Still, compared to the joke that is many other banks, it's a good deal provide you're aware of the two downsides listed above this.
"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer.
With reference to the UK: Structured deposits should not be confused with structured products.  Structured deposits are often, quite simple deposit accounts. You place your money into what is essentially a deposit account, and are therefore guaranteed not to lose your capital as with any other deposit account. The attraction is that you could earn more than you would in a normal deposit account, often around double, due to indirect exposure to the markets. Another benefit is that structured deposits can form part of your annual cash ISA allowance, so the returns can be tax free. These products are popular with those who have savings which they are happy to deposit away for between 3 and 6 years, and are looking for better rates of return than standard cash ISAs or savings accounts. The main drawback is that you may not receive anything other than your original deposit. That poses a minimal risk if your savings are earning less than 1% currently.  See my article at financialandrew.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/fed-up-with-low-returns-from-cash-isas.html for a more rounded overview of the structured deposits.
I spent some time comparing banks' interest rates until I realized that it didn't actually matter (to me). The only money I keep in checking and savings accounts is money that I'm going to spend shortly or is part of an emergency fund, and in both those cases convenience of liquidity is far more important than small differences in interest (I want to be able to go to a nearby branch, even if traveling, and pull out large sums of money). The majority of our money goes into investment accounts, where it's earning much more than even the best savings account. Most of your 100k would be much better served in a stock/bonds mix. Are standard taxable investment accounts one of those things you can't open? What about if you opened one in your home country?
"Whatever the percentage divisions are, I'm a big fan of keeping things in separate accounts.  This works especially well for fixed bills.  It is essentially a bank account version of the envelope method.  If I take out everything from your paycheck I know is reserved (including reserving savings), for me it is a lot easier to not even miss the money when I'm going towards ""fun"" expenditures - which come from the checking account."
Assumptions 1 & 2 are correct. Plus you will improve on credit score. The only disadvantage is if you get lax about it and overspend beyond your limit ... Plus a small risk of fraud of card transactions ...
An offset account is simply a savings account which is linked to a loan account. Instead of earning interest in the savings account and thus having to pay tax on the interest earned, it reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the loan. Example of a 100% offset account: Loan Amount $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $80,000 loan balance. Example of a 50% offset account: Loan Account $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $90,000 loan balance. The benefit of an offset account is that you can put all your income into it and use it to pay all your expenses. The more the funds in the offset account build up the less interest you will pay on your loan. You are much better off having the offset account linked to the larger loan because once your funds in the offset increase over $50,000 you will not receive any further benefit if it is linked to the smaller loan. So by offsetting the larger loan you will end up saving the most money. Also, something extra to think about, if you are paying interest only your loan balance will not change over the interest only period and your interest payments will get smaller and smaller as your offset account grows. On the other hand, if you are paying principal and interest then your loan balance will reduce much faster as your offset account increases. This is because with principal and interest you have a minimum amount to pay each month (made up of a portion of principal and a portion of interest). As the offset account grows you will be paying less interest, so a larger portion of the principal is paid off each month.
Good question, here are some possible answers: Its a Good Idea There is probably some validity to the statictics and having money invested, generally speaking, has proven far more valuable than having it sit in a savings account. It tends to reinforce strength Suppose you own two stocks, one that is a great performer, and one that isn't.  Generally speaking the high performer will pay out more, and if you reinvest more into that stock, you will be wealthier if you contributed equally to both stocks. You might forget People tend to forget to do things that are not in the forefront, and reinvestment is one of those things that slip people's mind.  One of the wealth building tools that people universally recommend is automation.  Reinvesting is a way to automate one aspect of one's financial life.   You might spend it on something else If you put the dividends into your checking account, there is a non-zero chance that it might get put towards something else.  Better to have it out of sight and mind and invested. They make money Generally speaking, the more money you have in a brokerage account, the more the brokerage makes.   So it is good for them, as well as yourself. While there is some attraction to being able to see a balance that is the result of dividend investments, its just far better to have them be poured right back into whatever investment seem appropriate.
What worked out well for me is a Capital One High Yield Savings Account, which came with a lower interest rate than most online accounts but higher than a brick & mortar bank. Also, since Capital One has Banking locations now, I can use the ATM card that came with this account to pull out the emergency money if I need it in a pinch at a place that doesn't accept checks.
I use GNUCash. It's a bit more like Quickbooks than plain Quicken, but it's not all that complicated. Probably the most difficult part is understanding the idea of income accounts.  Benefits: For short term planning, I use scheduled transactions. If I'm spending more than I have, it'll show up here. Every paycheck and dollar spent or invested is recorded with the exact date I anticipate it will happen, 30 days in advance. If that would overdraw my checking account, the Future Minimum Balance field will go negative and red. This lets me move float to higher interest savings and retirement funds, and avoids overdraft fees or other mishaps. By looking 30 days ahead in detail, I have enough time to transfer from illiquid assets. For longer term planning, I keep a spreadsheet around that plans out annual expenses. If I'm spending more than I earn, it shows up here. I estimate everything: expenses, savings, taxes, and income. I need this because I have a lot of expenses that are far less frequent than monthly or paycheck-ly. The beauty of it is that once I've got it in place, I can duplicate the sheet and consider tweaks for say taking a new job or moving, or even just changing an insurance plan (probably less relevant for those with access to NHS). Especially when moving to take a new job, it's not as straightforward as comparing salaries, and thus having a document for the status quo to start from lets you focus on the parts that changed.
The Bank have risk. In goods, thrre are two profiles, essentially it can be convenient and hence the usage, pay off monthly or spending future earnings today for luxury. The way cash advance is seen, emergency, ran out of cash in foreign/remote location... Debit cards not working etc. One generally needs small amount of cash. The other segment is loss of income. Essentially I have run out of cash and I need to borrow. This is additional risk and hence is limited or curtailed.
The bottom line is to keep most of your money in accounts with no check privileges and to not give the account numbers for these accounts to anyone. Keep just enough in your checking account for the checks you are going to write.
You can open Savings Bank Account with some Banks that offer better interest rate. Note there would be restriction on number of withdrawals in quarter. There are better interest rates if you lock in for 90+ days. The other option to explore is to open a Demat / Brokrage account and invest in liquid funds. Note depending on various factors it may or may not suite your requirements.
If your checking account has a card associated with it, then keeping funds in savings reduces the risk that some kind of fraud will wipe you out.
"Keep in mind that the only advantage that using a tax favored account gives you is tax-free growth of the cash value of the policy. This ""Infinite Banking"" spin isn't some sort of new revolution in money management, its just a repackaging of techniques that people have been using for years to manage tax liability with some breathless marketing spiel. Before you jump in, compute the following: Now comes the hard part: Life insurance is sold, never bought. The guy pushing this does seminars at hotels sponsored by life insurance agents. The purpose of the program is to generate sales of insurance. Be wary. If you actually have the significant amounts of money required to capitalize this, there are much better ways to get an income stream from that money -- you need a good financial advisor. And if you have a huge tax liability and a scheme like this somehow makes sense, find someone who does it for a living in your state who isn't a crook."
"Here are some reasons why it is advantageous to hold a portion of your savings in other countries: However, it should be noted that there are some drawbacks to holding funds in foreign banks: Don't worry; I haven't forgotten about the elephant in the room. What about tax evasion and money laundering? In general, simply transferring funds to a foreign jurisdiction will do nothing to help you evade taxes or hide evidence of a crime. Pretty much any method you can think of to transfer money is easily traceable, and any method that is difficult to trace is either illegal or heavily-regulated, with stiff penalties if you get caught. There are a few jurisdictions that have very strict banking privacy laws (the Philippines, for example). If you can somehow get the money into a bank account in one of these countries, you might be OK... at least, until that country's government decides (or is pressured) to change its banking privacy laws. But, what would you actually do with that money? Unless you want to go live in that country, you're going to have to transfer the funds out to spend them, and now you're right back on the radar — except now it's even worse, because the fact that the funds come from a suspicious jurisdiction will automatically cause your transfer to get flagged for investigation! This is where money laundering comes into play. There are lots of ways to go about this (exceptionally illegal) activity, many of which do not involve banks at all (at least, not directly). How money laundering works is outside the scope of this question, but in case you are curious, here are a couple of articles about the ""dark side"" of finance: In short, if you want to break the law, opening a foreign bank account isn't going to help much. In fact, the real crime is that offshore banking has such a criminal reputation in the first place! That said, it is possible to create legal distance between yourself and your money by using a corporate structure, and there are legitimate reasons why you might want to do this.
Remember that balance transfers are rarely fee free. As you state, there is a fee associated with the balance transfer. If your 0% rate is for 18 months and the fee is 3%, you are really paying 2% per year on the amount you transferred. The advantage is that you can redirect the debt you transferred is interest free and you can attack other debt with high interest on it. This can save you in interest fees and allow you to direct more of your money towards debt. The disadvantage is that your 0% interest will expire and become a much higher interest rate. Unless you pay off the transfer before the expiration, you will have to pay off the debt at the higher interest. How you decide to attack your debt reduction may need to factor in how long you expect to have debt and what other debt you have. Often times though, the savings in interest is less important than simplifying the number of debt accounts you have. The inspiration you receive from reducing your debt accounts is much more powerful. You realize reducing debt accounts allows you to actually see an end in sight and provides the recurring positive feedback that you are making progressing. This is why the advice to pay off your lowest balance credit cards first.