vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt;This means that you may be able to make about $120,000 per year, which isn’t bad. Except you’ll have expenses, like rent, transportation, repairs, supplies, computers and whatever else. Your expenses will probably run a few thousand a month, so let’s assume **after expenses you’re netting about $80,000**. Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill. So lop about 30 percent off that $80K and you’re down to a net living of $56,000.  $80,000 net income before taxes is quite good for a self employed individual.  I don't really see what the problem is.    His bit about taxes after that is completely irrelevant because you'll be paying federal and fica no matter what, plus state and real estate taxes if they apply to you.
Well, if you worked in the United States you have social security, and medicare and medicaid in most cases as well.  So you have a small amount of income to spend every month to cover your most basic living expenses, as well as your basic medical expenses.  At least, that's the idea. In reality, it probably isn't anywhere near enough money for most to live comfortably.  Also, there is a real fear that the US will have to inflate itself out of its debt to some extent in the future.  This theory implies that the money retired individuals have saved or are receiving down the road could buy significantly less in the future than they expect. If you have the ability to put money away into an IRA or 401K early in your life, it will be greatly beneficial to do so.  However, that is another issue I won't begin to discuss fully here. Edit since your question was restated after I typed my initial response, the final answer is:  You will receive some assistance from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  You will most likely need to either continue working, draw on savings such as an IRA or 401k, or will need assistance from others.  If none of those are options, you would most likely end up living in poverty or worse.
HSA's are one of the few accounts where the money is both tax free going in and coming out. For long term savings, the only account that might beat that is a 401(k) with an employer match. Unlike an FSA, the money can stay in the account indefinitely. You can also use the money to pay medical insurance premiums once you separate from the employer. An HSA combines the best features of a FSA, Roth account, and IRA/401(k) account. As such I think there is rarely a reason not to max one out, and in fact I think it is worth it to go out of your way to get access to one. There are some drawbacks, of course. If you don't use the money for medical expenses, it may be taxed and perhaps penalized. Getting access to one can be tricky (you have to be covered by an HDHP, but not by a non-HDHP, nor by an FSA). The low contribution limits make it hard to build up a large balance. Many providers charge a monthly fee of $1 to $4 if you want to invest the balance (small, but it adds up, especially given the low balance per previous sentence).
Years ago I mailed my personal tax return one day after the due date, and my check was deposited as normal, and I never heard anything about it. As an employer, I once sent in my employee's withheld federal taxes one day after the due date, and I later received a letter stating my penalty for being late worked out to be around $600. The letter stated that since this was my first time being late they would waive the fee. In both cases, they could have charged me a late fee if they wanted to.
"Well, perhaps ""have a dedicated tax advisor"" is an answer then. I   wouldn't have thought of this, as it's not specifically about   taxation, is it? Or more broadly ""consult with a dedicated   professional for the situation in detail""... Yes, that is the only real answer you can get. Anything else will vary between highly localized to entirely incorrect. Pensions are rarely defined benefit anymore, and not many countries still keep state-sponsored defined benefit pension plans. For most, what's left is Social Security system, which is in no way a pension. This is an insurance, and is paid as tax which is rarely refundable (but you won't always have to pay it if you're a foreigner in the country). Usually, Social Security benefits are only available to citizens and (/or, in some rare cases) residents of that country. So it is unlikely (although possible) that you'll benefit from social security payments of more than one country. Some countries have totalization treaties that make your social security payments in one count in the other. If you're in a country that has such an agreement with the Netherlands - you're lucky. Your personal pension savings are basically tax-deferred investment accounts. But tax deferral in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. In the US you have 401k or IRA accounts, but in your own country they may very well be taxable. So you gain the tax deferral in the US, but if your own country taxes them - you lost the benefit, and you will still have to abide by the US tax rules when taking the money out. If you don't plan properly you can easily be hit by double taxation in such cases. Bottom line, you need to plan your pension savings on your own, privately, with a good and solid tax advice (and pension planning advice) that would be relevant to all the countries that you are tax resident at at any given time (you can easily be resident for tax purposes in more than one country). These advisers have to take into account the laws of the countries involved, the tax treaties between themselves and between them and the country of your citizenship,  and the future countries you're planning on visiting or getting old at. Its complicated, and most likely you won't be able to predict everything, especially because the laws and treaties tend to change over time."
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.
&gt;Hey, sole proprietorships called  A sole proprietorship could incorporate as a Single Member LLC and elect to be taxed as a corporation. But you would still be subject to both sides of the FICA/Medicare taxes.   &gt;and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS  How exactly does a LLC suck out 5% more of your gross?   &gt;your payroll costs go through the roof.  Again, payroll expenses are generally tax deductible.   I'm just trying to help you here.
They are wrong.  If they offer an FSA, they must abide by the rules regarding FSA eligible expenses, plain and simple. They can offer a lower limit than the general maximum ($5K/yr?) and they can allow a grace period on expenses, or not. But, they must allow reimbursements for reimbursable items. Medical Insurance premiums are included. See this comprehensive list.  On the IRS web site, Pub 969 discusses FSAs at a higher level and indicates that Publication 502 has the detailed list of reimbursable expenses. Medical insurance is listed. I offer this chain so one can find the data directly from the IRS and not claim that Wikipedia might not be accurate.  At this point you need to decide how far you want to go with your benefits department on this. Do they offer a copy of what they claim is the accepted list of reimbursables?
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.
"The IRS has a FAQ page about Hardship Distributions from a 401(k). The IRS defines a hardship in this case as ""an immediate and heavy financial need of the employee and the amount must be necessary to satisfy the financial need.""  Included in the list of examples is ""certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence.""  However, whether your former employer allows this particular reason is up to their plan documents.  It sounds like, from what you described on the website, that your plan does include this reason as a possibility for you. Next, you need to decide if the projects you have in mind qualify as ""repair of damage.""  This uses the same rules as the deductible casualty rules found in IRS Publication 547, which defines a casualty this way: A casualty is the damage, destruction, or loss of property resulting from an identifiable event that is sudden, unexpected, or unusual. A sudden event is one that is swift, not gradual or progressive. An unexpected event is one that is ordinarily unanticipated and unintended. An unusual event is one that is not a day-to-day occurrence and that is not typical of the activity in which you were engaged. Examples are given in Pub 547.  If the projects you have in mind are necessary due to an event (like a flood or a fire), it might be allowed.  But most ""home improvement"" projects would not qualify for this. If you'd like a way to simplify your financial profile, an option for you, since you no longer work at this employer, is to roll over this 401(k) into a Rollover (traditional) IRA.  This way, you won't have to deal with your former employer anymore.  You could pick an IRA custodian that you already have another account with, if you like, and reduce the number of statements that you get.  But the IRA will not let you take money out without penalty for home improvement projects, either."
1)  When you apply for insurance you indicate your expected income, they figure the subsidy based on this.  Note that while this data isn't checked it's only an estimate, any errors will be fixed at tax time so lying is just going to gain you an unpleasant tax bill come April 15. 2)  It's not paid in installments, it's just a monthly premium.  It's quite possible for someone to be on the ACA for only part of a year. 3)  I can't address the issue of the fines.  However, you are wrong on who it's for--it's for anyone who doesn't have employer-provided insurance, whatever the reason.  I've been on it since it's inception because I have been self employed for most of that time--there's no employer to even offer me insurance.
&gt;What makes you think anything would change? If they allowed Match money to be distributed tax free, they are missing out on a future tax revenue opportunity.  I agree that it's highly unlikely that matching contributions would be made entirely tax-free. If anything, I would expect employer contributions to be treated the same way that after-tax (non-Roth) 401(k) contributions are treated today to the extent that they exceed the new contribution limits. It's also possible that only individual contribution limits will be reduced and employer contribution limits will remain much higher - I haven't seen any reporting on the latter.  &gt;I think the more likely way they would stick it to us is to sunset the Roth 401(k) all together and make plans go back to the old school pre-tax and after-tax only, where even the earnings on after-tax are taxed at distribution.  I'm optimistic that Roth 401(k)s are here to stay. Trump's priorities seem to be centered around short-term budget characteristics with far less concern for the long-term (as is characteristic of populist administrations in general), and eliminating Roth 401(k)s would be unpopular and have a negligible impact on tax revenue in the short term.
"No. Switzerland is one of the few countries the United States has ""totalizaton"" agreements with (not to confuse with tax treaties) to work around this kind of thing. You can find the list of the agreements here. You can use the years you work in Switzerland to make up for the remaining  credits you need to qualify for benefits in the U.S. When it's time to retire, you'll receive a partial U.S. benefit that is proportional to the number of credits you earned in the U.S. You can learn more about all this here. For other countries, for which the US doesn't have totalization agreements, in this scenario you would get no benefits back for the money. So yes, it would be lost."
90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier.
My local credit Union has insured IRA accounts or IRA certificates that get the same low interest rates that non-IRA accounts receive. They get NCUA insurance, which is the equivalence of FDIC insurance.
"Thanks for your additional comments Sam, that is helpful. Here is an overview of what you can and cannot do with an FSA as it applies to your situation. The government intends that a general health FSA be used to cover expenses that are usually out-of-pocket when you are covered by a qualifying health plan. It is funded with pre-tax dollars and is on a use-it or lose-it basis. However, an HSA is itself a form of health coverage that is tax-advantaged, and the balance can be invested. Because of this, an HSA is not considered by the government to be a health plan that ""qualifies"" for use with a general health FSA. However, this means that a given covered person cannot have both of these simultaneously. In your wife's case, if you have an HSA and she has traditional health benefits with an FSA, this is not considered a problem since she can only use the FSA money for expenses incurred by members of your family on her plan. However, if she were to join you on the HSA (which sounds like it could be a good idea overall), she would need to wind down her FSA and would not be able to fund it for the next year. This could be a problem if you have a lot of money in the FSA that she isn't able to spend prior to joining the HSA. The reason why the government doesn't want one given person covered by both an HSA and given access to an FSA at the same time is that they are both tax-advantaged. What they intend is that people can set aside money pre-tax which they will use to pay their non-covered health expenses. If someone had both, there would be two potential problems: If you do ultimately want your wife to be on the HSA, see if you can spend what is left in her FSA, as it will end when she ends her health coverage with her employer. If the amount you stand to lose is significant, you may need to wait another year until your next open enrollment period or life event (such as the birth of a child) to enroll her on your HSA. It is also likely that her premium on the HSA will be lower, which could impact the effect of ending her FSA.
it is a cocktail of ... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, health care ..."" on the earlier version of my answer does raise the question of whether you want your employer to withhold 26% instead of 37% and have the money go to meet all these obligations or just 26% towards your Federal income tax liability only. The Federal W-4 form affects only how much money is withheld from your paycheck and sent to the US Treasury. Some of the money that each of your employers withholds (Social Security and Medicare taxes) is not affected by what you put down on the W-4 form. Now, if you hold two jobs and the total income shown on your W-2s is larger than the SS limit, you will have had too much Social Security taxes withheld, and the excess will be a credit towards your Federal income tax liability. You have self-employment income too on which you owe Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are making estimated tax payments. The excess Social Security tax payment can count towards this too (as well as income tax on your Schedule C income). Thus, if your new employer is withholding too much, you might be able to skip making the fourth quarterly payment of estimated tax or make a reduced payment (there is no requirement that the four installments must be equal). In short, there are lots of ramifications that you need to take into account before deciding that 26% is the right number. Instead of filling out a W-4 all by yourself right away, I strongly recommend reading up a lot on income taxes, or play with a tax preparation program (last year's version will do a pretty good job of at least getting you in the right ballpark), or consult with a tax accountant."
When in doubt, you should always seek the advice of a professional tax preparer or your accountant. (Many agents/accountants will gladly review your tax preparations to ensure you haven't missed something. That's quicker and cheaper than paying them to do it all.) Having said that... This Illinois resource has detailed information about S-corps:  Of relevance to your situation:
Some provinces ""harmonized"" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada. If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction. In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes. If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them. If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction. Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets. Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins. Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type. So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return.
I don't really see the big deal in taking the check. Fidelity will issue you a check, made payable to VANGUARD FBO [Your Name]. All you have to do is simply hand the check over to Vanguard to deposit into your new IRA. Simple and done. To answer your question: Whether or not a custodian, tpa, or recordkeeper will do a direct-deposit or transfer of your funds is completely at their discretion. My company rarely does direct transfers. We issue a check to you. It's just the way we do it. You can talk to Vanguard and see if they can initiate the direct transfer with Fidelity - but honestly, this may just delay getting your funds moved and you're going to end up with a check anyways. And if Vanguard does somehow convince Fidelity to do the wire transfer - there is still going to be a fee. Wires are expensive. Unless Vanguard is willing to pick up the wire fee for you (doubtful). Other's have also mentioned that TPA's will withhold a mandatory 20% federal tax withholding if they send you a check. This is only true if the check gets made payable in your name. But the taxes should not be withheld as long as the check is made payable to your new Vanguard IRA. So my final opinion: Just take the check and give it to your Vanguard rep. It's literally that simple.