vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
No cash is necessary for most people.  In the modern day in the US there is no need to keep paper currency around for emergencies; any sort of emergency that knocked out all of the ability to use plastic (ATMs, credit cards, etc.) for an extended period of time AND knocked your bank out of service would be of the level that cash  might not have any value either. Your $100 of cash for natural disasters is likely more than enough, and even that I wouldn't necessarily consider a vital thing in this day where even a major natural disaster probably isn't going to have too much impact on the financial sector outside of the immediate area (that you should be exiting quickly).  Keep however much cash around that you need for day to day cash expenses, and that should be enough. The level of emergency that would suggest cash being needed would probably need more than you'd actually want to keep around, anyway - i.e., a complete collapse of the American or World financial system would imply you need months' worth of cash.  That's just not feasible, nor is it practical financially.  You should have your emergency fund making at least a bit of interest - 1% or so isn't hard to get right now, and in the near future that may increase substantially if interest rates go up. It also would make you a substantial theft target if it were known you had months' worth of cash around the house (i.e., thousands of dollars).  Safes don't necessarily give you sufficient protection unless you've got a very good safe - commercial ones are only as safe as the ability to crack them and/or transport them is. Now, if you find yourself regularly out at 2am and run out of cash, and you live somewhere that ATMs don't exist, and you find yourself needing to pay cab drivers from time to time after a drunk bender... then I'd keep at least one cab's worth of cash at home.
A website is the front page of your services. people usually tend to visit your website first before viewing your youtube uploads. So to answer your question yes it is important to have an updated website which has a blog attached but it does not have to be too fancy. A simple business site is all that is required.
No, it doesn't.  That would be true if somehow incomes were conserved, but they aren't.  What's much more likely is that income growth becomes muted in the first world with the vast majority of income growth happening in developing economies.  So, it doesn't require losing income, but it will mean constrained income growth in developed countries.
Yes you will need an emergency fund for the rental. Besides appliances, or a roof, that might need to be replaced, you will also have to protect against being unable to rent the unit.  Another risk is that you may have a tenant damage the unit. While you can get the money through the courts it may take months or longer. You can't wait for the money before you repair the unit. Keeping the rental unit funds separate from the rest of your funds will allow you to make sure you are adequately protecting yourself.
You need wealth in order to have a sovereign wealth fund. The countries that do it are usually petro states such as Norway and Saudi Arabia. Since petrol is in dollars, they sell oil and get dollars.   They need a way to then spend this money, hence the wealth fund.
"Life Insurance can be a difficult decision.  We have to first assess the ""want"" for it vs. the ""need"" for it, and that differs from person to person.  Any Life licensed agent should be happy to do this calculation for you at no cost and no obligation.  Just be sure you are well educated in the subject to make sure they are looking after YOUR needs and not their wallets. For the majority of clients, when looking at ""needs"" we will be sure to look at income coverage (less what the household needs with one less body) as well as debt coverage, education costs etc.  More importantly make sure you are buying the RIGHT insurance, as much as the right amount."
being prepared to take advantage of opportunities is also determined by luck. Did you get to choose who your parents were or how they brought you up, eventually defining your personality and therefore propensity to be prepared for opportunities?  No.  Did you get to choose what random events occurred around an opportunity, which modified your ability or propensity to act up on it? No.   The idea of 'success' depends on the idea of free will and the ability to overcome disadvantages, but you don't even need to rule out free will to see that ability itself is determined by luck.   Luck is all.   Read The Sirens of Titan by Vonnegut, it really solidified my thinking in this vein.
I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though. I think a divorce court pretty much ignores whose name assets are in when dividing up property.) See IRS publication 969, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/index.html for lots and lots of details."
"I agree!  But what are you going to do about jobs where ""a bachelor degree is required""?  P/S: once, to be a teller in the bank, you did not need to finish high school, but you needed to know how to add numbers. Today, you can't be a teller unless you have a bachelor degree. You know why? Why not? Too many people have degrees, so, let's require a bachelor degree."
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.
You only insure assets, and you only insure them for the people that depend on them. You don't need to insure a liability. Therefore: Example: I have life insurance equal to a couple of years salary, in order to make sure my wife doesn't encounter any hardships if I die. I'm the primary income earner, and she will take of the kids. Once we have kids we'll get life insurance for her to cover what the costs would be to take care of the kids if she were to die.
this seems like a bad idea.  Example: You want to sell. He doesn't.  But he doesn't have enough money to buy you out. What will you do? You might want to sell because you need money, you have to move, you want to get married, you want to start a new business, etc. You two are not equals (you need a place to live), so this is unlikely to work.
"The simple answer is...get everything you can.  If you're closing the account then you want to have as complete a record as possible for yourself just for the sake of playing it safe.  There's no such thing as having ""too much information"" when it comes to your financial records. You can never tell when something will come up that requires information from years past that you thought you'd never need, and if you don't have it, then what? This is a matter of being prudent, and while it make take some effort to obtain the records, it's better to be safe than sorry. Good luck!"
"From a more technical point of view, a trust is a legal relationship between 3 parties: Trusts can take many forms. People setup trusts to ensure that property is used in a specific way. Owning a home with a spouse is a form of a trust. A pension plan is a trust. Protecting land from development often involves placing it in trust. Wealthy people use trusts for estate planning for a variety of reasons. There's no ""better"" or ""best"" trust on a general level... it all depends on the situation that you are in and the desired outcome that you are looking for."
If your primary goal is no / minimized fees, there are 3 general options, as I see it:  Based on the fact that you want some risk, interest-only investments would not be great. Consider - 2% interest equals only $1,500 annually, and since the trust can only distribute income, that may be limited. Based on the fact that you seem to have some hesitation on risk, and also limited personal time able to govern the trust (which is understandable), I would say keep your investment mix simple. By this I mean, creating a specific portfolio may seem desirable, but could also become a headache and, in my opinion, not desirable for a trust executor.  You didn't get into the personal situation, but I assume you have a family / close connection to a young person, and are executor of a trust set up on someone's death. That not be the case for you, but given that you are asking for advice rather than speaking with those involved, I assume it is similar enough for this to be applicable: you don't want to set yourself up to feel emotionally responsible for taking on too much risk, impacting the trustee(s)'s life negatively. Therefore, investing in a few limited index funds seems to match what you're looking for in terms of risk, reward, and time required. One final consideration - if you want to maximize annual distributions to the trustee(s)'s, consider that you may be best served by seeking high-dividend paying stock (although again, probably don't do this on a stock-by-stock basis unless you can commit the time to fully manage it). Returns in the form of stock increases are good, but they will not immediately provide income that the trust can distribute. If you also wish to grow the corpus of the trust, then stock growth is okay, but if you want to maximize immediate distributions, you need to focus on returns through income (dividends & interest), rather than returns through value increase.
"There are very few circumstances where forming an out of state entity is beneficial, but a website is within these circumstances in certain instances. Businesses with no physical operations do not need to care what jurisdiction they are registered in: your home state, a better united state or non-united state. The ""limited liability"" does it's job. If you are storing inventory or purchasing offices to compliment your online business, you need to register in the state those are located in. An online business is an example of a business with no physical presence. All states want you to register your LLC in the state that you live in, but this is where you need to read that state's laws. What are the consequences of not registering? There might be none, there might be many. In New York, for example, there are no consequences for not registering (and registering in new york - especially the city - is likely the most expensive in the USA). If your LLC needs to represent itself in court, New York provides retroactive foreign registrations and business licenses. So basically, despite saying that you need to pay over $1000 to form your LLC ""or else"", the reality is that you get the local limited liability protection in courts whenever you actually need it. Check your local state laws, but more times than not it is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut, the representative is always going to say ""yes, you do"" while the law, and associated case law, reveals that you don't. The federal government doesn't care what state your form an LLC or partnership in. Banks don't care what state you form an LLC or partnership in. The United States post office doesn't care. Making an app? The Apple iTunes store doesn't care. So that covers all the applicable authorities you need to consider. Now just go with the cheapest. In the US alone there are 50 states and several territories, all with their own fee structures, so you just have to do your research. Despite conflicting with another answer, Wyoming is still relevant, because it is cheap and has a mature system and laws around business entity formation.
Good idea. That is enough money to never work again, if a life is well planned. A person does not need more than that, to have a happy and lengthy life, doing what they love.  I retired at 47 with less than this.
Sure, form an LLC with an attorney's advice. You need a buyout clause, operating agreement, etc. If you're not married, never buy a home for personal use with someone else.
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.
"No, I do not.  The advice is to take advice :-) but it is not required.  Several ""low cost"" SIPPs allow an ""Execution Only"" transfer from some pensions (generally not occupational or defined benefits schemes [where transfers are generally a bad idea anyway] but FAVCs such as mine are ok). Best Invest is one such, and the fees are indeed relatively low. As far as anyone knows, the government's plans for changes to rules on using pension funds would still apply even once I've transferred my pension pot and begun to withdraw funds (provided I don't commit myself to an annuity or other irrevocable investment). I am not a financial adviser, nor employed or otherwise connected with Best Invest, and I'm not endorsing their SIPP schemes, just giving them as an example of what can be done. [Added after I carried out my plan] I found the process very straightforward; I needed to apply for a pension fund with my new provider and fill in a transfer form, which set up the scheme and transferred the funds with no expense required.  Once the money arrived in my pension account I filled in another form to take the lump sum and set up regular withdrawals from the fund. I had my lump sum within a couple of months of initiating the transfer.  I'm very happy I did not take independent advice because it would have been very poor value for money.  During my researches I was approached eagerly by one firm promising to get me my money quick and claiming to be an independent financial advisor.  Luckily I mistrusted the service they offered."
Maybe, but having one increases the risk of gun accidents and is a real risk if someone in your home has mental health issues, and those are statistically far more likely than defending yourself for home invaders or protecting yourself from the breakdown of society.  If you aren't someone who genuinely enjoys hunting or range shooting, it's kind of silly to own one.
But generally you are legally able to self insure to cover this requirement: The cost of self insuring: There is one cost to self-insure: time. It takes time to research the laws, time to to satisfy those requirements, and then time to find/setup all the care providers (doctors, mechanics, lawyers, etc). When is it worth it? First, again, you must satisfy the prerequisite: you are able to financially handle the loss of the topic under consideration. At a commenter's request, here is an attempt to better spell out this requirement (though it doesn't appear pertinent to the question asked, it is indeed very important not to mistakenly assume you satisfy this requirement). Can you comfortably cover the level of insurance you would otherwise be taking out. $50,000/$100,000/$50,000 is a common reasonable insurance level, so that would be $200,000. Basically, have enough money to cover the loss of your car, your possible injury expenses, and most importantly the damage and medical of anyone else you hit. You would need to have that value available, optimally in your accounts. Alternatively, you could weigh it against your assets, such that if you had low accounts but a paid off $200,000 house, you could conceivably sell your property and still be able to survive financially afterwards. However, it is indeed dangerous to make this assumption, as there may be additional costs and troubles in selling assets, and you may fail to recognize how precious the property is to you. Having at least double or triple in property you'd be willing to part with might be a more comfortable number. Again, the main idea is: can you afford to lose the insured value tomorrow? Though you hope it wouldn't happen, if someone came and took $200,000+ of yours tomorrow, would you be able to adjust to it relatively easily? If the answer is yes, you've satisfied this requirement. In many states it's easier to understand whether you can meet this requirement: it instead becomes can you take out the liability bond required. If you've met that requirement, then it comes down to the time you'd lose versus the savings you'd gain.
"If you're really interested in the long-term success of your business, and you can get by in your personal finances without taking anything from the business for the time being, then don't.   There is no ""legal requirement"" to pay yourself a prevailing wage if doing so would put the company out of business.  it is common for a company's principals not to draw wages from the business until it is viable enough to sustain payroll.  I was in that situation when I first began my business, so the notion that somehow I'm violating a law by being fiscally responsible for my own company is nonsense. Be wise with your new business.  You didn't state why you feel the need to take some kind of payment out, but this can be a crucial mistake if it imperils your business or if that money could be better spent on marketing or some other areas which improve revenues. You can always create a salary deferral agreement between yourself and your own company which basically states that the company owes you wages but you are, for the time being, willing to defer accepting them until such time that the company has sufficient revenues to pay you.  That's one solution, but the simplest answer is, if you don't need the money you're thinking of paying yourself, don't do it.  Let that money work for you in the business so that it pays off better in the long run. Good luck!"
"Technically, no. There is very little security in the US for bank drafts. With your bank account routing number it is very easy for people to draw funds without your authorization. Another thing people can do is buy stuff online with ""demand drafts"". Essentially it works like a credit card number where the create an electronic version of a check to purchase things. There is generally no password, PIN or signature requirement. That said, it is printed on every check you write so keeping it private isn't really practical. I'd make sure you trust anyone you give it to and watch your account statements closely. An important thing to know is that a routing number isn't a one-way deal. If you give out the number for someone to wire you money, they can just as easily draft on the account."
It doesn't make rational sense, if you think the goal of having money is to have more money.  On the other hand, imagine you are someone for whom the goal of having money is to feel powerful, successful, and to be able to tell the world in no uncertain terms to fuck itself. Imagine on top of that, you already have enough money that _your money alone_ is earning you enough to keep you in the good life, and will likely continue to do so for a long time.  In that position, being able to hold a cheque for $300m and _not_ cash it would be the ultimate validation of all the things you got rich for in the first place.
"First check: Do you have all the insurances you need? The two insurances everyone should have are: Another insurance you might want to get is a contents insurance (""Hausratsversicherung""). But if you don't own any super-expensive furniture or artworks, you might also opt to self-insure and cover it with: Priority 2: Emergency fund. Due to the excellent healthcare and welfare system in Germany, this is not as important as in many other countries. But knowing that you have a few thousand € laying around in liquid assets in case something expensive breaks down can really help you sleep at night. If you decide not to pay for contents insurance, calculate what it would cost you if there is a fire in your apartment and you would have to replace everything. That's how large your emergency fund needs to be. You also need a larger emergency fund if you are a homeowner, because as a homeowner there might always be an emergency repair you have to pay for. Priority 3: Retirement. Unless there will be some serious retirement reforms in the next 40 years (and I would not bet on that!), the government-provided pension will not be enough to cover your lifestyle cost. If you don't want to suffer from poverty as a senior citizen you will have to build up a retirement plan now. Check which options your company provides (""Betriebliche Altersvorsorge"") and what retirement options you have which give you free money from the government (""Riester-Rente""). Getting professional advise to compare all the options with each other can be really beneficial. Priority 4: Save for a home. In the long-run, owning a home is much cheaper than renting one. Paying of a mortgage is just like paying rent - but with the difference that the money you pay every month isn't spent. Most of it (minus interest and building maintenance costs) stays your capital! At one point you will have paid it off and then you never have to pay rent in your life. It even secures the financial future of your children and grandchildren, who will inherit your home. But few banks will give you a good interest rate if you have no own capital at all.
Absolutely!  Just because a spouse doesn't have a taxable income, doesn't mean they aren't providing real, tangible benefit to the family economy with an important job. As tragic as it is to consider losing your spouse, are you truly in a position to replace everything they do you for you?  Knowing what they do for you and appreciating the effort your spouse gives is important, but don't sell short the dollar amount of what they provide.  Your life insurance policy should be to keep you whole. Without your spouse, you will need childcare.  You might need domestic services to the home.  What about a nanny or similar service?  Would $50K cover that until your child is an adult?  There are a number of added expenses in the short and long term that would occur if a spouse died.  How much for a funeral? Obviously you know the amount and term depends on the age of your kid.  But I think you should really try to account for the number of daily hours you spouse puts in, and try to attach a cost to those hours.  Then buy insurance for them just as you would for a wage earning.   For example, buy a policy that is 10x the annual cost for services it would take to compensate for your spouse.  Your tolerance for risk and cost can adjust it up and down from there.
The bank doesn't want to loan you money to build a house on property you don't own. What happens if the owner gets mad at you and wants you to leave? What happens if the owner's will gives the land to somebody else? The bank would be taking a big risk. You need to buy the land before building the house.