vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"In practical terms, these days, a credit union IS a small ""savings and loan"" bank -- the kind of bank that used to exist before bankers started making money on everything but writing loans. They aren't always going to offer higher interest and/or cheaper loans than the bank-banks, but they're almost always going to be more pleasant to deal with since they consider the depositors and borrowers their stockholders, not just customers. There are minor legal differences (different insurance fund, for example), and you aren't necessarily eligible to open an account at a randomly-chosen credit union (depending on how they've defined the community they're serving), but they will rarely affect you as an account holder. The main downside of credit unions is that, like other small local banks, they will only have a few branches, usually within a limited geographic area. However, I've been using a credit union 200 miles away (and across two state lines on that route, one if I take a large detour) for decades now, and I've found that between bank-by-mail, bank-by-internet, ATM machines, and the ""branch exchange"" program (which lets you use branches of participating credit unions as if they were branches of your own) I really haven't felt a need to get to the branch.  I did find that, due to network limitations of $50K/CU/day, drawing $200,000 worth of bank checks on a single day (when I purchased the house) required running around to four separate branch-exchange credit unions. But that's a weird situation where I was having trouble beating the actual numbers out of the real estate agents until a few days before the sale. And they may have relaxed those limitations since... though if I had to do it again, I'd consider taking a scenic drive to hit an actual branch of my own credit union. If you have the opportunity to join a credit union, I recommend doing so. Even if you don't wind up using it for your ""main"" accounts, they're likely to be people you want to talk to when you're shopping for a loan."
There is a difference between an owner and a signer. An owner is the legal owner of the funds. A signer has access to withdraw the funds. In most cases, when a new personal account is opened the name is added as an owner&signer. However, that is not always the case. A person could be an owner, but not a signer, in a custodial arrangement. For example, a minor child may be an owner only on their account with a custodial parent listed as a signer. The minor could not withdraw from the account. A person could be a signer, but not an owner, in a business or estate/trust account. The business or estate would be the owner with individuals listed as signers only. The business employees do not own the funds, they are only allowed to withdraw and disburse the funds on behalf of the company. The creditor can only garnish/withhold funds that are owned by the indebted. If the second person on the account is only a signer, those funds cannot be withheld as part of a judgment against the second person (they don't own those funds). However, simply titling the second person as a signer only is not sufficient. If you share access with the second person and allow them to spend the money for their own benefit, they are no longer just a signer. They have become an owner because you are sharing your funds with them. Think of the business relationship as an example. The employee is a signer so they can withdraw funds and pay business expenses, like the electric bill. If the employee withdrew funds and bought herself a new dress, she is stealing because she does not own those funds. If the second person on the account buys things for themselves, or transfers some of the money into their own account, they are demonstrating that more than a signer-only relationship exists. A true signer-only relationship is where the individual can only withdraw funds on the owner's behalf. For example, the owner is out of town and needs a bill paid, the signer can write a check and pay the bill for the owner. A limited power of attorney may be worth looking into.
Honing in on your last question: Is there a better way?  I think there is, but it would require you to change the way you handle your spending, and that may not be of interest to you.  Right now you have a lot of manual work, keeping track of expenditures and then entering the, every day. The great thing about switching to a habit where you pay for everything using a debit or credit card is that you can skip the manual entry by importing your transactions from your bank. You mention that your bank doesn't allow for exporting. There's still a chance that your bank can connect with a solution like Wave Accounting (http://www.waveaccouting.com), which is free and made for small business accounting. (Full disclosure: I represent Wave.) If your current bank doesn't permit export or connections with Wave, it may be worth switching to a different bank. It's a bit of a pain to make the switch, I know, but you really will save a massive amount of time and effort over the course of the year, as well as minimize the risk of human error, compared to entering your receipts on a daily basis. In Wave, you can still enter all of your cash receipts manually if you want to continue with your current practice of cash payments. One important thing to mention, too: If you're looking for a better way of doing things, make sure it includes proper backup. There would be nothing worse than entering all that data onto a spreadsheet and then something happening to your computer and you lose it all.  Wave Accounting is backed up hourly and uses bank-level security to keep your information safe. One last thing: as I mention above, Wave Accounting is free.  So if it is a good match for your small business accounting needs, it will also be a nice fit for your wallet.
"Banks are businesses, and as such should have the right to refuse service, so they should probably be able to choose one customer over another at will.   [I say ""should"" because business owners protecting themselves against litigation related to discrimination could restrict their freedom as business owners.] However, banks are businesses and if the customers are identical, both will be approved (or not) according to credit records.  Does not make sense to approve one person with a given credit record and refuse someone with a similar record.  Unless they barely qualify.  Since no two credit histories are identical, there are surely edge cases. Finally, if a customer is a long term customer with large deposits and/or significant amounts of business with the bank, the bankers will likely be inclined to do more business."
I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too.
You need to report your accounts, not other persons. However, if you have a joint account with another person - it is your account, jointly. So the joint account has to be reported, your girlfriend's personal accounts - not (unless the money there is yours or you have signature authority, of course). For a joint account - you need to report who are the joint holders, yes.
"Doesn't make any difference.  Reconciling is important, but if you are constantly checking the online balance in between (because you are NOT keeping track of a running register balance) then the fact that you *eventually* ""balance"" is irrelevant...  And in fact if you're NOT maintaining a register, then you're really not ""reconciling"" (or ""balancing"") anything.... you're just looking over a bank statement and saying *""OK that looks right""*; or, as is more likely in your case saying *""Waitaminute, that's not right ... Oh, I guess I forgot about that transaction... and that one... and that other one.""*"
My wife and I have two Schwab brokerage accounts, one for retirement and one for non-retirement investments.  The latter also has a checking/savings account which we use as our main account.  Schwab is very happy with us, as we are cheapskates and save a lot of money.  The checking account, which seems to act like any ordinary checking account, gives us all the things listed above.  They pay the ATM fees, which is not a lot of money, but seems like a nice thing to me.  We can also do cash deposits and we can go to any Schwab branch to talk to someone face to face.  We've only had to do the latter once in 10 or so years, and the former maybe once or twice.
"One option might be to set up a separate bank account and a separate credit card account, which you would use only for your ebay transactions.  I have a friend who does a lot of selling on ebay, and this is exactly what she did.   It's reasonable to want to protect your personal finances from any complications that might arise with PayPal and/or ebay.  But since you definitely have to provide a bank account and c.c. number (there's no way around this), the best solution might be to set up separate ""ebay-only"" accounts.  And be sure not to link them to any of your personal accounts, for added protection. If you're planning to do a lot of selling, this is probably a good idea anyway just for record-keeping purposes. If you do a lot of selling on ebay, you might consider setting up a ""merchant account"". There are some limitations on international transactions (currently you can't sell to residents of UK, Australia, or France), and payment processing is a few days slower. But there seem to be fewer fees/risks/etc associated with a  merchant account. I don't know much more about it, but here's an article from an ebay seller, including pros and cons of PayPal vs. merchant accounts. http://www.ebay.com/gds/Selling-on-eBay-without-PayPal/10000000021351301/g.html"
Opening Bank Account in US without physically being present is difficult. I'm having number of clients in USA to pay for my work, but I’m really confused to get money from my clients to my saving bank account. You can get money via PayPal or if they are repeat customers, ask them to send via remittance services like Money2India or Remit2India etc.
EDIT: This answer is outdated and is no longer valid due to that all new & existing accounts in Jersey must be owned by a resident from Guernsey or Jersey due to anti-tax-dodging laws. Link Open an offshore account in a Bank in Jersey. Mime is with lloydstsb-offshore.com. It will cost you £70 a year, but for that price you can get 3 accounts: one in $, one in £ and one in €. You can move money between the accounts without any cost and you can have a chip and pin card on both the Euro and the £ accounts. And there is no residency restrictions. Downsides: The anti laundering checks are annoying. Don't forget to tell the IRS about every single cent you get in interest and religiously pay your tax on it. The revenue service doesn't like people with off-shore accounts...
Starting with the Dummy Forex account is a wise move for every new forex trader. Do forex trading with a dummy account at least for a year. Startling directly with real money is a terribly costly move. Therefore, it is wise to have a solid trading strategy to execute. Make sure that your strategy is realistic and practical. Most importantly, using your dummy forex account, it is must for you to make at least one or two profits in a year. At last, be sure to invest money that you can recover without any tension.
" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court."
I know of websites that do this, but I don't know of banks that do. Is there any reason you want to do this at a bank rather than use a service?  My main concern with using a bank for this would be the risk of overdraft fees
"Since it's not tagged united-states, I'd like to offer a more general advice. Your emergency fund should match the financial risks that are relevant to you. The two main classes of financial risk are of course a sudden increase in costs or a decrease in income. You'd have to address both independently. First, loss of income. For most, this would simply equate to the loss of a job. How much benefits would you expect to get, and for how long? This is often the most important question; the 6 months advise in the US is based on a lack of benefits. With two incomes, you're less likely to lose both jobs at the same time. That's a general advise, though. If you both work for the same employer, the risk of losing two jobs at the same time is certainly real. Also, in countries with little protection against dismissal (such as the US), the chance of being layed off at the same time is also higher. On the debit side, there are also two main risks. The first is the loss or failure of an essential possession, i.e. one which requires immediate replacement. This could include a car, or a washing machine. You already paid for one before, so you should have a good idea how much it costs. The second expenditure risk is health-related costs. Those can suddenly crop up, but often you have some kind of insurance. If not, you'd need to account for some costs, but it's hard to come up with an objective number here. The two categories are dependent, of course. Health-related costs may very well coincide with a loss of income, especially if you're self-employed. Now, once you've figured out what the risks are, it's time to figure out how to insure against them. Insurance might be a better choice than an emergency fund, especially for the health costs. You might even discover that you don't need an emergency fund at all. In large parts of Europe, you could establish a credit margin that's not easily revoked (i.e. overdraft agreements), and unemployment benefits are sufficient to cover your regular cost of living.
Your best bet is going to be contacting TaxAct directly for their information. If you do enter your spouses information and choose to purchase their deluxe product, I would think you might end up paying for the second efile. I have used their deluxe version for many years now, but choose it mostly because of the free state efiling and not for the ability to determine whether or not to file separately.  In my case, it makes sense to file jointly and not file separately.   The deluxe version allows you to portion out your deductions and see which method of filing gives you the lowest total tax bill. Here's the link directly to TaxAct's support: https://www.taxact.com/tsupport/support_request.asp
Barclays Bank, RBS, and Deutsche Bank have an agreement as part of the Global ATM Alliance that allows you to make withdrawals at Deutsche Bank ATMs at no charge. The usefulness of this arrangement to you depends on how you use your money and would entail opening an account at Barclays or Royal Bank of Scotland. Edit: David, it looks like you will need some kind of residency to open a Barclays account, but you may be able to qualify with the proper supporting documentation. See this website: UK banking services and UK bank accounts, from Barclays Wealth International
Is it possible to open a GBP bank account in Pakistan ? Yes, I have one in HBL. Askari and SCB also offer GBP, USD, Yen and Euro Accounts. They might ask for source of income but that shouldn't be a problem. I work in Singapore (should my Salary Slip to open account) and do online remit from my Singapore Account to HBL GBP, the good thing is the exact amount in GBP gets transferred (although I have to tolerate SG Bank's exchange rates) Are there any risks in doing so ? No Risk but caution. If you are a Tax Filer in Pakistan, then you MUST include this account's balance in opening/closing and also mention any remitances receievd in this account under Income and Assets seperately. All money is legit with bank statements of my pay which is between 35K   and 40K per year, am I going to have any trouble at airport as limit   is £7K only Cash carry limit while travelling has nothing to do with FC (Foreign Currency) Account. You should never travel with more than 10K USD in total.
if I open current accounts with all these institutions, will they know if I move money between them, i.e. from the one I pay my salary to, to the next, to the next etc.  Of course they will know. After all you will provide the account numbers for transferring the money. Regarding the intent of transfer they don't care. They only care the about the amount coming in regularly. refuse to give me the rates and bonuses I want For this I will go through their terms and conditions and you should do it. Check for any excluded conditions. Read between the lines. But check on what amount will you be getting the interest. Most of these accounts pay interest daily and on the amount in the account in a day. So you might not be generating much of an interest in those accounts if you don't have a substantial balance.
"I took a second mortgage when I moved house because I had a long-term fixed rate mortgage that would have incurred punitive fees if I had cancelled it. Rather than doing that I took a second mortgage over the same term for the difference. As my second mortgage was with the same lender, they still had ""First Charge"" on the property (This means that in the event of default they have first call on the property to recoup their losses), so the interest rate was not higher (actually it was slightly less than my first mortgage). My case is not that usual, normally a 'second mortgage' is with a separate provider that takes a ""Second Charge"" on the property. The interest rates are normally higher as a result as there is more chance that the lender will not recoup their money in case of a default as the first charge has priority. The second mortgage may still be cheaper than an unsecured loan, as the second charge provides some collateral, this might make it attractive if a sudden expense needs to be covered."
"The ""independent contractor"" vs. ""employee"" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary.
"Should I just create a new account code, i.e. Lawyer's Trust Account? Yes, you should. I have a generic ""escrow"" account just for that."
Work under UK umbrella company.  By this you are thinking of creating a new legal entity in UK, then its not a very great idea. There will be lot of paperwork, additional taxes in UK and not much benefit.  Ask UK company to remit money to Indian savings bank account   Ask UK company to remit money to Indian business bank account Both are same from tax point of view. Opening a business bank account needs some more paper work and can be avoided.  Note as an independent contractor you are still liable to pay taxes in India. Please pay periodically and in advance and do not wait till year end. You can claim some benefits as work related expenses [for example a laptop / mobile purchase, certain other expenses] and reduce from the total income the UK company is paying
And in particular if you have two jobs in Singapore then they can't both be doing this, since tax is not flat. The example calculation includes varying tax rates for the first X amount of income that (I assume without checking) are per person, not per employment. Joe's answer has the link. In practice in the UK (for example), there are plenty of UK nationals working in the UK who don't need to do a full tax return and whose tax is collected entirely at source (between PAYE and deductions on bank interest and suchlike). In this sense the employer is required by law to take the responsibility for doing the admin and making the tax payments to HMRC. Note that a UK employer doesn't need to know your circumstances in detail to make the correct payroll deductions: all they need is a so-called ""tax code"", which is calculated by HMRC and communicated to the employer, and which basically encodes how much they can pay you at zero rate before the various tax rate tiers kick in. That's all the employer needs to know here for the typical employee: they don't need to know precisely what credits and liabilities resulted in the figure. However, these employers still don't offer empoyees a net salary (that is, they don't take on the tax burden), because different employees will have different tax codes, which the employer would in effect be cancelling out by offering to pay two people the same net salary regardless of their individual circumstances. The indications seem to be that the same applies in Singapore: this offer is really a net salary subject to certain assumptions (the main one being that you have no other tax liabilities in Singapore). If you're a Singapore millionaire taking that job for fun, you might find that the employer doesn't/can't take on your non-standard tax liability on this marginal income."