vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"You'd have to check the terms of your contract. On most installment loans, I think, they calculate interest monthly, not daily. That is, if you make 3 payments of $96 over the course of the month instead of one payment of $288 at the end of the month (but before the due date), it makes absolutely zero difference to their interest calculation. They just total up your payments for the month. That's how my mortgage works and how some past loans I've had worked. All you'd accomplish is to cost yourself some time, postage if you're mailing payments, and waste the bank's time processing multiple payments. If the loan allows you to make pre-payments -- which I think most loans today do -- then what DOES work is to make an extra payment or an overpayment. If you have a few hundred extra dollars, make an extra payment. This reduces your principle and reduces the amount of interest you pay every month for the remainder of the loan. And if you're paying $1 less in interest, then that extra dollar goes against principle, which further reduces the amount you pay in interest the next month. This snowballs and can save you a lot in the long run. Better still, instead of paying $288 each month, pay, say, $300. Then every month you're nibbling away at the principle faster and faster. For example, I calculate that if you're paying $288 per month, you'll pay the loan off in 72 months and pay a total of $6062 in interest. Pay $300 per month and you'll pay it off in 67 months with a total of $6031 interest. Okay, not a huge deal. Pay $350 per month and you pay it off in 55 months with $5449 interest. (I just did quick calculations with a spreadsheet, not accurate to the penny, but close enough for comparison.) PS This is different from ""revolving credit"", like credit cards, where interest is calculated on the ""average daily balance"". With a credit card, making multiple payments would indeed reduce your interest. But not by much.
If you miscalculate these numbers and pay too little tax in any installment, then you owe penalties for that quarter. Most people find that guesstimating the tax due for the entire year and paying it in equal installments is simpler than keeping track of nuances of the annualized method. Even simpler is to pay 100% of last year's tax in four equal installments (110% for high earners) and then no penalty is due at all. If your business is really taking off and your income is going to be substantially higher in one year, then this 100%/110% of last year's tax deal could allow you to postpone a significant chunk of your tax bill till April 15.
Ultimately the question is more about your personality and level of discipline than about money.   The rational thing to do is hang on to your cash, invest it somewhere else, and pay off the 0% loan as late as possible without incurring penalties or interest.  Logically it's a no-brainer.  Problem is, we're humans, so there's a risk you'll slip up somewhere along the way and not pay off the loan in time.  How much do you trust yourself?
"Making extra principal payments will reduce the term of your loan. I wouldn't sign up for a biweekly schedule, just do it yourself so you have more flexibility. A simple spreadsheet will allow you to play ""What if?"" and make it clear that extra principal payments are most effective early in the term of the loan. My wife and I paid off our home in less than 10 years with this approach. Some will say that the opportunity costs of not using that money for something else outweighs the gains. I would say that not having a mortgage has a positive impact on your cash flow and your assets (you own the home), which combine to create more opportunity, not less. That being said, It should be obvious that paying off higher interest debt first is the priority, (Paying off a zero percent interest car loan early is just foolish)"
"Depending on how you view the loan, it could either be considered an Asset or a Liability.  Since you are not charging interest, it might seem more intuitive to create an ""Assets:Cash Loan"" account, and transfer money to & from it (when you receive payments) like you would with a bank account. Personally, I prefer to think of all loans as liabilities.  Whether it's a debt which you owe someone, or a balance which someone else owes you, since it's an 'unsettled' amount I file it under ""Liabilities:Loan"".  Either way, you record the initial balance as a debit from your bank, and then record payments as credits back to your primary account. The only way that income or expenses ever gets involved would be if you charged interest (income) or if you forgave some or all of the loan (expense) at some point in the future."
Or do you want AAA+ Bonds that have essentially 0% returns maturing in 30 days? If you are paying interest on debt, it is quite likely that you could achieve a net income benefit by selling the bonds, and paying off debt [assuming your debt has a higher interest rate than your low-rate bonds]. Paying off debt is sometimes referred to as a 'zero risk return', because essentially there is no real risk that your lender would otherwise go bankrupt. That is, you will owe your bank the car loan until you pay it, and paying it is the only thing you can do to reduce it. However, some schools of thought suggest that maintaining savings + liquid investments makes sense even if you have some debt, because cash + liquid investments can cover you in some emergencies that credit cards can't help you with. ie: if you lose your job, perhaps your credit could be pulled and you would have nothing except for your liquid savings to tide you over. How much you should save in this way is a matter of opinion, but often repeated numbers are either 3 months or 6 months worth [which is sometimes taken as x months of expenses, and sometimes as x months of after-tax income]. You should look into this issue further; there are many questions on this site that discuss it, I'm sure.
"Here's the issue as I see it. The fact that one has high interest debt says a lot about the potential borrower. Odds are very good that person will not pay the zero card off before the rate expires, and will likely charge more along the way.  I'd love to be able to say ""great idea, borrowing at a low rate to pay off a high rate card will be the first step to getting you all paid off"" but chances are in a year's time you will not be better off.  You said you know a lot of people that have done this. Have they all been successful? It's possible, but I'd heed the warnings of those here and first think how you got into the credit card debt."
Whole life policies have its own useful purpose, but it is never meant to be a vehicle that allows you to maximize cash value accumulation. Yes, you can buy term and invest the difference. Assuming you set out to reduce your liabilities to zero/minimum when that term policy ends or you have no such desires to transfer your wealth to your next of kin income tax free. Indexed universal life and variable universal life is much better suited for cash value accumulation when looking at life insurance products.
"What it means is that you can always come up with alternative framings where the difference between two options is stated as a gain or a loss, but the effect is the same in either case.  For instance, if I offer to sell a T-shirt for $10 and offer a cash discount of $1, you pay $10 if buying with a credit card or $9 if buying with cash.  If I instead offer the shirt for $9 with a $1 surcharge for credit card use, you still pay $10 if buying with a credit card or $9 if buying with cash.  The financial result is the same in either case, but psychologically people may perceive them differently and make different buying decisions. In a tax situation it may be more complicated since exemptions wouldn't directly reduce your tax, but only your taxable income.  However, you can still see that, in general, having to pay $X more in tax for not doing some action (e.g., not purchasing health insurance) is the same as being able to pay $X less in tax as a reward for doing the action.  Either way, doing the action results in you paying $X less than you would if you didn't do it; the only difference is in which behavior (doing it or not doing it) is framed as the ""default"" option.  Again, these framings may differentially influence people's behavior even when the net result is the same."
"Some basic thoughts, mostly on fairness. I guess the answer doesn't really fit this site, it's more about ethics, but this fits the question which isn't really just about money either. So when both work the same amount, it seems appropriate that both get the same mount of money, doesn't it? That is, the scheme of (as already contained in your question and in some other answers) is fair by this logic. Pay attention to hidden money: for example the one who works more for money might automatically get a pension funded this way. This is hidden money which already goes to only one partner, so when dividing equally, you'll need to take that into account (or just include ""equal pensions for both"" in the family's needs directly)."
In principle, the US taxes both income and gifts. Simply thinking good thoughts is not necessarily sufficient to avoid filing or payment obligations. Giving somebody money with no repayment date, no interest, and no enforceable note looks an awful lot like either income or a gift. A loan normally has interest, money sitting in a savings account is insured, and other investments generally have an expected return.  Why would somebody give a loan with no interest, with only flexible or informal payment expectations, in a way where it has neither deposit insurance nor any expectation of net returns?  That looks a lot like a gift - at the very least, a gift of the time value and the default risk. The IRS definitely polices loan rates. The latest release is Revenue Ruling 2014-13. The AFR is useful for tax concepts such as Original Issue Discount (when issuers sell low-interest or no-interest bonds or loans at less than face value, attempting to recharacterize interest income as return of principal), various grantor trusts (e.g. GRATs), and so forth.  It's a simple way for the IRS to link to market rates of interest. Documentation and sufficient interest, as well as clear payment schedule (and maybe call or demand rights) make it a bona fide loan.  There is no real way for the IRS to distinguish between an informal arrangement and a post-hoc lie to conceal a gift.  Moreover, an undocumented loan is generally difficult to enforce, so it looks less like a true loan. The lender declares the interest payments as income on his Form 1040, line 8a and if necessary Schedule B.
The contract is not very clear. As much as I can understand it will still help if you make part prepayments. In an Rule 78 or Actuarial method, the schedule is drawn up front and the break-up of interest and principal for each month is calculated ahead. At the beginning both the reducing balance method as well as Actuarial method will give the same schedule.  However in Actuarial method, if you make part prepayments, they get applied to the future principals, the interest are ignored. However the future interests are not reduced. Example: Say your schedule looks something like this; Monthly Payments say 100; Month | Principal | Interest 1 | 10 | 90 2 | 20 | 80 3 | 30 | 70 4 | 40 | 60 5 | 50 | 50 6 | 60 | 40 7 | 70 | 30 8 | 80 | 20 9 | 90 | 10 So lets say you have made 3 payments of 100, in the 4th month if you make 150 [in addition to 100], it would get applied to the principal of 4th, 5th and 6th month. So essentially you would save interest of 4th, 5th and 5th month. It would also reduce the total payments to 6. i.e. you will only have 7th, 8th, 9th due. The next payment you make of 100 will get applied to row 7. The disadvantage of this method over reducing balance is that the interest calculated for rows 7,8,9 don't change compared to reducing balance. However if you prepay in full, the unearned interest is calculated and returned as per the Actuarial Tables.
Pay them off immediately. But, as I note in my article Too Little Debt?, a zero utilization is actually a negative hit. So you want to just use the cards to get over 1%. i.e. if the lines add to $38K, just charge say, gas and some groceries, $100/wk. Pay in full every month. It's the amount on the statement that counts, not the amount carried month to month accruing interest, which, I hope is zero for you from now on.
There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month.
"A credit card is basically a ""revolving"" loan, in which you're allowed to borrow up to a certain amount (the limit), and any time you borrow, you pay interest.  If you were to *borrow* $100 to pay for something via a credit card, you'd have a $100 balance on the card. If you then pay $70 cash to the card, there would be $30 remaining.  That $30 balance could accrue interest. The timing of that interest charge could vary. The 20% you've quoted is almost certainly ""APR,"" of which the ""A"" stands for ""annual,"" so that 20% would be an annual rate.  It makes the most sense, mind you, to keep a minimal balance on a credit card, as the interest rate is higher than most other loans."
"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment.  You would do well to get this out of your head now.  Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a ""Pure Cash - No investment option"" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever).  Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund.  These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund.  Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market.  Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do.  Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again.  Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work.  Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong.  If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein.  He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets.  His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation."
The typical case would be - as you expected - that the interest goes down equally dramatically, and you would pay much less interest. Note that that does not remove your obligation to pay the full 1000 every month - even though you could argue that you are 90 months ahead in paying, you still need to deliver 1000 a month, until it is fully paid. Some mortgages are made differently - they do not allow that. Basically, if you pay a large amount at once, it is considered a 'pre-payment' for the next x month. As a result, you are now x months ahead (and could stop paying for that much time), but your interest stays high. The latter type 'protects' the bank against 'losing' the interest income they already planned for. As a balance, those type of mortgages are typically slightly cheaper (because the bank is in a better position). You did not specify a country; in Germany, typically all mortgages are of the second type; but - you can get 1.35% mortgages... In the US, most are the first.  You need to check which type you have, best before you pay a large amount. In the latter case, it is better to invest that money and use it to pay off as soon as you reach the threshold; in the first case, any extra payoff is to your advantage.
If the interest rate in both mortgages is the same, then yes, you will end up paying the same amount in interest if both are paid off in 15 years. However, in practice, almost always a 15-year mortgage will have a much lower interest rate that a 30-year mortgage. Also, if you are thinking of taking out a 30-year mortgage with the intention of paying it off early, make sure it does not have an early payment penalty; this is a penalty the bank will charge you if you pay back the loan early.
When you exercise a put, you get paid the strike price immediately. So you can invest that money and earn some interest, compared to only exercising at expiry. So the benefit to exercising early is that extra interest. The cost is the remaining time value of the option, along with any dividend payments you miss. As @JoeTaxpayer points out, there might be tax considerations that make it better to exercise at one time rather than another. But those would likely be personal to you, so if the option would intrinsically have more value unexercised, in many cases you could sell it on rather than exercise it. The exception might be if it wasn't very liquid and the transaction costs of doing that outweighed the theoretical value.
"It's worth pointing out that most ""cash"" deals are actually debt financed, at least in part. A quick review of the 8K tells us they plan on debt financing the entire transaction with some senior notes and not use any of the 15B on their BS. This is fairly typical these days because debt is cheaper then the foregone interest on cash."
NO, you pay off the Highest interest charging accounts first. The zero interest loan should be the Last one you pay off. Basically payoff your student loan and put the extra money to the car loan
A loan with modest interest is better than paying by cash if there are better alternatives for investment. For example, suppose you are buying a house. Consider two extremes: a) you pay the house entirely by cash, b) the entire buy is financed by the bank.  Historically, real (subtracting inflation) house prices (at least in the U.S.) have not risen at all in the long run, and investing all of your own capital in this way may not be optimal. Notice that we are looking at a situation where one is buying a house and living in it in any case. Rent savings are equal in cases a) and b). If instead you were buying a house not for yourself, but as a separate investment for renting out, then you would receive rent. In the case a), the real return on your capital will be zero, whereas in case b), you can invest the cash in e.g. the stock market and get, on average, 7% (the stock market has yielded a 7% real return annually including dividends)  annually minus the bank's interest rate. If the interest is lower than 7%, it may be profitable to take the loan. Of course, the final decision depends on your risk preferences.
No. It's perhaps a bit obvious, but with the shorter term loan you would be contractually obligated to pay the higher monthly payment. By paying double on the longer loan, you retain the flexibility to pay less. And you would pay less interest if you truly doubled your payment on the longer loan. This is because you'd be paying off more of the principal more quickly. (But you'd also be making a slightly higher payment than on the shorter term loan.) You can play with the amortization calculator at Bankrate to understand this.