vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"There is a basic difference between saving for voluntary retirement (i.e. choosing to do things other than work even though you could still work) and the need to save for later in life in general. Regardless of how much you like your job, a time will eventually come when you are no longer able to work, and you will need an alternate source of income to live from at that point. Unfortuately, this is also the time when most people generally have the highest medical bills as well, and may need other services such as long-term nursing home care. So even if you plan to work as long as possible, a retirement fund is an excellent way to plan for these needs as it is tax-advantaged and many companies offer matching contributions. I would simply recommend that you see ""retirement accounts"" as a good way to accomplish your goals - you don't have to use them to create a ""typical"" retirement. Once you've taken advantages of the match and tax subsidies, you may also wish to consider saving for an annuity. Fees can be high, so you will need to do your homework (generally, you want to wait and buy an immediate annuity), but this is another way to turn savings into guaranteed income once you need to stop working. Best of luck!"
Among the other fine answers, you might also consider that owning a vehicle outright will free you from the requirement to carry insurance on the vehicle (you must still carry insurance on yourself in most states).
According to my reading, the Trinity study says you can withdraw 4% a year for 30 years without exhausting your nest egg, not necessarily that it won't shrink. In most cases, your nest egg will indeed grow. But unfortunately you can't plan to leave no estate while simultaneously preparing for worst-case scenarios in case you happen to pick a bad year to stop working. You can run simulations based on historical data on sites like cFIREsim. And once you're retired, you could potentially increase your spending if simulations show that you're likely to leave behind a large estate. You also probably want to look into things like charitable remainder trusts.
"I can answer this question for my jurisdiction (Florida, USA), because I lived through it. My Dad (""Alice"") passed away in 2008, just as the housing crisis was starting to heat up. What happened to the Mortgage? My Dad had a will in place. It was an old will (from the 1980's), but never-the-less, a will. We had to provide paperwork to the court that my Mom had already passed away, and my oldest brother was living out-of-state (he would have been the executor, otherwise). With the proper paperwork, I became the Executor, and the property passed in to probate. At this point, the ""Estate"" was responsible for the house and the mortgage on it (meaning me, as I was the Executor). We decided to sell the house, so we hired a realtor, and set an asking price about $40k over what was owed on it. As we waited for it to sell, I had to make monthly mortgage payments, and payments to the HOA (otherwise the HOA could put a lien on the property, making it more difficult to sell, should we find a buyer). Is it Automatically Transferred? In most jurisdictions, I would say not ""automatic"". I definitely had get an estate lawyer and file the proper legal paperwork with the local county courthouse. Some states have an easier probate process (""Summary Administration"" in Florida), that eases the requirements for small estates. Is Bob expected to pay it off all at once? No, the mortgage holder was happy for me to make payments (out of other estate assets) in lieu of my Dad. The were earning interest, after all. This is probably true in most cases. Can the House be Foreclosed on? Yes. In our case, being 2008, we had a hard time selling the property. The asking price quickly went from $40k over what was owed, to $20k over, to $10k over, then to being equal to the mortgage value. Finally, I approached the bank about options.
I am a Certified Financial Planner and provide tactical advice on everything from budgeting to saving for retirement. You do not have to have any series exams or a CFP to do this work, although it helps give you credibility. As long as you DO NOT provide investment advice, you likely do not need to register as an investment advisor or need any certification.
"The key to this is budgeting. Without a budget, you don't know what you are spending your money on. Let's say you would like to go to a movie with a friend. Can you afford it? Without a budget, it is difficult to answer this question. Yes, you have enough money in your wallet, but if you don't go to the movies, you could be saving that money for a house. ""But,"" you might say to yourself, ""surely one movie with my friend won't prevent me from saving my $10k for my house."" And you might be right, but when you add up all the movies, coffees, and other discretionary spending up, it very well could. At this point, you might be discouraged. ""Do I seriously need to give up every single extravagance to make this work? I don't have that kind of willpower!"" Luckily, here is where budgeting comes to the rescue. Budgeting is simply a plan for your money. You have some monthly expenses that are more or less fixed: your rent, your utility bills, etc. You have other expenses that are not exactly fixed, but are still necessary: groceries, fuel for your car, etc. You also have longer-range expenses, such as insurance premiums that you only pay once or twice a year, but need to be accounted for. List all of these expenses, and figure out how much that comes to each month. What you have left over is available to you for other things. Next, you need to figure out how fast you want to save for this house, and balance that with the other things you might want to spend money on, such as entertainment. If you start from $0 and want to save $10k, you could do it by saving $100 a month: in a little over 8 years, you'll have your $10k. If you can increase this to $300 a month, you'll be there in less than 3 years. Now that you have a plan and everything is accounted for, very little willpower is needed.
There is no right answer here, one has to make the choice himself. Its best to have an emergency fund before you start to commit funds to other reasons. The plan looks good. Keep following it and revise the plan often.
"Sure, it's irresponsible for an executor to take actions which endanger the estate. But what about passivity or inaction? Put it another way. Is it the obligation of the executor to avoid making revenue for the estate? Think about it - what a silly idea! Consider a 12-unit apartment building full of rent paying tenants. A tenant gives notice and leaves. So do 4 more. With only 7/12 tenants, the building stops being a revenue center and becomes a massive money pit. Is that acceptable? Heck no! Realistically this will be managed by a property management company, and of course they'll seek new tenants, not stopping merely because the owner died. This situation is not different; the same fiscal logic applies. The counter-argument is usually along the lines of ""stuff might happen if you rent it out""... true. But the stuff that happens to abandoned houses is much worse, and much more likely: squatters, teen ""urban explorers"", pot growers, copper thieves, winter pipe freeze flooding and wrecking interiors, etc. Don't take my word on it -- ask your insurer for the cost of insuring an abandoned house vs. a rented one. Renting brings a chunk of cash that comes in from tenants - $12,000/year on a $1000/mo. rental. And that will barely pay the bills if you have a young mortgage on a freshly purchased house at recent market rates. But on an old mortgage, renting is like printing money. That money propagates first to the estate (presumably it is holding back a ""fix the roof"" emergency fund), and then to the beneficiaries. It means getting annual checks from the estate, instead of constantly being dunned for another repair. But I don't care about making revenue (outside of putting back a kitty to replace the roof). Even if it was net zero, it means the maintenance is being done. This being the point.
"This article has a section titled ""Do you need an umbrella policy to cover your personal liability risks?"" that says: If you have young children, for example, you might need a policy   because they have lots of friends. These little tikes might get into   some mischief and hurt themselves at your home. If so, you’re at risk   of being sued. Do you have people over often? Do you drive like a maniac or a   Parisian? Do you have firearms on your premises? Do you have gardeners   and housekeepers on the grounds? All these are reasons why you might   want to own an umbrella policy. Although many people in the US are homeowners, parents, drivers, etc., not everyone falls into these categories. For some people, as low as the premiums for such a policy might be,  the expected cost outweighs the expected benefit. The cost of a lawsuit may be extremely high, but someone may feel that the chance of a lawsuit being filed against them is low enough to be safely ignored and not worth insuring against. I'm probably not a great example, but I'll use my own situation anyway. Even though a liability policy probably wouldn't cost me too much, I'm almost certain that I wouldn't derive any benefit from it. I live alone without children (or firearms, pet tigers, gardeners, etc.) in a 520 sq. ft. apartment, so the probability that something bad would happen to someone on the small bit of property that I rent and that they would file a sizable lawsuit against me is small enough that I choose to ignore it."
If you're being sued, unless it's small claims court, you need a lawyer.  And if/after there's a judgement against you and you want to explore bankruptcy as an option, you'll still need an attorney. Depending on details, your assets may not be protected from the judgement.  So any way you look at it, you need a lawyer.
"As others are saying, you want to be a bit wary of completely counting on a defined benefit pension plan to be fulfilling exactly the same promises during your retirement that it's making right now. But, if in fact you've ""won the game"" (for lack of a better term) and are sure you have enough to live comfortably in retirement for whatever definition of ""comfortably"" you choose, there are basically two reasonable approaches: Those are all reasonable approaches, and so it really comes down to what your risk tolerance is (a.k.a. ""Can I sleep comfortably at night without staying up worrying about my portfolio?""), what your goals for your money are (Just taking care of yourself? Trying to ""leave a legacy"" via charity or heirs or the like? Wanting a ""dream"" retirement traveling the world if possible but content to stay home if it's not?), and how confident you are in being able to calculate your ""needs"" in retirement and what your assets will truly be by then. You ask ""if it would be unwise at this stage of my life to create a portfolio that's too conservative"", but of course if it's ""too conservative"" then it would have been unwise. But I don't think it's unwise, at any stage of life, to create a portfolio that's ""conservative enough"". Only take risks if you have the need, ability, and willingness to do so."
My grandmother passed away earlier this year. When I got my car 3 years ago, I did not have good enough credit to do it on my own or have her as a co-signer. We had arranged so that my grandmother was buying the car and I was co-signing.  A similar situation was happening and I went to my bank and took out a re-finance loan prior to her passing. I explained to them that my grandmother was sick and on her death bed. They never once requested a power of attorney or required her signature. I am now the sole owner of the vehicle.
If your sister paid rent, she was a tenant. There are laws to protect tenants, but those depend on what country, state, and city you live in. In most places in the US (maybe all), she was owed more than 2 days notice. Normally, the local housing authority could help her figure out what her rights are, but since this already happened, they may not be able to do much (depends on the local laws). It's worth asking them anyway. I don't know how partial ownership of the property would affect things if your sister was a partial owner. If the 30 year old will was the most recent document, then that's how the estate will be distributed. There are no laws in the US requiring a will to be fair. An executor's role is to carry out the will. Being an executor does not mean one can choose to unilaterally sell the property in the estate without permission of other heirs. You'll need to speak with a lawyer if you think they're breaking the will by selling property that you have partial ownership of. But since the sale is already done, reversing it would be slow and probably very expensive in legal fees. If it's a small estate, you'll have to judge whether a lawyer is worth the money and the family's animosity. Also, if the estate had debt, debt must be paid before property is distributed to the heirs, so that could also change what your sisters had to do.  I'd suggest first asking your sisters to tell  you about what they've done to execute the will, and what they do in the future.
Investing is good. Insurance when you have something to insure is good. But using a single account for investing and insurance is not so good. You need to determine how much you need to invest for retirement. You also need to determine if you need life insurance. As a single person you might determine that you don't have a great need for life insurance. If you get married, or have kids, your needs may grow. So you will want to revisit your decisions every so often. You may need to save for retirement, or setup a college fund. You may need to protect your spouse or children in case you die. It doesn't seem to make sense to invest and insure in a plan with complicated rules, fees and schedules. What happens if in 3 years you need to blow it up and start over? What surrender charges will they hit you with?
It is not a biological imperative for any individual. I know' I've gone years without it before and plenty of people go decades. And that's just sex... plenty of way to reduce chances of having a kid.   Also, based on my research vasectomies do not cost that much (IMO). I am not familiar with the other procedure.
"Why? Simply: because it has been mandated as law, and so you may have no choice in the matter whether to contribute or not. Quoting from GOV.UK – Workplace pensions: ‘Automatic enrolment’  A new law means that every employer must automatically enrol workers   into a workplace pension scheme if they: Next: even if you think you will work ""until you die"", you can still access the money saved in the pension scheme when you attain the required minimum age for withdrawals under your scheme. For instance, that may be age 55, but it may also vary by scheme. Becoming fully retired — as in stopping all work — is not a requirement to access retirement income from your pension scheme. In the eyes of a pension scheme, retirement is typically when you elect to take your income benefits according to the established rules of the scheme. Quoting from nidirect – Working past State Pension age: Continuing in work and your workplace pension  If you reached the age at which you can start claiming your workplace   pension scheme, you don't need to stop work in order to claim. You have   a number of options, including taking some of the pension you've built   up while continuing to work for the same employer. As to why things are set up this way: While some younger folk may, today, expect to continue working until death, for a variety of reasons that isn't always possible. Two typical such reasons are: disability, and involuntary unemployment (i.e. willing and able but still can't land the next job). Moreover, plans change. Young workers with health and vitality may expect they'll always feel invincible, but end up learning otherwise over time, and may come to appreciate the savings that were forced upon them. The ""forced savings"" aspect of state and state-sponsored pension schemes are meant to provide some safety net for those later years when it is a strong possibility that one can't continue to work. The alternative is to be a 100% burden on family and/or society."
Our standard of living is much higher than our grandparent's or great grandparent's. Do we really need to list all the consumer goods that are now considered essential to a modern middle class family that simply did not exist 50-100 years ago? A lot of people complain that they can't afford the things their parents had, but how much of what you do have or pay a monthly bill for do you really need?
There are a number of ways someone acquires assets without buying it. People could have inherited assets. They could have been gifted assets. They might have won assets in a lawsuit (unlikely to be a mall, but not impossible). They could have married into the assets. So there's other ways of acquiring assets without purchasing them.
Unfortunately, you are required, but most states do have agreements with neighboring states that let the states share the collected taxes without the person having to pay double taxes. So being as this is your first tax return in your current situation, you might be wise to have a professional fill it out for you this year and then next year you can use it as a template. Additionally, I really would like to see someone challenge this across state lines taxation in court. It sure seems to me that it is a inter-state tariff/duty, which the state's are expressly forbidden from doing in the constitution.
My take is that there are many factors to consider when deciding whether to accelerate payment of a debt beyond the require minimum. Ideally you would want to be debt-free with a home owned outright, a pension big enough to lead a nice life for the rest of your days and plenty of savings to cover any unexpected expenses. Being debt-free is not a bad thing but it should not come at the expense of your overall financial health.
It depends on where you are in life, and where you want to be at some point in the future, and the taxes, expenses and income at those points in your life. You don't get a mortgage to save on taxes, or keep a mortgage to save on taxes. But if somebody said they want to have the house paid off before they retire, that sounds to me like a great plan. They do need to balance it with saving for retirement, emergency fund, and college costs for themselves or their children.  Without having the whole picture it is impossible to say doing X is always a good idea.
"The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee.  I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a ""private ruling letter,"" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law.  I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling.  I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published.  You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston.  For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements.  If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with ""reasonable"" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case."
You are planning on signing a contract for, likely, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and plan on paying, likely, tens of thousands of dollars in a deposit. For a house that is not built yet. This isn't particularly unusual, lots of people do this. But, you need a lawyer. Now, before you sign anything. Your agent may be able to recommend a lawyer, but beware; your agent may have a conflict of interest here.
Bankruptcy law is complex. You need a lawyer who can advise you both on the statute and relevant case law for the district where you file. Your lawyer can advise you whether actions you contemplate are allowed.  You can obtain advice prior to filing as you seek to determine whether the law and the relief it offers are suitable to your situation. Anyone considering filing BK should know that they will need to provide fairly extensive information. You should learn about BK as you seek to understand whether that path is the best for your situation. You should ask your lawyer specific questions about your situation and try to learn as much as you can. You should read about the problems with taking out debt or making debt repayments to creditors (especially family) prior to filing BK. These actions could impact your case and cause it to be dismissed, and could even be considered criminal (again, you need a lawyer). Some things to learn about as you contemplate Bankruptcy Be aware that BK is federal law, and you will be required to provide extensive information about your financial situation.  You will be required to show up for the creditors meeting and testify that you have provided correct information.  The trustee may (will) supply objections to which you and your lawyer will need to respond. Among other things, you will supply, You should seek legal advice about things that might become important, Even though you will have guidance from your lawyer, you are the one seeking relief, and you need to understand your own situation and the law.
For most people, a million dollars is about right. Here's the back of the napkin math that you should consider to find your own estimate: If you take 1 and divide it by 2, that's roughly the size of the nest egg you'll need to live indefinitely. For example, if your retirement investments are earning 5% a year, and you want to live on $50,000 a year, you would need a $1,000,000 nest egg (50,000 / 0.05) Note that you don't have to make any assumptions about how long you'll live. The whole idea of a nest egg is that you live off the interest it earns each year without ever dipping into the principle. It's the gift that keeps on giving! When you die, you can pass it along to children, charities, etc.
yes, there does need to be demand. on heavily traded stocks, there is no reason to be concerned. on thinly traded equities, you will want to check the market depth before placing a sell.  the company is likely not the one that is buying your shares on the open market.
Of course you don't need to take a mortgage - if you happen to have enough cash (or other assets) to pay your sister her share, or if she is willing to take it in installments over the next years. Mortgages are not needed to buy houses, but to pay for them - subtle difference. If you can pay - in whichever agreed way - without a mortgage, you won't need one.
If you're relatively certain that you're going to meet the requirements, it sounds like a good move for you. The #1 priority with emergency funds should be easy access to the money when you need it.  Before the current economic situation, money market funds were great for this since they preserved the value of the dollars you put in.  Now the rates on money market accounts are barely better than the 0.2% you're currently getting.
You don't need a finance degree, no, but what you do need is evidence. Mind linking some of your sources? Can you flesh it out in detail for us? If not, why are you crusading for a cause you have no domain knowledge of?