vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
In normal cases you don't need it beyond 3-6 months. Beyond this destroy it. However in certain cases its required to be kept; For example if you need to prove that you are legally occupying a place/property and do not have relevant documents, the utility receipts can play a role in establishing that you were occupying a place and using it. In case you are not originaly a resident by birth, and your citizenship is at dispute, these records help. More so if the records are not maintained properly by the utitlity companies themsleves as in most developing countries. In India, these help for many individual who are occupying goverment properties for decades and then resolution is passed that people staying for past 25 yrs now own it, other become illegal and are evicted. For such cases, you could keep a history record say one per year, for past 5 years, and then one for every 5 year of a particular month ... basically in a systematic way. Other than that, just junk them.
Quality of life, success and happiness are three factors that are self define by each individual. Most of the time all three factors go hand by hand with your ability to generate wealth and save.  Actually, a recent study showed that there were more happy families with savings than with expensive products (car, jewelry and others).   These 3 factors, will be very difficult to maintain after someone commit such action. First, because you will fear every interaction with the origin of the money.  Second, because every individual has a notion of wrong doing.  Third, for the reasons that Jaydles express. Also, most cards, will call you and stop the cards ability to give money, if they see an abusive pattern. Ether, skipping your country has some adverse psychological impact in the family and individual that most of the time 100K is not enough to motivate such change.   Thanks for reading. Geo
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. It is keeping the house in good repair, occupied, insured, and professionally managed -- fit and ready for the bequest's purpose: occupancy of an aunt. What's the alternative? Move an aunt into a house that's been 10 years abandoned? Realistically the heirs are going to get tired/bored of maintaining the place at a total cash loss, maintenance will slip, and you'll be moving them into a neglected house with some serious issues. That betrays the bequest, and it's not fair to the aunts. Rental is a very responsible thing to do. The executor shouldn't fail to do it merely out of passivity. If you decide not to do it, there needs to be a viable alternative to funding the home's decent upkeep. (I don't think there is one). Excluding a revenue-producing asset from the economy is an expensive thing to do."
Make sure your handling the legal side of things. At your age, at least in the US usually, your parents are the one responsible for things like contracts and such. You can't legally get into contracts on your own and if your going to go into business, even at your age, a contract of work should be a must.
Horrible plan.  You are asking for a massive family feud over money. Don't mix extended family and money. You need to be able to make unemotional decisions about your finances and debt and you likely won't be able to make hard decisions that may be required if they would negatively impact your family. You don't want your brain and heart to fight. You will wind up losing your relationships with family, money, or most likely both.
There are, of course, many possible financial emergencies. They range from large medical expenses to losing your job to being sued to major home or car repairs to who-knows-what. I suppose some people are in a position where the chances that they will face any sort of financial emergency are remote. If you live in a country with national health insurance and there is near-zero chance that you will have any need to go outside this system, you are living with your parents and they are equipped to handle any home repairs, you ride the bus or subway and don't own a car so that's not an issue, etc etc, maybe there just isn't any likely scenario where you'd suddenly need cash. I can think of all sorts of scenarios that might affect me. I'm trying to put my kids through college, so if I lost my job, even if unemployment benefits were adequate to live on, they wouldn't pay for college. I have terrible health insurance so big medical bills could cost me a lot. I have an old car so it could break down any time and need expensive repairs, or even have to be replaced. I might suddenly be charged with a crime that I didn't commit and need a lawyer to defend me. Etc. So in a very real sense, everyone's situation is different. On the other hand, no matter how carefully you think it out, it's always possible that you will get bitten by something that you didn't think of. By definition, you can't make a list of unforeseen problems that might affect you! So no matter how safe you think you are, it's always good to have some emergency fund, just in case. How much is very hard to say.
If you live in a country that taxes interest, and if this is a significant amount of money in a high interest account then the tax forms will serve as a reminder. Even though the advice is to forget about the money, so that you don't dip into it for trivial things; you do need to look at it every so often to make sure it is still in a high interest account. The info about the account also needs to be kept in a place where somebody else can track it down if a spouse or dependent has to use the money in the emergency.
If you can not support yourself should your father die, an insurance policy may make sense as a safety net. As an investment, it is a bad bet unless he knows something about his health that would somehow not cause his premiums to be increased tremendously yet not cause them to claim he was attempting to defraud them and refuse payment. In other words, it is a bad bet, period. Insurance is a tool. If the tool doesn't do something you specifically need, it's the wrong tool.
Yes, you do.  You also need to file a tax return every year, and if you have more than $50k of total savings you need to declare this every year.
"I'm not sure if they're required to do so, but I have been neglecting to sign my cards for some time now.  If they do check, that triggers an ID check, where they'll find my signature.  I know of at least one person that writes ""see ID"" instead of signing their cards.  He began that practice over 10 years ago."
"You're making the assumption that a person would be aware, in advance, that they'd have enough resources to pay the costs of anything that might happen. Second, you're assuming the cost of insurance would outweigh what the person would have to pay out of pocket if they didn't have insurance.  In other words as an example, if the insurance premiums on my car are so high that it would be cheaper for me to replace it myself in cash then it might make sense, but how likely is that to be the case?   There's a gambling adage that I think applies here - ""Always bet with the house's money"".  Why would I put my own money on the line in the event of some event rather than pay for an insurance policy that takes care of it for me?  That way, my costs are predictable and manageable - I pay the premiums and perhaps a deductible, and that's it."
The court by itself is not expensive, it is the implied need for an attorney which are *very* expensive. Your average court case costs $130 to file. However, your average attorneys charge anywhere from $750 to $200 an hour. Granted, the need for an attorney stems from the complexity of written law. I would agree with you that this is not ideal about current society, but the alternative - an society without written law - is much less ideal. To even find something like that, we would almost have to refer back to my previous example - Somalia.
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. With a limited POA, the owner can define the scope and expiration of the power of attorney. With this arrangement, the second person becomes an executor of the owner under certain circumstances. For example, you could write a power of attorney that states something like: John Smith is hereby granted the limited power to withdraw funds from account 1234, on deposit at Anytown Bank, for the purpose of paying debts and obligations and otherwise maintain my estate in the event of my incapacitation or inability to attend to my own affairs. This Power of Attorney shall expire on it's fifth anniversary unless renewed. If the person you have granted the power of attorney abuses their access, you could sue them and you would only have to demonstrate that they overstepped the scope of their power.
"Glad my question got bumped. I took it as a sign to get a solid answer out of Schwab. First the rep gave me the same line that it was impossible to provide paperless statements for a 401(k) plan because of ""regulations"". I pressed the issue and got this from the rep: I just spoke with our dedicated small business plan team. They told me   that there are regulations that state that a Qualified Plan, such as   this, require to have a statement sent. It is a Schwab policy that we   have decided to only allow paper statements for this account type. So to clarify, it is a Schwab business decision to have the statements   available only by mail. Hope someone from Schwab with some authority sees this post and is pushed toward helping change their policy. I can't imagine what a colossal waste of paper, postage, and hassle it is for everyone involved."
I have seen this happen with IRS checks, the bank told me that the IRS imposes the requirement.  Otherwise, though, I have frequently deposited checks made out to my wife into a joint checking account without her signature, they have never cared one bit.
Some check as part of a background investigation. Money problems can make it hard to establish a level of trust. If your credit is bad you might be easy to bribe. Or you might steal from the company. The level of importance will depend on the job you are applying for, or for the customer you will be working for. Government jobs or government contracts frequently require background checks. Jobs that will involve having access to high value items or money will also require a check.
There are two key reasons: Consider a family of four, two kids and two adults, that has a net worth of $20 million. Each of these four people live in a top 1% household. But any of those four people can die, and their estate will not pay any estate tax. Both kids and one spouse can die, and still no estate tax will be paid. Only when the last spouse dies would there be any estate tax. Also, consider a person who dies but whose assets do not flow into their estate. For example, their assets could be held in an inter-vivos trust. People with higher net worths are much more likely to use trusts to avoid or minimize estate taxes.
If your goal is to make it harder for you to use to make impulse purchases then YES.  Having to always have cash for purchases will make you less likely to make impulse purchases you don't really need.
"At minimum, we need to incorporate and give property rights to our commons sector.  If everyone uses something, the something should be managed to maintain itself rather than requiring a constant ""input"" of tax dollars, generating a constant political struggle to maintain funding levels."
The point of insurance is to trade high variable costs for much lower fixed costs. The question isn't whether you can afford what would be a catastrophic event for anyone else, but whether it would be better to pay a small amount regularly vs. a possibly larger amount occasionally. One of the reasons to buy insurance is to avoid costly litigation (rich people are more frequently targeted for litigation). By purchasing liability insurance, the insurance company pays for the litigation and/or settlement. If you are wealthy enough to keep an experienced litigation firm on retainer, you may not need that benefit, but it might be worth giving that stress to a third party. Life insurance is also an important part of estate planning because of the tax treatment of insurance payouts compared to the tax treatment of a large estate. There are certainly classes of insurance that make less sense for those with great cash flow, but money doesn't obviate all the benefits of insurance.
For example: do I need a realtor, or can I do their job myself? In general in the United States the real estate agent fee is paid by the seller of the property. Their agent will be more than happy keep the entire fee if they don't have to split it with your agent.  If you don't have an agent you will be missing somebody who can help you find the property that meets your needs. They can also help explain what the different parts of the contract mean and give you advice regarding making an offer. Do I need to pay for an inspection, or am I likely to save enough   money from skipping it to cover potential problems that they would   have caught? Inspections are optional. Though the amount you are risking is the entire value of the purchase. If the property has a problem in the foundation, or the septic system, or the plumbing or electrical the cost to fix the issue could render the purchase not worth doing. If you discover the problem a year later and you have to repair the house and have to find temporary housing for a few months, you will regret skipping the inspection. What are some of the ways I can cut expenses on closing costs? Is   there any low-hanging fruit? You need to do your homework. When you are ready to purchase a property take good look at the good faith estimate and look at each item.  Ask them what the expense covers. Push back against those that seem optional or excessive. Keep in mind that moving the closing date from the end of a month to the start of the next month only changes the timing those charges, it doesn't really save you money. Rolling the costs into the loan sound easy but you have to think about. It means that you will be paying interest on those charges for the life of the loan. It is good that you are starting to think about all the costs.
Before starting with investing, you should make sure you are saving enough.  Living in a welfare country (France) does not exempt you from potentially needing to save large amounts of money. You state that you do not need much of an emergency day fund, but this is not true.  Being dismissed unjustly from your job is not the only way to become unemployed and not all roads lead to unemployment pay.  Being fired for cause or leaving your job voluntarily are two work related causes that will leave you without an income source.  Unexpected major expenses are another reason you might need to dip into your emergency fund. If your emergency fund is in order, the next thing to investigate is your pension and saving for retirement.  In a country with a strong pension system, you need to check how comfortable you are with its sustainability (Greece anyone?) and also whether it will adequately meet your needs.  If not, there are no 401ks or IRAs in France, but there is a relatively new personal supplementary pension plan (PERP) that you might investigate contributing to. If you're comfortable with your emergency fund and your retirement savings, then preparing for buying a house is likely your next savings goal.  A quick search shows that to get a mortgage to buy a house in France, banks will commonly require a downpayment of 20% plus various closing costs.  See for example here.  This is 40,000+ euro for a 200k euro house, which will take you several years at the rate of 500 euro / month.  France has special plans (Plan d’Epargne Logement) with tax-exempt interest for saving up for a house that you might want to investigate. In your other question, you also ask about buying a cheap car.  As you get older and possibly start a family, having a car will likely become more of a necessity.  This is another goal you can save for rather than having to take a loan out when you buy one.
"not all employers went through that. much of that is often inherited. and otherwise, thats a terrible way of reasoning, you should seek to make the path of those who follow you easier than it was when you had the same. the ""i got mine"" mentality is a plague."
You can open an account in US without having SSN. You need to be physically present to open the account.
There's nothing new about Whole Life Insurance. The agent stands to earn a pretty hefty commission if he can sell it to you. I don't think your assets warrant using it for avoiding the taxes that would be due on a larger estate. I don't see a compelling reason to buy it.
You should be trying to save 10% of your income from an early age. You can live well now and enjoy life within your means now, instead of trying to keep up with the Jones. Do you need to live in a larger house (when you can't really afford it) because it is more comfortable or because you want to show it off in front of your family and friends? You can live and enjoy life and eat well now and still save enough to have a comfortable retirement, just spend your money now on the things you enjoy, not things you see others enjoying.
If you are in the U.S., without credit cards, you probably don't have a credit history. Without a credit history, you won't be able to get a loan/mortgage, and even if you do, you'll get it on very unfavorable terms. Depending on where you live you might even have great difficulty renting an apartment. So, the most important reason to have credit cards is to have a good credit score. People have already listed other advantages of having credit cards, but another thing that wasn't mentioned is fraud protection. Credit cards are better protected against fraud than debit cards. You probably shouldn't use debit cards online unless you must. Also, without a credit card or credit history, some simple and important liberties like renting a car while you are travelling might be denied to you. So, in conclusion, it's bizarre, but in modern America you need credit cards, and you need them bad.
As long as the relative in the UK is not a US citizen and isn't considered domiciled in the US, there will be no estate taxes imposed by the US. You can see a much lengthier explanation on this subject here. The summary is that as a US citizen or resident, you can't circumvent estate taxes by moving yourself or your money abroad, but a relative who genuinely doesn't have US ties (other than inheritors located in the US) will be covered through applicable tax treaties (the UK does have an applicable tax treaty and applicable estate taxes as Ganesh points out).
Edited to add an important one that I forgot, because I don't have a TV myself. You need to: That's really about it, unless you're employing people or running a business turning over more than £81,000 per year (or doing one of a number of relatively unlikely things that require specific paperwork, such as owning a horse or farm animal (but not a dog or cat or similar)). It's not a bureaucratic country. None of those things except the driving licence/car tax/MOT test/car insurance will be a police matter if omitted, but you could be fined for them (although it's vanishingly unlikely that you'd be fined for not registering to vote and for jury service). You don't need to understand the law before being on a jury, because it's the judge's job to ensure that the jury understand the law as it relates to the case in front of them. A few pieces of paperwork jargon for you:
Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this ""investment"" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can.
"I believe that your dilemma comes from not having clearly defined consequences of buying it. On one side you want it and you can afford it, but on the other side there is nothing solid. Just some vague dislike of spending money and guilt of buying something ""useless"". You're basically guilt tripping yourself into not buying it, and guilt tripping is always bad. What you need is clear-cut consequence. Something like ""I can buy X but then I won't get Y and Z"". And for that you need a clearly laid out budget, just to know how much you can spend. Money that go into things that are absolutely required, money that go into various saving plans, etc - and after that you're left with some clear amount that should be spent on making yourself happier. Making yourself happier is not something you should feel guilty about, it's actually one of purposes of life. Making yourself happy is only bad if it's hurting other areas of your life (and even that is relative, because there is always some extent of degradation you're willing to accept or you have already accepted). There is absolutely no point in saving every single penny you can, because that will make you live long and unhappy life and die without enjoying your riches."