vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Since all the other answers thus far seem to downplay the risk (likelihood) of the money being seized, I figure I may as well make my comment an answer. Unless you happen to have your legal team travelling with you and your suitcase of cash, you should expect that you'll be questioned extensively, so that any sign of nervousness, inconsistency in your answers or anything you say that doesn't ""make sense"" to the officer will be used as an excuse to seize your money, and you'll learn an expensive lesson in civil asset forfeiture. The government will file a complaint against your money, leading to a ridiculously named case, such as United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency. Worth noting that while the outcome in this case was not in the government's favor, in the vast majority of cases, the government keeps the cash. Between 9/11 and 2014, U.S police forces have seized over 2.5 billion dollars in cash without search warrants or indictments and returned the money in less than 10% of cases.  That last link is kind of a long read, but contains cases where people with completely legitimate money and documentation for their money had it seized anyway, and were only able to recover it after months or years in court."
I agree. I'd like to acquire as many assets as possible before making it official. Since we are currently in Ohio, which I think means that assets and debts are not combined. Once I get this one going, I want to start another one here, if I have the time to do it.
"I would imagine that it is unlikely that you will ever see this money again. Here are some things you can do. Contact your local police.  You have two complaints: the money being taken, and the continued harassing phone calls.  Hopefully they will tell you what can be done and have recommendations for you on what to do next. File a complaint with the New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs.  I don't know if this will do you any good, or if you even have enough information to fill out the online forms, but if you are having trouble getting assistance from the police, this might be another option. To address the phone calls specifically, you may want to contact your telephone company.  There are things they can do to prevent further harassing phone calls from getting through.  See this article from the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse for more information. Teach your son to be suspicious online.  You can't just send cash to ""this guy"" that you don't know and expect to get a good result.  You may want to limit your son's access to cash if you think he hasn't learned a lesson here yet."
UGMA and UTMA accounts are in the name of a single child(Your daughter), the funds are not transferrable to another beneficiary. There are strict rules governing UTMA/UGMA accounts. As a custodian, you do not own the assets in the accounts; the minor ultimately owns the asset, however, you can make certain withdrawals from the account to cover expenses for the benefit of the child, such as school fees, tutoring, computer equipment, etc. I'm not sure gifting some of the money to her other siblings will actually benefit your daughter who happens to be the real beneficiary.
"He will receive it just like any other non-spouse beneficiary you could have named.  The money can stay in your 401K account if he wants to keep it there. For simplicity, your nephew will want to roll the money over to another qualified account, such as an IRA. The account must be titled in your name, for the benefit of him as beneficiary (aka, ""beneficiary IRA"").  Regardless of where the money is kept, he will be required to start withdrawing the funds a little bit each year, known as the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) and it will appear as taxable income to him each year. There is no early withdrawal penalty in this case. Optionally, he can stretch out his RMDs over his own life expectancy. He would do this to lower his potential tax obligation, and to keep the money in his account longer, hopefully growing over time. See Publication 590-B , Distributions from IRA."
The Employee Benefits Security Administration within the US Department of Labor is tasked with keeping track of pension and 401K programs. The even have a website to search for abandoned plans: it helps participants and others find out whether a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated and the name of the Qualified Termination Administrator (QTA) responsible for the termination.  The Employee Benefits Security Administration discuss all types of details regarding retirement programs. This document What You Should Know About Your Retirement Plan has a lot of details including this: If your former employer has gone out of business, arrangements should   have been made so a plan official remains responsible for the payment   of benefits and other plan business. If you are entitled to benefits   and are unable to contact the plan administrator, contact EBSA   electronically at askebsa.dol.gov or by calling toll free at   1-866-444-3272. There are also EBSA offices spread thought the United States
"This is a classic case of Sunk Cost Fallacy. The basic idea is this - don't look at how much you've invested, look at what the thing is worth. It sounds like you are no longer able to keep up, so the financial answer is to stop making repairs, etc.  The only question is - whose name is on the deed? If your coworker still owns the asset, you can simply back out say, ""the mobile home is yours, any repairs and payments I made are yours too.""  Basically, you will be out all of your work and what you put into it, but you're not continuing to dig a hole. Your coworker should consider your investment as a gift, but a gift that is no longer being made. If in taking over the asset he put it in your name, the asset is yours to do with as you please.  It sounds like you should dispose of the asset, even if its at a loss. Either way, from a financial perspective, the answer is to cut your losses and be done with it. All of that is, of course, a strictly financial answer.  Reading between the lines, it seems like you feel guilty about not being able to honor the commitment you have made.  If there is a sentimental attachment to the mobile, I would suggest discussing your situation with the coworker.  That's really not a financial consideration, but that doesn't mean its unimportant."
For an inherited IRA, there are a few options for taking distributions. You clearly haven't done option 1. It sounds like you haven't done option 2 because otherwise you would probably know how it is taxed. That leaves you with option 3.  With option 3, you must distribute the entire amount within 5 years.  For you, I'm not sure if that means you need to distribute the entire amount by the end of 2016 or 2017.  If it was 2016, then you'll probably have to pay penalties. Distributions from an inherited IRA are taxed as ordinary income regardless of your age or the distribution option you select.
"The key is to say something like ""after looking around, I think my salary is well below market value, and think I deserve a raise for the good work I've done X, Y, and Z""  Since they've just hired someone like you, they know the market value is indeed higher, and you don't need to resort to ""But HE gets XXX! Me too!"""
Short term: ask for a raise or look for a new job that pays more. Longer term:
"Start by going to Salary.com and figuring out what the range is for your location (could be quite wide).  Then also look at job postings in your area and see if any of them mention remuneration (gov't jobs tend to do this).  If possible go and ask other people in your field what they think the expected range of salary should be. Take all that data and create a range for your position.  Then try and place yourself in that range based on your experience and skill set.  Be honest. Compare that with your own pay.  If your figures indicate you should be making significantly more, schedule a meeting with your boss (or wait for a yearly review if it's relatively soon) and lay out your findings.  They can say: Be ready for curve balls like benefits, work environment and other ""intangibles"". If they say no and you still think your compensation is unfair, it's time to polish up your CV.  The easiest way to get a job is to already have one."
Salary pay does not compute to hourly wages. As a salary employee you aren't being paid for hours worked, you are being paid for a week of work. Sometimes that requires more time other times less. You could just as well divide your salary by the amount of overtime you work and each week you work 40 hours say that you are being over paid or paid for time not worked.
"Um, thats pretty much what I was saying. Pay your employees enough that they care to be pleasant and accurate, and watch business improve.  Pay slave wages and foster an environment of ""you are worthless and instantly replaceable"", and you get whay McDonald's has: a bad reputation and dropping profits."
You are not actually entitled to any raise at all, unless you had something contractually (legally binding) which made that so. I'm answering this from the UK, but it has been common practice for people over the last 10 years or so to receive no yearly raise, in some sectors. This is what I would consider a bad raise - if wages are not kept in line with inflation, you are effectively earning less every year. In this regard I would not work for any employer who did not offer an annual raise that was at the very least covering the rate of inflation (these rates are easy to find in your country by Googling it). In terms of a standard raise, I would argue there is no such thing. This depends on the industry/sector you work in, your employers opinion of your performance (note I've used the word opinion because sometimes you may think the effort you put in is different to what they think - be prepared to give evidence of what you've achieved for them, with things to back it up). A good raise is anything which is way above a standard raise. Since there is no concise definiton of a standard raise, this is also hard to quantify. As others have mentioned do not stay in a role where you are not being given a raise that covers inflation, because it means every year you have less purchasing power, which is akin to your salary going down. It's very easy to justify to an employer you're leaving - and indeed one you're going to - why you're making the move under these conditions.
Yes, there is indeed a great alternative for all European residents: getting a Revolut account. Revolut is a fully-online bank who's main benefits include the lack of fees (with some limits) and a great exchange rate for all currency operations (better than what you would get at any brick and mortar bank in Europe). In your particular scenario it would work as following: This is what I personally use to handle a salary in EUR while living in Czech Republic. Things might change in the future once they run out of investor money, but for now it's the only solution I know for converting currencies without a loss.
"Eh, that doesn't really make for healthy negotiations. Consider the converse argument: ""a candidate should put their acceptable salary range on their resume."" Every hiring manager is going to offer you your lowest acceptable salary. You might have gotten more money had you not freely offered that information."
True, but it's still money that (in theory) could be paid to the employee instead, in the same way that the employer's social security contribution could also be paid to the employee.  Note that I'm not saying that if the law were changed, every employer would suddenly increase wages by _x_ percent; merely that these taxes all fit into wage calculations along with perquisites, salaries, overhead, etc.
From your comment: My salary through 7/31 could pass for an annual salary for the   industry. I suppose that’s relevant? That information would certainly be relevant if you were the owner since the beginning of the year. If that were the case then I would say you'd be fine skipping the salary for the rest of the year. It would be equivalent to simply front-loading your salary. However, since you didn't own any part of the company during the time you received the salary, I believe you should think of that salary as if it came from an entirely different company. This means that during the 5 months you owned the company you will have taken $0 in salary, and I believe that would not be reasonable if this job is your main source of income. As a side note, regarding this statement you made: During this time, I'd like to avoid the employer half of FICA taxes incurred by paying myself through payroll. You'd actually be avoiding both the employer and employee portion of FICA, since both sides of FICA are paid for employee compensation. FICA is not paid by either side on company profits.
But more abstractly and generally, any time two parties are bargaining asymmetrically (I'm not sure the legal definition, but intuitively I'd say where one party has the ability to force a contract change and the other party is not), then those terms have to be suspect. Also, for the special case the pay is anything near minimum wage, I would suggest asking the question of whether the part of the compensation that is salary, not ""keeping you from working for the competition"", is the wage paid consistent with minimum wage, or does it have to draw from the pool of money that is not about wage but is about incentivizing you to not move. And, finally, if they stop paying you, and each day you've been paid a little to work and a little to incentivize you to leave, then are you getting a continued revenue stream to continue to incentivize you not to work for the competition? If not, there would seem again not to be consideration. As I said, I'm not an expert in this. I just follow such matters sometimes in the news. But I don't see these issues getting discussed here and I hope we'll see some useful responses from the crowd here, and also the smart folks at reddit can help through their discussions to form some useful political and legal defenses to help individuals overcome what is really a moral outrage on this matter. Capitalism is an often cruel engine. I worked at a company where one of the bosses said to me, after contributing really great things that added structurally in fundamental ways to the company, ""don't tell me what you've done, tell me what you've done lately"". Capitalism makes people scrap every day to prove their worth. So it's morally an outrage to see it also trying even as it beats down the price of someone and tells them they aren't entitled to better, to tell them that they may not go somewhere else that thinks they are better. That is not competition and it is not fair. Indentured servitude, not slavery, is more technically correct. And yet it is a push to treat people like capital, so slavery is not inappropriate metaphorically.
I'm guessing you're talking about options given to employees. The company can issue stock options at whatever strike price it wants. The difference between the strike price and the actual market value is considered income to the employee. You can get the options at $0 strike just as well (although companies generally just give RSUs instead in this case).
That is absolute madness. The repercussions of that are, I believe, not being properly factored into your calculation.   If I'm an entry level employee, and I have lots of kids, I may receive fairly generous public dollars. If I have no kids, I won't. Is your solution to pay all entry level employees more, or just to pay people who have kids more? Neither of these is without consequence.
Even without regulation wage floor is as close to zero as possible. If you want a truly free labor market, where employers actually have to compete for workers, something akin to a UBI would have to exist, or something that actually frees the labor market IMHO.
This is one effect of rising minimum wages: compression of lower pay tiers. The new employees might have been offered a lower starting rate than the result of your raise, but your employer did not have that option as a matter of law.
"And that is my point: without specific dollar amounts...this is USELESS information.    The problem with this crap information is that some crappy operation will find a reason to pay themselves more for being a ""good boss"" thinking that will make up for any raises.   I'd take a better boss over a 5-cent an hour raise (and yes, I worked at McDonalds when raises were 0-5-10 cents an hour...and yeah, I would have liked a better boss for 5 cents).    However, for an annual job that pays $500/hr I'll gladly work in horrid conditions with a horrible boss doing awful things."
It doesn't really make a difference to be honest.  I work in a place where salary is dependent on position, and all the positions are known so you can just go look up anyone's salary.  There's no strife involved.
A living wage is a great idea but asking business to pay for it is bad. It's not that companies can't afford it, it's that for every company that can afford it there are about a dozen small ones that can't (eg small businesses).  The solution is to have a universal wage subsidy funded by the government and sourced through increased taxes (especially in the financial sector). This would allow companies to pay lowish wages while the government tops it up to ensure that low paid workers get more money.
"That was just one example, there are other things that could be implemented. Some countries, like the UK, have different wages for lower age groups. So your example could have an under 21 or an ""under 24"" wage, unless married or legally emancipated like with the FAFSA. Or we could expand the work-study program so that students can get jobs and employers pay part of the salary and taxes covers some.   Or there's a limit on the number of employees that can be considered on apprenticeship at any given time. There are lots of ways to address things.   We already have various rules that have exceptions for different industries. Farmhand wages, tipped workers, etc. There could be other options."
$125 bucks says that if the legislation were worded that way, these employers would switch their pay structure from hourly to salary, and then make everyone work 50-60 hours a week. Probably even fire a few people since they could make one worker do one and half times the work for free now. :/
Interesting. What is your view of this idea: institute a bonus program which allocates to each employee scrip proportionate to the number of dependents (plus 1 for themselves, of course); this scrip would be valid for one year and to earn it one needs meet some basic work requirements and can be used to purchase whatever goods and services the workers prefer. (This is only a rough description of what I have in mind. Feel free to ask questions for more details. I feel we have much to learn from each other on this topic.)
"A living wage =/= ""giving them everything""    I really don't think anyone disagrees with you that entry level positions result in lower wages than more advanced/skilled positions. I think the notion of this thread is more ""pay people enough to eat, have a roof over their head, and be able to afford transportation."" That's what I mean by livable wage."
There actually wouldn't be a need to increase prices in order to provide Wal-mart employees with a living wage though. There is another way. Cut executive pay.  In fact, I'd like to see a law on the books that makes maximum executive pay, including bonuses and stock, a certain percentage or multiple of the pay of the lowest paid employee. Before you can raise the pay of an executive beyond a certain point, the pay of all the employees simply has to go up. This would give executives another incentive to raise the pay of their employees, since their ability to get a raise would depend on it. I'm thinking something along the lines of executive pay being capped at 100x the pay of the lowest paid employee. Your employees make $20,000 a year? Your executives make no more than $2,000,000 a year. Want that to go up? Guess it's time for raises then.  The main point of such a law would be to make sure that employees are paid for the benefits they bring in to the company, along with having a living wage. As it stands, employees might get a 25 cent/hour raise a year in low wage jobs, if they get anything at all. This way, if there's enough money to go around to the people at the top, the people at the bottom also see some of that money.
I had a colleague turn down a raise once because he believed that female colleagues were already being paid well below his salary and it was unfair to further increase this gap. For very public figures raises are often declined as a form of leadership: showing that management is willing to forgo bonuses and salary increases as a form of solidarity with the employee population.  Some leaders forgo a salary altogether (or take a $1/year salary).
I'm trying to get the numbers to work. I built a quick spreadsheet that allocated the lost time as stated against the overall pay increase, assuming 1.5x for more than 40 hours.   I can't find a reasonable number of hours worked where a 9% cut in hours outweighs the near 20% increase in wages.
"Alright bud. I'm sure you're a smart and nice person who just wants people to earn as much as they possibly can (at least I hope you are), so let's look at it logically.   You are suggesting people that are unskilled / uneducated lack the ability to negotiate in their favor and a government law must be placed to help them. However, the effect of a higher minimum wage means you now force that very individual to compete with more people for that same position. This is because there's not a lot of competition for a job that pays say $8/hr because skilled people don't apply to them. The higher you set that minimum wage like the ""livable wage"" of $15/hr that I hear so much about, the more skilled people will apply to these positions because they now pay more. What makes you think an unskilled / uneducated individual will be able to find employment in this competitive environment? You are assuming that people earning minimum wage today will continue earning a minimum wage even if a higher minimum wage law is passed.   Also remember that employment goes both ways. Just as a potential employee has the freedom to walk away from a wage he doesn't like, an employer is free to not hire an employee for a given wage. An employer does not hire personnel that provides value less than the wage paid because that employee now costs the employer to keep him retained. So when you enforce a minimum wage which states an employer must at a minimum pay a certain wage, you forcibly fire all the employees that do not merit that wage. You effectively take away the 1 bargaining chip unskilled and uneducated individuals can offer which is offering to work for lower wages."
Rather than discuss whether you're thinking about things incorrectly, I'll just show you how to answer the question you asked: Now as to what wage to pay yourself to meet your expenses, do the same thing but only using personal components:
Not my argument at all - corporate profits are down and wages are either stagnant or down (one of the hardest things to measure because it doesnt measure fringe benefits pension etc) -- my problem with that statement is that if companies just pay their employees more it will 'create' demand, it simply does not. If companies pay their employees more for the same amount of output it will just drive up the cost of goods leaving us with the same shitty demand.
Nice attempt at trying to obfuscate the math by suggesting your wage was half of what you actually got paid.  You were paid $9/hr, not $4.50.  Was your CEO spending billions of other people's money playing martian when he could have been paying his employees instead?
Gross pay is the total your employer is paying you. Net pay is the amount of money you actually received (should match your check or direct deposit), which is gross pay minus deductions (healthcare, 401k contributions, commuter tax-free programs, etc), taxes (as explained already), 401k loan repayments, garnishments (child support, IRS messes, etc).