vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I don't ever remember an issue (HFT) that is more widely contested by such a large group of people that continuously claim that the other party doesn't know what they're talking about because they're forgetting about _______.   Disclaimer: I read Flash Boys, yet can still only explain HFT with the acumen of a 4th grader.
"I feel like a lot of posts here are limited to US economics or go into detail only about US economics.   I'd like to see more posts about the economy from different countries; not just ""this is what US has been doing, and this is how it's going to affect so and so."""
I was in London about 6 weeks ago, and all of the locals were constantly talking about how squeezed the taxi drivers are. Their business has taken a huge hit because of Uber. From what I can tell, most people are giving monumentally more support to them than USA did to taxi drivers -- but the hit is there nonetheless.
If they know what his investments are in, then they could have said what the returns are estimated to be.  Otherwise, it's just more propaganda like most stories on Ron Paul: make him seem like a kook, or better yet a racist.  You're right, the guy knows nothing about finance or economics, what a nut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvKPYdTs3E&amp;feature=related
"&gt;Boy, you are so disappointed that Trump cut the debt more than any other president in this short time... because ""it not enough""?   What are you talking about? Did you read what I said at all or are you just projecting your insecurity?"
What a mindfuck.  Human consciousness is something I can't quite wrap my head around.  How about an intermediate scenario -- what if whole-head transplants could be performed onto cyborg bodies such that no duplication of the mind was necessary?  Would that somehow be closer to a transfer of *this* you?
"I watch a lot of the Vice shows on HBO.  Generally I like what they do.  But they are obviously very liberal-slanted.  I got a little irritated last week when they did a segment about health care.  One of the reporters talked to a bunch of doctors about health care.  They all talked about how the payments from insurance companies are small and/or unfair, etc.  Then at the end, all the doctors just kind of said ""single payer health care would be the best plan"".  But they never provided any kind of outline for what plan that is.  There are many different ways to organize a single payer system.  But to just say ""single payer is great"" seems unhelpful to me, and just trying to push a bias."
"Teavana's product was always vastly overpriced and relatively poor quality.    We drink a lot of tea in our house, and occasionally some well-meaning person would give us a gift certificate for Teavana.  Invariably, it would cost $50 for what should be about $20 worth of tea, and even their basic blacks (which should taste like *tea*) tasted like a perfumey, herbal mess.  When our local Teavana opened, I worried about our local tea shop's business.  After I drank a cup of their tea, I stopped worrying.  Probably my biggest complaint about Teavana is that think that they've tried ""good"" tea and don't like it, but what they've had is Teavana, and it sours them on actually trying some nice teas."
&gt;do you feel the same about the EPA under Scott Pruitt?  What does how I *feel* about the FCC or EPA matter? This article is mainly criticizing having companies in an advisory comity meant to get advice from companies. No feelings are involved to know this is garbage, although feelings may be blocking you from seeing it.
I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?
I know this is the rule in general but what about things like De Beers diamond company artificially inflating the price of diamonds? From what I've read there are lots and lots of diamonds in storage but they control the flow. Couldn't this tactic work with other products/commodities using the right marketing campaigns?
what do pregnant women eat OmmeWorld is just for you to provide you Pregnancy and Parenting Advices and about your infant child. We care for your health during this period. We all know that become a mother is a great opportunity for all family members. You will get to know what do pregnant women eat, which foods dont eat during pregnancy and many others parenting advices.  what should a pregnant woman not eat, dont eat during pregnancy, what do pregnant women eat,
its not about ruin, its about less and less incentive through decreased net profits.  Your business yields 50% net profits off the gross? Acceptable. Through increased liability it yields only 40%? Less incentive.  If I told you your paycheck would remain the same, but gas would go up 20% and you've got a 40 mile commute. Would you keep the same job? At what point do you leave that job? How close to 100% of your salary cost in gas would you continue working? What if 80% of your net income went to gas?
So after you learn some basics about bubbles you might then see that interest rates kept at their lowest since the days they were backed with gold may allow a bubble to form in housing.   You know the bond purchases increased real estate prices right? What is it about the magic $2 Trillion that makes you think the FED hit the spot right on?
I came on here when your comment was about 10 minutes old.  There were only a few comments on here before you posted and not a single one was a misogynist remark.  You however stated you will only care about the expectation of dudes if they can put a watermelon through their pecker.  What word should a rational person use to describe your comments?
It might take decades before people would agree to basic income. What about the tens of millions that are unemployed, suffering in poverty so that lucky people who can get a job can earn atleast 15$ an hour?  That's even more unfair than what's happening right now. That's not equality.
&gt;Stay in Portland, racist filth.   Standard right-wing MO, accuse your opponents of what you are most guilty of yourself.  You were complaining about people being illegal immigrants. I gave a simple solution, make them legal. The only reason you should have a problem with that solution is if your original complaint about illegalness isn't your real reason.
This is unfortunately what happens when people just blindly post something to reddit without knowing what they are talking about. A post of this type is more along the lines of what you see typically posted in /r/occupywallstreet - not that I have anything against Occupy, but far too often you have neckbeards that post things there that are little better than left-wing tabloid journalism that is often no better than the likes of Fox News.
"Anyone remember ""Fucked Company"" dot-com? It was a hit during the dot-com bust. a dot-com company deadpool blog/website... And I recall the founder tried to sell customized pr0n videos (like 30 secs or so) of POV shot nailing some girl while she screamed your name. I think that lasted all but a week before he shut that idea off.  I want to know what he was thought about it, what happened, and what went wrong... demand? costs? The open flood of just other pr0n movies, and people not caring about stroking the ego of hearing their name, instead of just stroking other things?  not that I care so so much, it was just something crazy from way back when that popped into my mind."
What is the problem? That some people have more money than others?   Rather than caring about the really rich, which you shouldn't because they can take care of themselves, lets focus on the really poor, which you should care about since they need your help.   The poverty rate in the US is 13.5% and is at its lowest point since 2008.
That makes no sense. Such a person would realistically only need catastrophic health insurance, which one could buy in the 70's for about the cost daily of a pack of cigarettes. Today that'd be about maybe what, $120/month? That sounds about right for the risk involved. Something doesn't add up here then, why can't insurance companies offer such a plan anymore?   *Not sure why I'm being down voted? I even provided a link below? Did I offend someone's sensibilities?
You're retarded, have no idea what you're talking about, and demonstrate the precise type of boostering, fanboy ignorance typical of the people who will sign up for this bullshit before they have even a clue what it actually is.  Familiarize yourself with this.  It's nine years old, already. http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf
"&gt; I knew exactly what I wanted to do going into college. Now, I also did not end up doing what my first major was, but that was because an opportunity in finance presented itself surreptitiously.  Phrased alternatively, ""I knew *exactly* what I wanted to do, and I was *exactly* wrong about it.  Essentially, a post in support of the /u/wolfmans-brother."
"Many of the business posts are adverts or self-promotion or people hyping stock ""tips"".  Also get a fair number of (lazy) people who want this sub to tell them how to get into business, or what a good business idea is (versus doing  research, and then saying ""this is what I've got, what about this problem, or this challenge?)"""
Ebates is great for getting a little extra discount once you find what you are looking for.  You can usually get about 2%-4% off from places like Dell, Staples, Home Depot, etc. What I do is do my research/shopping first and then add the item to the cart, then head over to Ebates and click through back to the store I was just on, and then purchase the item.  Ebates will track the purchase and send you a check about once every 3 months.  It is not much and not reflected in the price immediately but still it is a savings of some sort.
This is what I'm planning on.  Retirement would be difficult, if not impossible, without the expected SS payments. In terms of current retirement planning, it's the difference between putting 20% of my income aside for retirement, and 35% of my income aside. It's one thing to keep the wealthy happy and tax free, it's another to deny 80% of the population something that they will have to have at some point.
I understand the frustration, American politics is pretty utterly fucked isn't it?  &gt; Anyway, I think we should be doing our best to incentivize corporate formation by lowering corporate taxes to zero and moving the incidence of taxation directly to capital.  That's interesting, and I've heard it before. Is something [like this writer](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-should-eliminate-the-corporate-income-tax/65351/) outlines what you are thinking? Essentially remove corporate taxes, and then tax dividends and capital gains as normal income?
&gt; It's been years since my finance classes, but it seems to me the best course of action after selling the property and paying corporate taxes would be to reinvest the money at the corporate level to then pay out dividends rather than pay each of the 3 shareholders out and have us then pay personal tax on a large amount.  Full disclaimer, no one here is, or is acting in capacity as, a tax accountant or lawyer.   My understanding is as follows (assuming you're in the US):  1. The C-Corp owns the property. If you sell the property, the *corporation* will receive the proceeds of that sale. IF a capital gain is recognized, *the corporation* will pay the appropriate tax rate. That rate is, apparently, the same as normal income.   2. If you then issue a dividend with the proceeds of that sale, you are actually NOT reinvesting the proceeds, you're distributing them to shareholders. Shareholders will *then* need to pay tax on the dividends at their personal rates *as income.*  If you reinvest the cash, it will stay in the business. It will not go directly to shareholders. The cash will need to be invested somewhere else within the company. You will get hit with taxes regardless at least once. If you distribute to shareholders, those proceeds will be taxed twice.   Example:  Both Cases:  Sale Proceeds: $100  Less Corporate Tax of 35%: $35  After-Tax Proceeds: $65  _______________________________________________________________  IF DISTRIBUTED:  Distributed to Shareholders: $65  Less Income Taxes at 25%: $16.25  After-Tax Distribution to Shareholders: $48.75  ____________________________________________________________  IF RETAINED:  No distributions.  Retained Earnings: +$65  Cash: +$65  Book Value of Equity: +$65  Shareholder Wealth Increase: $65
There is a big difference between taking no action and providing guidance which is ignored by elected officials. Smart economic policy is not necessarily as palatable as bad policy. The candidate who advocates getting rid of inefficient tax breaks will lose to the one who offers tax cuts. Add to that lobbying money etc. and you get persistent economic inefficiency.
From http://www.taxrates.cc/html/cayman-islands-tax-rates.html: There is no income tax, corporate tax, sales tax, capital gains tax,   wealth tax, inheritance tax, property tax, gift tax or any other kind   of direct taxation in Cayman Islands. Cayman Islands government receives the majority of its income from indirect taxation. There is no income tax or capital gains tax or   corporation tax in Cayman Islands imposed on Cayman individuals and   Cayman Islands companies. An import duty of 5% to 20% is levied   against goods imported into the islands. Some items are tax exempt   like baby formula, books and cameras. Tax on automobiles depends on   the class and make of the model. Tax can reach up to 40% for expensive   car models. Financial institutions that operate in the islands are   charged a flat licensing fee by the government. A 10% government tax   is placed on all tourist accommodations in addition to the small fee   each tourist pays upon getting on the Caymans. The Cayman Islands   government charges licensing fees to financial institutions that   operate in the islands as well as work permit fees for expatriate   employees ranging from around US$ 500 for a clerk to around US$ 20,000   for a CEO.
&gt;American politics is pretty utterly fucked isn't it?  Haha, I think that's the one thing most sides can agree on.  &gt;That's interesting, and I've heard it before. Is something like this writer outlines what you are thinking? Essentially remove corporate taxes, and then tax dividends and capital gains as normal income?  Yeah I like the idea for a few reasons. Incentivizes investments in America (capital is far more mobile than labor or even capital owners), gets rid of malinvestment of tax avoidance, sticks taxation exactly where we want it (in this case capital owners instead of random incidence among labor/capital/consumers), and cuts other deadweight losses inherent in a corporate income tax.  It's really hard for me to understand why almost anyone would be against this. It's a progressive, pro-growth, anti-crony idea.
Most likely your accounting is cash basis, not accrual, so it's pretty tough to do unless you resort to the dodgy methods discussed so often by the tax avoidance enthusiasts.  There is a difference between a CPA service and a tax lawyer, perhaps you need to know one of the latter.
"Ok, I actually went and looked at the income statements for GE. They did not get a refund. They did not get a check from the government for the refund. This all took place between the balance sheet and the income statement. It goes down like this:  GE has on their books ""Deferred Tax Asset"" for XX billion dollars. This came from a year when they had an operating loss. They are carrying this loss forward as a deduction on their taxes (that's what makes it an asset, it's an asset to the company as it decreases their taxes).  For years, they've been reducing that Deferred Tax Asset account, and adding that amount to their ""Income After Tax"" amount. At the end of 2009, the amount they reduced that Deferred Tax Asset account by just so happened to be larger than the amount they decreased their income by due to taxable income that year.  For reference, their end of fiscal year 2009 pre-tax income is $9.864B, and their post tax income is $11.006B.  No one wrote them a check for the difference. It all comes from their own books.  If anyone else wants to look at the actual data and draw their own conclusions: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AGE&amp;fstype=ii&amp;ei=QSxpUNi4Kc3LiQKOZw On that page, click ""Annual Data""."
But, wine is a high-end commodity, rich people make their own rules, and if CA turns a blind eye to this practice they get to collect the sales tax as it's sold in CA and shipped to a location in CA, whereas fighting it would hurt their tourism and also send the tax income to the states being shipped to. C.R.E.A.M. baby! Re-reading this now I'm not even sure if there IS a liability here. They bought the property in CA, paid tax in CA, and had it sent to a mailing address in CA. What they do after that with their personal property is not the states business, right? I'd imagine this would be drastically different if shipping for resale. Similarly, I think this all only works if you complete the transaction while physically in the state. So at most this might turn on some weed tourism. The big difference in all of this is that the Fed is fine with alcohol, but not weed, so, while I suspect someone will form such a weed storage and shipping place at some point, I don't really want to be first in line to see how this flys and if it lands you in trouble with the Fed."
"Just came across [this Economist](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608751-restricting-companies-moving-abroad-no-substitute-corporate-tax-reform-how-stop) article, they make it sound quite straight forward and I don't think they can be called totalitarian leftists by any stretch.  Here is the money quote.  &gt; America’s corporate tax has two horrible flaws. The first is the tax rate, which at 35% is the highest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD. Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average thanks to myriad loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks. Last year these breaks cost $150 billion in forgone revenue, more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes. &gt;  &gt; The second flaw is that America levies tax on a company’s income no matter where in the world it is earned. In contrast, every other large rich country taxes only income earned within its borders. Here, too, America’s system is absurdly ineffective at collecting money. Firms do not have to pay tax on foreign profits until they bring them back home. Not surprisingly, many do not: American multinationals have some $2 trillion sitting on their foreign units’ balance-sheets, and growing.   It seems clear that the 35% rate is not the driving reason for these huge companies doing inversions. That 35% rate should almost certainly be cut down, but the loopholes and tax breaks need to stop as a condition of a rate cut.   Clearly this is not a dead simple issue, but I just don't want to hear the silly argument of ""oh our poor mega corporations are having to pay the highest taxes in the world!"" when the tax environment in the US is clearly rigged in their favor. Small and mid sized companies that can't afford their own Congressman sure are getting fucked though, and that makes me sad."
"The ""easier"" way is to sell the house, and pay back the 95K to the mortgage company. Your taxable gain (if any) is calculated as the difference between the sales price minus the purchased price of 150K. There is a further deduction for any selling expenses, before you have to pay income tax. If you liquidate your other investments to raise the 95K and prepay the mortgage, you might realize, and be taxed on gains on **those ** investments. That's something you might not want. On the other hand, if you have some investments that can be liquidated at a loss, you might want to sell those to generate a tax loss, then prepay all or part of the 95K. Bear in mind that there are limitations of 3K a year for certain types of losses. So see a tax adviser before using this course of action."
"Regarding vehicle property tax in Virgina. The big difference is that business vehicles don't get a tax break: Under Virginia law -- the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998   (PPTRA, also known as the ""No Car Tax"" legislation) -- the State   planned to subsidize 100% of the taxes on personal use vehicle   assessments below $20,000 by the year 2002. In passing this law, the   State effectively pledged state revenue to pay local governments   throughout the Commonwealth a subsidy in lieu of personal property   taxes that local governments would have otherwise collected directly   from taxpayers. At present, the State pays approximately 62% of the   bill, and the taxpayer pays the remaining 38%. These rates are subject   to change annually. The taxpayer must pay the full amount of taxes on   any vehicle assessment that exceeds $20,000. Only personal use   vehicles qualify for PPTRA. If that vehicle is worth 20K then a business will pay 4.57% of 20,000, but an individual will pay 4.57% of 7,600. A difference of $566 per year."
That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner.
Canadian departure tax is implemented as a deemed sale gains proceeds taxation. Check here for details. What it means is that you're taxed on the difference between your FMV on the date of terminating residency and your Canadian cost basis (FMV when you acquired residency, or regular cost basis if you acquired the assets while being resident of Canada). It doesn't matter if you actually withdraw the money or not, it has no significance. You'll have to pay the tax either way.
The Trump tax plan is strongly modeled on the Kansas's Republican Governor's tax plan.  Given that it was fairly radical in size (corporate tax rate to zero), and eventually it was repealed by the Republican Kansas legislature, I think folks should look at some of the research on [the great Kansas tax cut experiment](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/07/11/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/).  PS: Trump's current tax plan is pretty different than the tax plan he campaigned on and talked about in his standard stump speech which was pretty populist and not shocking, i.e. a broad middle class tax cut vs. the current plan which is geared primarily to benefit the rich and corporations.