vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You'll have much more flexibility and peace of mind if your expenses are based on your current income and that income increases in the future. It's great that you aren't comfortable with spending more, you don't want to end up in the position you just removed yourself from.  That said, you don't just ignore planned income altogether. Personally, my wife and I feel best knowing that I have the essentials covered with my income, and that her income primarily helps us put away more for retirement, home renovations, and vacations, because she likely won't work for a long while if we have kids. How you plan depends on your wife's career aspirations and prospects, if your wife has high income potential and you don't plan to buy until after she resumes work, then it may suit you to plan on her income too. You'll have to balance the certainty and amount of her income with your goals.  If you're trying to make up ground on savings/retirement, then a less expensive house seems wise anyway. It's a much easier problem to decide what to do with excess funds than feeling trapped/stressed by a high mortgage payment.
I don't know of any rule of thumb for travel. In general, what you spend on entertainment should be what you have left after paying for the more mundane things in life -- housing, food, electricity, and so on -- and setting aside reasonable amounts for retirement and emergencies. Entertainment varies widely as a percentage of one's income. Someone making minimum wage and trying to support a sick wife and three kids probably has pretty much zero left over for entertainment. Someone who makes a million a year and has no debts might spend 50% or more of his income on entertainment. Yes, I've heard rules of thumb for charity, housing, and retirement that are probably at least useful ballparks. But for entertainment? No, I think that's just what's left over.
"&gt; A corporation should be taxed based on where it does business and not where the corporate headquarters are located.  But... but.. that's the whole point of the inversions. The US government tries to claim taxes on income from revenue generated overseas. So right now if BK repatariates it's overseas earnings, the US government will double dip beyond it's fair share and tax already taxed revenue just because it was taxed by non-US governments. All BK is doing is moving their headquarters to to a more business friendly economy that doesn't do similar double dipping. That way when they repatriate overseas money they are not being forced to pay taxes unjustly like they would be in the US. They will still pay taxes in the US for earnings in the US, they just won't pay US taxes on earnings foreign earnings.   I don't think you Americans get just how fucked up and hostile your tax structure is. It has nothing to do with ""fair share""."
"He looks like a bitter old fucking Scrooge. Also his argument is complete bullshit. ""I'm going to be taxed on what I am earning so I will have no choice but to make it even worse on myself by choosing to reduce the size of my business so that I earn less."" - yeah sure.  ""You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about. ""  Here's the part he doesn't seem to get : someone will be three seconds behind your ass and take all the business you walked away from - don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
Are the schools going to count all my retirement I've saved over the   last 20 years as assets and calculate my EFC on 5.x% of that?! Yes.
"I wrote Retirement Savings Ratio some time ago and 15% seemed the sweet spot. The 15% is 10% saved and 5% match, in my mind. The reason I link is to show a spreadsheet that shares my approach to the analysis.  You list a huge number of things to think about, all great. I'm near Duff's view although I shoot for 20X final  income so 4% of that is an 80% replacement. There's nothing magic about 80. If social security exists, it actually drops the required 80 from you to the 60 or so Duff lists, so we align.  The 'problems' with my sheet - no one gets exact 3% raises for 43 years, so one can go in and change that, maybe higher early on, then slow it down. Returns are 8% every year, so one must go to the sheet or their own plan and reassess how they are doing each year. Disclosure - we are now at 14X our income with a goal of 25 to replace 100%. So we need a cumulative 80% growth (as in S&P at 2500) or the years of deposits to get there. I am nearing 50.  Let me pick one of your questions - ""Your expenses go down at retirement, stay the same, or go up?"" - this is the $64K question. the 80% is an average guess. The general assumption is in this range. If we downsized right after the kid goes to college, we could retire on far less. So, to wrap up, online calculators and spreadsheets only go so far. Your questions are dead on. A planner should ask every one of these questions before assuming any ratio.  Edit - on re-read I am blown away by the list of questions you have here. It's great. And it shows how there's risk no matter what."
Because interest is tax deductible. I don't know much about the Chevron deal, but I'm an EM debt analyst and typically the issue you have is that dividends are taxed but interest is not. So to move money from a subsidiary instead of putting in equity and getting dividends (tax inefficient), instead you give debt and get interest back. You get a little less flexibility on payment but you more than make up for that (on average) with tax efficiency.   Don't think of it as a loan at all. Think of it as a pseudo-equity investment with required dividends.  Revenue is not taxed, profit is. Interest comes out of profit, dividends however are issued after profit.  This could all be wrong vis-a-vis Chevron. This is just how most of the companies I look at work.
"Some of the other answers have commented on this, but I particularly want to comment on the ""Your expenses go down at retirement, stay the same, or go up?"" assumption people often make. We assume we'll spend less in retirement, but as David Chilton points out in ""The Wealthy Barber"", ""it's a myth that present-day retired people spend much less money than their working counterparts."" He cites that reduced expenses like paid-off mortgages and children leaving the home usually happen several years before retirement, so ""the last few years at work are characterized by good income levels and significatnly reduced expenses. In all likelihood, disposable income is at its highest point ever."" Furthermore, some expenses go up, e.g. golfing, hobbies, traveling, all of which cost money. Healthcare costs often increase as well, and Chilton goes on to discuss ""a retiree's number one enemy"" - Inflation. So in my mind, the answer to that question/assumption would be ""costs [will probably] go up,"" and 60-80% of retirment income won't cut it."
With a 1/4 million you should  be looking at staying fully invested and doing income draw down you can safely take 3 or 4 %   Basing your retirement income 100% on cash investments is very risky I can remember when inflation hit 15% in the UK and it has been at similar levels in the usa around 14% in 79.
I would focus entirely on the emergency fund first and get it built up as fast as you can.  Once that is in place, you've got a cushion that will keep you from going into debt in an emergency.  Depending on your monthly expenses, $2000 seems low for that.  I'd aim for 3-6 months worth of expenses. Note that this is $800 less than your monthly income because of your savings. Once you have your emergency fund in place, then follow a formula like @MrChrister's to invest for retirement and save for future major purchases (car, house, vacation, etc).
In both the US and UK you are taxed on your income. Transferring your own money from one country to another does not count as income, so you won't be taxed on it. If it's not your money you are transferring that will be different. You may have to report transfers to comply with money laundering rules. You have to report large amounts of cash you bring with you.
I'd keep the risk inside the well-funded retirement accounts. Outside those accounts, I'd save to have a proper emergency fund, not based on today's expenses, but on expenses post house. The rest, I'd save toward the downpayment. 20% down, with a reserve for the spending that comes with a home purchase.  It's my opinion that 3-5 years isn't enough to put this money at risk.
I agree, but that's only a small fraction. You could even argue that the money that is not being paid in taxes isn't necessarily a bad thing as it's funneled back to investors, which also includes the common person that is saving for their retirement, which will also get taxed. Of course that's only for public companies.
Every year my wife and I sit down and determine what our financial goals are for the year. How much do we want to be putting in retirement? How much do we want to give to charity? Do we want to take any family vacations? We set goals together on what we want to achieve with our money. There is no my money or her money, just ours. Doesn't matter where it comes from. At the beginning of every month, we create a budget in a spreadsheet. It has categories like (food, mortgage or rent, transportation, clothing, utilities) and we put down how much we expect to spend on each of those. It also has categories for entertainment, retirement, charity, cell phones, internet, and so on. Again, we put down how much we expect to spend on each of those. In the spreadsheet, we also track how much income we expect that month and our totals (income minus expenses). If that value is positive, we determine what to do with the remainder. Maybe we save some for a rainy day or for car repairs. Maybe we treat ourselves to an extra fancy dinner. The point is, every dollar should be accounted for. If she wants to go to dinner with some friends, we put that in the budget. If I want a new video game, we put that in the budget. Once a week, we take all our receipts and tally up where we spent our money. We then see how we are doing on our budget. Maybe we were a little high in one category and lower than expected in another. We adjust. We are flexible. But, we go over our finances often to make sure we are achieving our goals. Some specific goals I'd recommend that the two of you consider in your first such yearly meeting: You get out of life what you put into it, and you will get out of your finances what the two of you put into them. By being on the same page, your marriage will be much happier. Money/finances are one of the top causes of divorce. If you two are working together on this, you are much more likely to succeed.
My state (Oregon) doesn't give me credit for all the federal taxes I pay so I get taxed by the state for money I never received. Now both will, fun. With this policy it would be worth it to move my family to a red state and start turning it blue.
"I would say yes: it's worth building additional retirement savings on top of a defined benefit pension plan (plans that pay set annual income).  Here are a couple of reasons: Don't put all your eggs in one basket.  While OTPP is probably in good shape, things can and do happen to pension plans.  While there is a provincial system in place to guarantee some of your pension income ($1000/mo) if your plan goes bust, your benefits are not 100% guaranteed. Defined benefit pension plans are designed to provide recurring annual income, like your paycheck when you are employed.  You can't ""take more out"" from your defined benefit pension plan when an emergency comes up.  Whereas, your RRSP (and eventually RRIF, in retirement) are accounts from which you can take out extra in any given year, if necessary. That being said, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) won't let you save as much in your RRSP as other people who don't have pension plans: Normally, individuals in Canada are entitled to save 18% of their earned income, up to a limit ($21000 in 2009) in an RRSP each year.  However, to level the playing field, individuals who are in a pension plan get a ""Pension Adjustment"" (PA) number on their T4 which reduces their available RRSP contribution room.  Otherwise, they'd be able to tax-shelter more income for retirement than others. So, I would suggest if you have the RRSP room, consider using it.  I'd also suggest you look at a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA), especially if you don't have much RRSP room due to the pension adjustment.  If you're not sure whether to use an RRSP or a TFSA, consider both."
That was a simple miscommunication, soupaman, for which I actually apologized.   Do trolls apologize? No. Look at magicunderpants for an example of trolling.   EDIT: btw, the reason I state my experience *and* our income is simple: it's proof. People who don't bother to even read the simple blog sidebar are going on about how I can't possibly know anything, but oh, I do.  And people don't even know that it's possible to do what I do and earn that kind of income. But it is very possible. That's why I talked about numbers when I was invited to be interviewed on Mixergy. You have no idea the kind of fan mail I got for that.  Most bootstrapping companies will never reveal their income, but we should: http://unicornfree.com/2011/drawing-back-the-curtain/
It has to do with return. I don't know if Canada has a matching feature on retirement accounts, but in the US many companies will match the first X% you put in. So for me, my first $5000 or so is matched 100%. I'll take that match over paying down any debt. Beyond that, of course it's a simple matter of rate of return. Why save in the bank at 2% when you owe at 10-18%?  One can make this as simple or convoluted as they like. My mortgage is a tax deduction so my 5% mortgage costs me 3.6%. I've continued to invest rather than pay the mortgage too early, as my retirement account is with pre-tax dollars. So $72 will put $100 in that account. Even in this last decade, bad as it was, I got more than 3.6% return.
My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)
I'm responsible for all our hedging.  Since we sell the energy to end users we do mostly fixed buys, swaps and calls.  I'm a excel guru and dabble a little in SQL.  we have Crystal Ball as well but i have no idea how to use it.  I guess I'm trying to figure out if there is a tool that people use to help me analyze the spreads. or perhaps some reading material to help me through this. This is what i've been working towards for so long and i really don't want to fuck this up
From the headline I thought it was a nanny-state idea to stop people eating too much junk food, but no, it's just a desperate attempt to ameliorate one of the consequences of a mismanaged (ie centrally controlled) economy.  You would think we wouldn't have to keep making the same mistakes, but apparently humans are not good at learning from history (let alone following ideas through to their logical conclusion).
http://www.vistageconnect.com -- Marketing guru David Avrin explains how truly creative, effective marketing messages come directly from a company's ability to communicate effectively within its own team. Avrin also describes the best practices in building the kind of unique environment that enables creative styles of communication.
Ten years ago Fred Achom had reached a crossroad where he had to make a decision about his future in the wine investment market. The financial regulatory boards responded negatively regarding the idea of advising clients about fine wine investment and charging a premium for the service. The outcome was the suspension of his London's wine investment consultancy, Boington &amp; Fredericks by DTI on charges of mis-selling wine as an investment.
"Robert Kiyosaki's is basically a get-rich quick author.  But to answer your question: It is a sales pitch in disguise. See Marketplace's report on a Kiyosaki seminar, which reveals that the free work shop is a sales pitch for a 3-day work shop which costs several hundred dollars.  And the 3-day workshop is a sales pitch for ""advanced"" training which can cost as much as $45,000 (presumably in Canadian dollars, as the report was done in Canada). He does touch on some basic sound principles, but it's mixed with a lot of really bad (and in some cases illegal) advice.  You'll do much better to invest your time and money in reading materials that aren't advertised via infomercials. Kiyosaki may well be rich, but it's from selling his Rich Dad-branded material, not from investing in real estate, or any other investment portfolio See also John T. Reed's guru rating, and his review of Kiyosaki's book, Rich Dad, Poor Dad."
Talk shit about him all you want, he's got a huge following and, whether it's his idea or not, he's leveraging that fact to push product while he's very hot.  Smart move.     He could just buy a giant mansion, a bunch of high end cars, a yacht, and be broke as soon as his streak ends like other people who make it big.
If you don't need leverage, then it's a better idea to just buy the underlying sock itself. This will net you the following benefits: Leverage is for speculating. If you don' want to be leveraged, then invest long term.
It's a good point and I think you answered the question yourself, most IPOs don't have the option.  There is a real risk of an undersubscribed IPO, which can be a real problem for a company since they can't easily go back to the market for money.    Facebook might have a tough time issuing an IPO under the current market conditions, especially following Zynga's weak showing.  They might feel safer with a traditional IPO.
Best is indeed subjective. You could for example, get a Universal Life Policy that pays a guaranteed interest on all monies (even those in excess of what you need to pay to cover the policy). Most people will tell you (probably correctly) that using life insurance as an investment vehicle is a bad idea, however.  The growth of the money in a UL policy, however, is usually tax deductible and grows at a guaranteed rate. NWML here in the U.S. pays a guaranteed (unless they go broke I suppose) 4% per year; historically, however, they've been paying 6% per year. That's pretty good, except a lot of your money goes into buying the policy the first few years.
"My big gripe with the ICO name and corresponding mania is that it has no similarity to an IPO.  At best an ICO is a seed stage investment in a wholly unproven technology/idea/theoretical use. A developer team gets together to write a fancy whitepaper, then build out a nifty website to display the idea they are working on.  Generally this idea has no practical immediate use.  Generally this idea is still nothing more than an idea.  At best the idea will be realized by substantially reusing the open source codebase of a different coin with slight tweaks.  The developers then go get an exchange or two involved to begin trading the tokens.  One exchange even goes so far as to begin trading IOUs for the tokens before the ICO takes place.  It's shear insanity driven by this mania to have the next bitcoin for $0.00001 each. When a real organization goes through the real, regulated, IPO process it has already had its seed funding then subsequent equity financing rounds, THEN once the company has demonstrated that it has a valuable product or service and a competent management team shares are allowed to be sold to the public.  By US law, seed stage companies are forbidden from seeking investment from unaccredited investors (this doesn't mean unaccredited investors are forbidden from investing).  An accredited investor is someone with over $200,000 per year of income or a net worth of over $1,000,000.  Seed stage organizations have an exceptionally high rate of failure, no matter the proposed business.   These ICOs are little more than developers fleecing naive ""investors"" by selling them the pipe dream of being on the ground floor of the next bitcoin.  It's really appalling.  You should stay away from them, everyone should stay away from them, and the people running them should be punished."
The few years leading up to the bubble I remember following his articles and he very clearly said to steer clear of buying houses as there was a bubble brewing.  The book does not imply that it's always a good thing to buy a home.
"I think you are confusing ""understands technology"" with ""is technology guru"" or ""technology visionary"". &gt; As I noted the whole timeline simply DOESN'T match up with reality (at all, no matter HOW desperately one contorts the timeline into trying to make it ""plausible""). Your timeline is flawed, as Sony's early work goes back well in to the 50's. &gt; his son by having a patent attorney look at it, and then came back and told junior some cock &amp; bull story about having been ""beaten"" to the patent. Maybe the whole thing is a lie. However, the story goes that the patent application was actually filed. &gt; LOL. Go to any sizeable bar and talk to a number of people; ask them if they ever had an ""idea"" that was later patented and became a ""big time"" thing -- you'll end up with HUNDREDS of similar ""well I had this idea once for _____"" stories, and a lot of them will come from when they were teens or twenty-somethings... very few of them have even a tiny kernel of ""truth"". Agreed. That's exactly why I'm saying having the idea isn't important. Like you said, he might have just been working off of some designs he read in a magazine. I don't look at his work with the CRT as a demonstration of any particular brilliance, just an interest and enough competence to actually get the damn thing to work, which already separates him from pretty much all non-tech CEO's, and even puts him in a reasonably rarefied cloud amongst CEO's or large tech companies. &gt; As the Apple CEO, he was a ""fish out of water"" -- but, given that the advertising &amp; PR people had already (once) done the ""let's dress up our CEO as a 'technical wunderkind visionary"" (with Jobs) -- they simply did their best to repeat the same thing (with even less basis in reality) with Sculley. You should read Jobs' own accounts of meeting and recruiting Sculley.