vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Does the 457(b) plan allow for the rollover of other retirement funds into it? And do you have very specific reasons for wanting to roll over your SEP-IRA into the 457(b) plan instead of into some other IRA plan with a different custodian? For example, if you already have a Traditional IRA, is there any reason why your SEP-IRA should not be rolled over into the Traditional IRA? With regard to the question about separate accounts, once upon a time, rolling over money from an employment retirement plan (e.g. 401k) into a Traditional IRA required establishing a separate account called a Rollover Traditional IRA so that the rolled-over money (and the earnings thereon) were not commingled with standard traditional IRA money resulting from personal contributions). This was so that the account owner had the option of rolling over the separately kept money into a new employer's retirement plan (if such a rollover was permitted by the new 401k plan). If one did not want to ever roll over money into a new employer plan, one had to write a letter to the custodian telling them that commingling was OK; you never wanted to put that money into another 401k plan. The law changed some time later and the concept of Rollover IRAs holding non-commingled funds has disappeared.  With that as prologue, my answer to your question is that perhaps the law did not change with respect to 457(b) plans, and so the money that you want to rollover into the 457(b) plan needs to be kept separate and not commingled with your contributions via payroll deduction to the 457(b) plan (in case you want to ever roll over the SEP-IRA money into another SEP-IRA). Hence, separate accounts are needed: one to hold your SEP-IRA money and one to hold your contributions via payroll deductions.
Obviously, her new employer won't know how much was contributed from   the old job, so this won't work this year. Obviously the new employer would. They will not deposit anything, unless you tell them how much you have deposited already. Somehow tell the new employer how much was contributed by her last   employeer, so they can stop deducting at the right time. I'm not sure   if this is even possible. Why isn't it possible? I've been in a similar situation, the employer had a form to fill on this matter as part of the paperwork for the payroll, right between the direct deposit forms and the 401K contributions form. By the way, another thing to take a look at when switching jobs is the Social Security tax. I wrote about it here.
"I think anyone will agree that the ""optimal"" rate of taxation is the goal but what is optimal? It depends on your scoring metrics, the optimal solution to one problem might not be the optimal solution for another.   You bring up the Feds but that confounds the issue because now we have to talk about monetary policy, taxation is fiscal policy   In general lowering taxes increases capital investment regardless of the investment rate, the firm has more money they are going to spend it somewhere"
Journalist here, i work for a small town newspaper, there's still integrity, nothing about journalism has changed, its the perception of the consumers that has and for reasons that do confuse me a little.   As far as filtering out sources based on illegitimacy then go to the financial source of the organization, is it funded through donations, advertising revenue, subscriptions, or state funded? These details can often tell you a lot about the biases of the organization.
SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior.
Haven't been in Target, but Best Buy is kind of the opposite to the extreme.  Walk into Best Buy and they'll jump on your back, ask you what you want, point to the most expensive product, and won't shut the hell up.  I don't want to be manipulated. I just want honest truth. If you tell me the $2 stuff is the same as the $10 stuff or tell me of a work around, well you just earned my business. Good chance that when I want to buy a $200 item, I'm coming to you.  Here in China, it seems like a lot of folks don't understand that :( Hell, even in the States a lot of people didn't understand that. They will lie their asses off for an instant 10% gain.
Whoever wrote this article is an idiot. $112,000 income in NY makes you barely middle class. 529 plans and 401k plans are two of very few actually sensible pieces of tax policy this burning dumpster fire of a country has. Come to Brooklyn and tell the high school janitor who makes $100k that he is too affluent to get college savings tax credits and be prepared to get punched in the face.
"&gt; ""Taxation is theft"" is an empirically true statement. It is not an opinion.  Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt after that one. You do realize that  citizenship *implies* agreeing to abide by the countries laws - one of the biggest of which is taxation? This is true in the same way that receiving a driver's license implies a willingness to abide by road laws and regulations.   Pay them or not pay them. No soon off my back. Obviously I highly disagree with you. However, if you really think it is theft, then what does that make you that you stand by and allow it to happen *every* year..."
" There are 2 views of the same tab in this picture. There are 3 growth rates: pessimistic, nominal and optimistic. You can change the numbers to suit your own projections of future growth. Other tabs on this spreadsheet include measurements of actual performance by my 401k and IRA accounts. At the end of the year, I replace the numbers in columns F, G & H with the actual end-of-year dollar amounts. This way, future estimates do not get too far unhinged from reality. If you need more sophisticated planning, such as Monte Carlo analysis to attempt to cope with inflation, I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement. The book is aimed at younger engineers, so there is a bit more math than the average person would want."
Considering it's all to risky for me, outside of a blind 401k, just having money to try it with is a bigger risk than I'm willing to take.  I see this complaint a lot and my response is about the same every time, if you know of something better, please share, so next time we can make it more realistic.
More moving parts will make your budget harder to keep track of, not simpler. Budget systems like You Need a Budget recommend simplifying your accounts, even if the various accounts give you specialized bonuses like rewards for restaurants or gasoline or travel. The effort of keeping track of all the options and accounts can outweigh the value you get from them. Instead, I recommend using a simple and structured budget system (like YNAB) that walks you through all of the steps toward building good habits and keeping them simple so that you can maintain the habit.
Asset protection is broad subject. In your examples it is certainly possible to have accounts that exist undisclosed from a spouse and legally inaccessible by said spouse. In the US, balances in 401k retirement accounts are exempt from forfeitures in bankruptcy. The only trick to secret stashes is that it involves you having any wealth in the first place, that you don't need to access. It is more worth it, for most people, to use all of their access to wealth to get out of debt, earn claims to property, and save for retirement. This takes up all of their earnings, making hidden wealth of any significant portion to be an impractical pipe dream. But with trust laws, corporate laws, and marriage property laws being different in practically every jurisdiction, there is plenty of flexibility to construct the form of your secret wealth.  Cryptocurrency makes it much easier, at the expense of net asset value volatility.
All unsubstantiated opinions.   &gt;there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans  Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what?  Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services?  Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.
&gt; We were talking about net taxation, not some ratio of gross income on a per family basis.   I was rebutting your claim that the top 1% pay 50% of all taxes.  &gt; The bottom 40% of American are net beneficiaries of taxes anyway.  I disagree.  Welfare programs in the US total a little over $200B, just above 5% of the federal budget.  Meanwhile military spending is about 25% if you count the VA.  Military spending is much more valuable to the rich since they can earn the contracts and have much more to defend.
I'm going to give the succinct, plain language version of the answers:  1.    Your oldest active credit agreement is not very old You don't have much experience or history for me to base my analysis on -- how do I know I can trust you to pay back the money? 2.    You have no active credit card accounts Other people haven't trusted you with credit or you haven't trusted yourself with credit and there's no active good behavior of paying credit cards on time -- you want me to be the first one to go out on a limb and loan you money? How do I know I can trust you to pay back the money?
I would not suggest closing out your Roth IRA -- Couple of reasons for that - 1) Since you've been contributing to it for 15 years, your investments have probably grown, seen dividends, etc.  If you close it out, you will owe taxes and be slapped with a 10% penalty on the growth (money you didn't contribute).  That's quite a waste of hard earned money.   2) While your income may exceed the contribution limit of a Roth, you could do what's called a 'backdoor' Roth - which is really just converting your after tax contributions into an IRA into a Roth IRA. 3) Given the length of your contributions your Roth IRA is seasoned (5 years) This allows you to use up to 10k for your house if you chose.  (Usually not an option people use) Other than that, consider paying off the student loans with the highest interest first.
"One problem with this plan is that the individual must have earned income to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you have an infant, unless she is the new Gerber baby or something like that, there is probably no legitimate way for her to earn income. If you own a business and have kids who are older, you can employ them to do work for you, but they must really do work and earn around the market rate for that work. Otherwise, it is unlikely that they will be able to earn enough to fund an IRA until they are teenagers. When they are old enough to work, you can ""match"" their earnings by contributing the same amount to a Roth IRA on their behalf, but this will not give you the amount of contributions and growth time that you were counting on."
No. An HSA is similar to an IRA, in that it's an individual account. I'd suggest you use hers for all expenses and make new deposits to yours until your wife's HSA is depleted.
Now, if in the middle of all these transactions, you need to take a distribution from your Roth IRA during 2017 (say because you have a cash flow problem), then it makes a lot of sense to first withdraw all your 2017 contributions and the earnings therefrom. If more money is needed, than you can take a distribution from your Roth IRA. What the distribution consists of is described in great detail in Publication 590b and you might have to pay a tax penalty for a premature distribution depending on how much the distribution is. (The first dollars coming are assumed to be previous contributions in the order in which you made them and these are tax-free and penalty-free; after that the rollover and conversion amounts start to come out and are penalized if they have not spent 5 years in the IRA etc) But you can put the money back into your Roth IRA within 60 days and avoid penalties. Important Notes regarding rollover transactions:"
It sounds like you're comparing (1) the backdoor Roth IRA and (2) the mega backdoor Roth. Although the names are similar they are considerably different, and not mutually exclusive. The goal of the backdoor Roth IRA is to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you are over the income limits. This is accomplished by contributing to a non-deductible Traditional IRA and then converting to Roth. Both of these steps have no income limit (unlike a direct Roth IRA contribution, which does), and only the earnings (which should be minimal) will be taxed. More info here (mirror). The goal of the mega backdoor Roth is to get a lot of money into Roth accounts through salary deferral. This is accomplished by making non-Roth after-tax contributions to your 401(k) after exhausting the $18,000 limit (in 2017) for pre-tax + Roth employee contributions. The after-tax contributions (potentially up to $36,000 for 2017) can be rolled over to the Roth 401(k) or to a Roth IRA, while the earnings can be rolled over to the pre-tax 401(k) or a Traditional IRA, or taxed like regular income and converted to Roth along with the contributions. More info here (mirror).
Everything here is yours and can be rolled into your new plan or IRA. You can generally move your 403(b) assets into your traditional IRA or into your new employer's plans, assuming your new employer's plan allowing incoming roll overs.  You can probably roll your pension out as well. Actually, the right person to ask about this is the company with whom you have your IRA.  The easiest and best way to get assets from one tax-sheltered account to another is by contacting the company you want to roll INTO and having them take care of everything for you.
"In the case of Fidelity, the answer is ""no."" Although when you leave your employer and roll over the account to an IRA, leaving it with Fidelity allowed me to keep money in those closed funds. My Roth IRA was not able/allowed to buy those funds."
You should never roll a 401(k) to a Roth IRA. If the intention is to do so, you are better off rolling to a traditional IRA, and then converting. (Per the comment below, I should add - if the 401(k) contained post tax money, this portion rolls to a Roth, not a Tradition IRA. You then have the exercise of converting/recharacterizing just the TIRA money, as the Roth stands aside) This preserves the ability to recharacterize back to a traditional IRA. You might wish to do this if: The answers so far are great, but I'll add what I see missing -
"This is actually (to me) an interesting point to note.  While the answer is ""that's what Congress wrote,"" there are implications to note. First, for many, the goal of tax deferral is to shift 25% or 28% income to 15% income at retirement. With long term gains at 15%, simply investing long term post tax can accomplish a similar goal, where all gain is taxed at 15%.  Looking at this from another angle, an IRA (or 401(k) for that matter) effectively turns long term gains into ordinary income.  It's a good observation, and shouldn't be ignored."
She is very wrong.  If the IRA is a traditional, i.e. A pretax IRA (not a Roth), all withdrawals are subject to tax at one's marginal rate. Read that to mean that a large sum can easily push her into higher brackets than normal. If it stayed with her, she'd take smaller withdrawals and be able to throttle her tax impact.  Once she takes it all out, and gifts it to you, no gift tax is due, but there's form 709, where it's declared, and counts against her $5.5M lifetime estate exemption.  There are a few things in the world of finance that offend me as much as lawyer malpractice, going into an area they are ignorant of.
As you say life insurance is about covering the loss of income, so unless your child is an actor or musical prodigy or similar and already earning money, there is no income to cover, and in fact you would have less of a financial commitment without a child to provide for. The other angle is that child life insurance is cheap and they'll have lower premiums than an adult. I'll quote the referenced article directly to address that: Another ploy is that children's life insurance is cheap. It is inexpensive compared to adult life insurance because, plain and simply, children rarely die. While the numbers that the sales agent puts together may make children's life insurance sound like a great deal, take the time to run what you'd have if you instead invested the exact same amount used on the insurance fees into a Roth IRA and you'll find the true cost of purchasing this type of life insurance.
"I will give a slightly different answer which is actually an addendum to JoeTaxpayer's (soon-to-be-edited) answer. Do NOT go to your financial advisor and ask him ""How do I go about transferring my Roth IRA to ....""? where .... is whichever broker or mutual fund family that you have chosen from the list that Joe has suggested.  Instead, go to the website of the new group (or call their toll-free number) and tell them ""I want to open a Roth IRA account with you and fund it by transferring all the money in my Roth IRA from First Clearing."" Your new Roth IRA custodian will take care of all the paperwork and get the money transferred over at no cost to you except possibly fielding a weepy call from your current financial advisor because he had just ordered his new Lamborghini and now will have difficulty making payments on his auto loan. ""Why are you leaving me? After all the years we have had together?"" You will need to choose some place to put the money, and I suggest that you use their S&P 500 Index Fund,  not the S&P 500 ETF, just the standard vanilla S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund. This recommendation is almost heresy in this forum, but it is better to pay the extra 0.01% fee that the Fund charges over and above the ETF until you become a little more savvy and are ready to branch out into individual stocks (which is when you really need a brokerage account). Revelation: I have never made the transition and invest only in mutual funds which does not require a brokerage account. After doing all this, pay no attention whatsoever to your Roth IRA investment or how the S&P 500 Index is doing for the  next 20 years. This will help avoid the temptation of taking all your money out just because the Index went down a little. Everybody is told ""Buy Low, Sell High"" but far too many folks end up doing exactly the opposite: buying because the stock market is up and selling when it starts going down."
There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time.  Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share.
Ex-Dividend Price Behavior of Common Stocks would be a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and University of Minnesota if you want a source for some data. Abstract This study examines common stock prices around ex-dividend dates. Such   price data usually contain a mixture of observations - some with and   some without arbitrageurs and/or dividend capturers active. Our theory   predicts such mixing will result in a nonlinear relation between   percentage price drop and dividend yield - not the commonly assumed   linear relation. This prediction and another important prediction of   theory are supported empirically. In a variety of tests, marginal   price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount.   Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop   have been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.
"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the ""Dow divisor"". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said ""company"" and not ""stock"".