vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Insurance is a funny product.  As you said, it is a little like gambling.  When I buy term life insurance, I'm essentially betting that I'm going to die within the next 20 years, and the insurance company is betting that I'm not.  I'm hoping to lose that bet! Besides all of the reasons that other answers mentioned, I think part of the reason is psychological.  As in my example, I'm setting up a kind of a win-win situation for myself here.  Let's go with car insurance, a less-morbid example than my first example.  If I don't get into a car accident, great!  If I do get into a car accident, then the traumatic event is at least offset by the fact that the financial impact to me is minimal.  Win-win.
In addition, the main drugs she takes for RA are not covered under any ACA plan, nor are the ""substitutions"" that her doctor makes (we are trying to have kids so she has to be off the main meds, and a couple of the things this doctor has tried has been meds that reduce inflammation, are pregnancy safe, but are not for the treatment of RA) You now have to take into effect rather the cost of health insurance + the cost of the things now not covered by the heath insurance + the out of pocket expenses is worth the insurance. Second the ACA has set up provisions to straight up trick those people that have lower income and are not paying close attention. When shopping for insurance, they get quotes like ""$50 a month"" or ""$100 a month"". The truth is that the remainder of the actual cost is deducted from their tax returns. This takes consideration, because if you thing your paying $50 a month for insurance but your really paying $650 then you need to make sure your doing your math right. Finally, you need to understand how messed up things are right now in the US with heath care. Largely this goes unreported. I'm not really sure why. But in order to do this I will have to give examples. For my wife to see a specialist (her RA doctor) the co-pay is $75. So she goes to the doctor, he charges her $75 and bills the insurance $200. The insurance pays the doctor $50. With out insurance, the visit costs $50. At first you want to blame the doctor for cheating the system, but the doctor has to pay for hours of labor to get the $50 back from the insurance company. From the doctors perspective it's cheaper to take the $50 then it is to charge the insurance company. And by charging the insurance company he has no control over the cost of the co pay. He essentially has to charge more to make the same money and the patient gets the shaft in the process. Another example, I got strep throat last year. I went to the walk in clinic, paid $75, saw the doctor got my Z-Pack for $15, went home crawled in bed and got better.
Your current insurance, but at full price, is available to you via COBRA.  You can also look on your states exchange or the federal exchange for insurance.  You generally will not get your new company to provide money for COBRA or a policy not offered by your employer. But you can always ask. I have known of some companies that will provide money or vacation days to employees that get their insurance via TRICARE (for retired military). Also you will have to watch open seasons. When you start with the new company you have 30 days to join their program. If you don't signup in time, you have to wait for either a life event, or the next open season - which only happens once a year. If COBRA runs out before you get the new insurance in place you will have a problem. Note that open season may lead the start of the new policy by weeks or months.
Computers and digital cameras are great candidates for handing down because they can still be useful long after they have started looking dated to the initial buyer. Buying DVDs is unfortunately more convenient than renting in my hometown, but we make up for this by a liberal borrowing policy. And, perhaps most unusually, coupons -- the special discounts that mail-order retailers like to send when it's convenient for them to make a sale (or just arbitrarily, really). Those often have complicated terms so that they are only really interesting if exactly two articles are ordered, or the amount of the order exactly 80 EUR. A couple of persons in the family are the specialists of these discounts, and others can just tell them to watch for an interesting item. They'll place the order at the best time.
Whether you are celebrating a special anniversary or commemorating the memory of a loved one, Encanto Jewellery has gifts fit for any occasion. What is more, they operate an easy payment scheme so you can spread the cost over three months, interest free. Buying jewellery has never been easier or more convenient, yet the quality and beauty is beyond compare. See the full range at https://encantojewellery.co.uk/.
I kind of hate piling on with another opinion, but this is too long for a comment. I did what you are thinking of doing, I would at least try renting it for a couple years so long as: The primary risks of renting are mostly related to unexpected costs and bad tenants, you've got a very healthy income, so as long as you maintain a nice emergency fund it doesn't sound like keeping this property as a rental will be too much risk. If the rental market is strong where your house is, then you have a better chance of avoiding bad tenants. I like to keep my rent a little lower than the max I think it could go for, to attract more applications and hopefully find someone who will be a good longer term tenant. Tax-free gains So long as you lived in your house 2 of the last 5 years, you can sell without paying capital gains tax on your profit, so you could try renting it for 2 years and then sell. That was a key for me when I converted my first house to a rental. I liked that flexibility, there's still the typical renting risks associated, but it's not a lifelong commitment. You can get 2 years of increased equity/appreciation tax-free, or you could find you enjoy it and keep it for the long haul.
Yes, PMI is what the lender requires to loan you more than 8O% of the home's value. I could easily present scenarios where it's exactly the right decision to use PMI and get the purchase done. A 100K mortgage at 90% LTV will cost you $521/year in PMI.  If you are renting and struggling to get a higher downpayment, it can take quite a long time to save the additional $11K to put down. Only the buyer can know if the house is such s bargain, or if rates have bottomed, but the decision isn't so clear cut.
I converted my downstairs of my house to a suite with an eye to AirBNBing.  But I also make money renting it out (I live in a resort town with ridiculously high rents).  So far, I haven't tried AirBNB because renting it out on yearly contracts seems like less total effort and I make 1100 gross per month (net is probably closer to ~800)  I have no idea if I could make more on AirBNB.  Maybe one of these years I'll try it for a few months.
"In my experience, in a house share situation, it seems to come down to how comfortable the occupants feel and how much of their own space they want.  For example, I've come across lots of situations where someone is renting a room from a live in landlord, but in practice the two housemates (or roommates if you prefer) have equal run of the place and may even share food and hang out together and also the opposite, where people are sharing a property as equals, but tend to stick to their own room and don't share, or even more extreme, where they are technically equals but subject to one or more very domineering housemates (roommates).  This happened to someone I know who was renting with two ""friends"" but was forced to move out.  I run a website - aimed at lodgers and live in landlords, and house sharers to a lesser degree, mostly from the UK, but relevant everywhere as I deal with much more than legalities and tax. I came across this thread as I wanted to explore the difference in the US between a lodger and a roommate.  From what I gather, the term ""lodger"" is understood, but the term ""roommate"" is more typically used to mean a lodger, which in itself suggests a more equal arrangement than in the UK, where we're more used to owning property than renting, and certainly sharing.  However, I believe that if you're letting a room to someone, and they pay you a reasonable rent and respect both you and your home, you should be prepared to treat them as an equal on a day to day basis.  If you're not, then you naturally won't attract either the best rent, or the best lodger/roommate, however desirable the property."
Well quite a few countires have tax breaks on the first house you own ... this is typically to promote people to have atleast one house of their own ... having a house of your own provides lot more stability in the long run ... and without tax breaks it makes it difficult for quite a few to own a house ... the tax breaks form a motiviation as well ...  There are at times other effects of this breaks, people buying houses beyond their need [bigger house than required] or capacity [buying in a central / expensive location] by maximizing the breaks ...
What is shocking to me are statements like this:  &gt;Basically, the MID encourages affluent homeowners to buy more extravagant homes than they otherwise would.   No shit sherlock. When anyone is buying a home and they have $X/mo to spend, they factor in the deduction and conclude they can spend 10-30% more on a house, so they buy bigger or more expensive houses. Its like the authors of the law thought people would spend the same amount on a house regardless of the deduction rather than factor in the deduction into what they can afford.
Put €300-500 in a savings account. Or -- since you already have an emergency fund -- a medium risk fund. @Relaxed is right, though: what are your future goals?  (There's more to life than buying a house...  Travel, future children, etc, etc.)
&gt; You are willing to participate in an unethical act just because it is convenient to a powerful few?  Wow, such a limited definition. Where do you live? I have lived in dense inner cities where eminent domain was used in extreme cases. I have seen houses ready to fall down, in which the tenants were living with black mold, but refused to move or fix it. Eminent domain was declared, and the house was levelled. The owners were paid (more than many would argue) a fair share for the house, and the neighbors no longer had a hazard living next door.
I recently decided to splash out on a music system for the house which included a turntable - I used to have a proper DJ setup but that's long been sold off and most of the records are of a genre I don't listen to now, but I wanted to enjoy the records I *do* listen to and also buy some more.  One thing that struck me when listening through albums is how much more closely I listen to each track. When it's not part of an endless Spotify playlist, when you physically have to get up and flip the disc over every 3 tracks or so, you pay so much more attention to it and it becomes a much more pleasurable experience, rather than just 'background'.  It's more labour-intensive but that's a good thing. Good music deserves your attention.  Edit: Also, for all the replies to this that sneer and make out it's just a fad... buying a vinyl offers so much more in terms of a physical product than CDs or downloads. I have a copy of Kanye's 'My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy' and the actual design of the triple gatefold and all the included artwork is amazing.   Yes it's more convenient to just get Apple Music or whatever but that's not what we're talking about. It's the reason people go a decent steakhouse rather than McDonalds.
When you sell a house around between 7-10% of the sales price will go to various fees. Mostly to the agents, but also to county fees, city fees, deed tax, and possibly covering closing costs for the buyers. So if you sell a $400k house for the same price you buy, just in fees, you're out $40k. Mortgages are structured so that the frontend is very interest heavy, while at the end you're mostly paying towards principal. So for the first two years you will pay down very little of the principal. Figure around $2500 for the mortgage, and without running the numbers I bet you would pay an average for the first two years of around $1800/month in interest. $43,200. Mortgage interest is tax deductible, so you'll get some of that back. That's also $16,800 in equity you'll have on the house, so you'll get that back out when you sell. Rough numbers, I would be you lose around $50k buying the house and selling for the same price two years later. That doesn't take into account having to do any maintenance. And it assumes you can sell quickly when you want to. Renting is not throwing away money. You don't lose any money. You get a place to live in exchange. You don't build equity, sure, but you don't need to worry about maintenance and other related issues. When you're looking to be somewhere short term renting is generally the best idea.
There could be many reasons why the land hasn't been purchased yet, but you can't compare it to the cost of comparable houses, because almost no one who is looking for a house is going to consider buying 2 acres of land instead. It's like asking why filling up your car with gas is so much more expensive per gallon than buying a gas station and giving yourself free gas. They're just not the same thing. But given the size of the land, I can join forces with other people which are also in the market and totally bring down the land price per piece to say 100k? You can do that, but basically what you'll be doing is forming a real estate development company of some sort. This opens a whole other world of possible snafus (for instance, how ownership is to be divided, and what happens if the owners disagree on appropriate development of their portions). It is absolutely possible to make money by buying land and building houses on it, especially in California. People do it all the time. But it's not something you should attempt if you don't know what you're doing, and it's definitely not the same thing as just buying a house to live in."
The essence of your question is whether it's worth 1000 to you to spread the payments over half a year.  The longer payment plan is just a loan and buying the loan costs you more money.  The question is whether you think the loan is a good price.  I suspect it's over-priced. The classic financial analysis would be whether you could get a better return on the loan (opportunity costs).  But we are talking about what are presumably not terribly big sums of money, so it may make more sense to analyze this amount of money in more personalized terms.  In that case, remember to consider the convenience: is it significantly easier to budget with the 6-month plan?  Watch out for other costs to the loan, such as late penalties and other loan fees. If you find the periodic payments convenient (or you have a short-horizon, high-yield investment), then the 6-month loan might work.  Otherwise, if you can afford it, it makes more sense to buy the phone upfront.
"Wire transfers are not the same as ACH transfers.  I regular transfer money between Chase, Ally, Capital One 360 and Fidelity and have never been charged a fee because I never do wire transfers.  (The default for all these banks is ACH; you must explicitly choose wire transfers.) EDIT: to answer the modified question. https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/difference-between-wire-transfer-and-ach.html ""One of the fastest ways to send money is via wire transfer. Although a wire transfer can take days, in most cases a wire transfer takes place within minutes. It is a direct bank-to-bank transaction that allows you to move money from your account directly into the account of someone else."" ""While it may seem similar to a wire transfer, a transaction accomplished with the help of an automated clearing house (ACH) is not the same thing. ... When you arrange for the electronic transfer of funds, all of the information is included in a batch, which is then sent to the clearing house. All of the transactions in the batch are then handled by the clearing house, rather than as a direct bank-to-bank transaction. ... As a result, your money is not available as quickly as it often is with a wire transfer. The ACH process can be more convenient and is less expensive, but it also takes a little bit longer."""
But its not spare capacity. Lots of AirBNB owners are renting tons of properties, making scarcity worse.  Case in point, it can cost $50-$100 per person to AirBNB a bed for a night. That means anywhere less than $1,500 is good for profit making. It's even better when they rent out beds, which means they'll stack a room in a large house with 3 beds each. I've been to AirBNB locations where 14 people were individually renting. AirBNB person rented a dozen properties and spent all day and night cleaning. Pulled in six figures.
so i'm an older millenial living in a large metro. I'm in a situation where the trendy urban/downtown neighborhoods apts/condos are way to expensive for me because the demand is so high, but up until recently i can't afford a house in the outer, newer burbs either. so i'm left renting apartments in inner suburbs.
"It's not a fallacy, I'm pointing out you're complaining about housing prices but unwilling to find better ones. As I pointed out (and you ignored) those housing prices are regarding convenience. With a little bit of a drive, you could find ""afforable"" housing instead of renting and voila! nothing to complain about.  If you want a better house, then get a better job. It's not rocket science. Someone on minimum wage isn't going to be able to afford a house in downtown DC or surrounding area."
The term duplication sounds very technical and therefore, the simple name given to this process is burning associated to the action that PC and laptop users take to create a CD or a DVD and this process is fast as a huge number of discs can be prepared in no time using the master disc.Moreover, the process is very convenient for anyone to perform as all that is required is a PC or a laptop and commercial burners.
here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend.
I am also from Malaysia and I just purchase a property around Klang Valley area. Property market is just like share market. You will never know when is the highest peak point and when is the lowest peak point. Yes. Not only you, but everyone of us. What I would say that, just buy according to your need and your financial status.  If you feel that you need a comfortable place to stay rather than renting a room, and buying that property will not burden your financial status too much, why not go for it? The best time to purchase property is perhaps last year when world economic is down turn. But thing is over and can never go back. Since all of us don't have a crystal ball to tell the future, why not just act according to your heart and common sense (Buy according to need) ;)
It is in circles. Today Money is fiat money. From economic stand point a moderate inflation is good. It there is near zero inflation or deflation, then economy would come to standstill and would stagnate. Hence everything has to becomes expensive. This keeps the economy in motion. House or Gold does increase in value otherwise one would not have purchased them. If you are saying on buying a house, you keep it with someone and after a period of time you get one extra room or keep an ounce of gold and after some years it becomes 2 ounce, well it does increase but differently. There reason there aren't many such schemes is because quantifying it is difficult. It would normally fetch more money than one had bought it for.
I wrote this in another thread but is also applicable here. In general people make some key mistakes with property: Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well or be prepared to lose the whole thing in a disaster. Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth (in your example, they could well be lagging inflation/barely growing if you are not pricing in upkeep and depreciation properly). Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited.
"What do you mean ""There are no convenient ways to create a debit card in my area""? Of course there is. At any post office."
"Basically, you either borrow money, or get other people to invest in your business by buying stock or something analogous.  Sometimes you can get people to ""park"" money with you. For example, many people deposit money in a bank checking account. They don't get any interest or other profit from this, they just do it because the bank is a convenient place to store their money. The bank then loans some percentage of this money out and keeps the interest. I don't doubt that people have come up with more clever ways to use other people's money. Borrowing money for an investment or business venture is risky because if you lose money, you may be unable to pay it back. On the other hand, investors expect a share of the profit, not just a fixed interest rate."