vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; To become a regular member, you must have completed four years (48 months) of qualifying work experience in activities that consist to a majority extent of: &gt; At least 50 percent of your work experience must be: Directly involved in the investment decision-making process Engaged in responsibilities and/or producing a work product that informs or adds value to that process We just had a middle office colleague pass his L3 and get denied his years as a qualifying role. CFAI is moving towards a more strict criteria for qualified roles. &gt; I'm also going to guess you're a trader/brokerage/Cap Markets guy? If you wanna throw titles around I'm in a front office role at a BB, too, and worked at worked on buy-side research at a &gt;$150bn value shop. CFA is definitely more desired in sell-side markets focused as opposed to IBD where an MBA is more useful (more strategy focused). Not throwing titles around. Simply informing you that my perspective (unlike 90% of the people in this subreddit) is from a real world environment. CFA's are more desired and less common than MBA's in the capital markets roles and portfolio mgmt (BB's and the street based HF's). Large part of this is due to the associate rotational programs that most IB's employ for newly grad MBA's. This over saturates the job market for front office with MBA's (as opposed to BS w/ CFA's). Might I also add, at this point you're clearly diverging from the original discrepancy we had... where I said MBA's are dime a dozen and CFA's are far less common. &gt; The CFA is vital for boning up on quantitative skills an MBA won't cover, I'll absolutely give you that. But a lot of people fall into the trap of assuming a CFA is their ticket to bigger and better things. If you're working in back office risk management, getting a CFA doesn't immediately qualify you to do ER (which is a VERY common pitfall I see). Like an MBA it teaches everyone how to do the same type of analysis, too (another reason the title means less and less).
"That's not exactly what I meant, but it works I guess. I was more referring to that our ""liberal"" ideas will become common place and traditional. The next generational will have their own fresh ideas and become the new liberals. This is **very generally** speaking."
"While it is not common, it is also not ""uncommon.""  A subtle distinction. If you are poor, you almost certainly get some kind of government assistance (not even talking about Obamacare or Trumpcare, but just general assistance.) If you are middle class or rich, that is where you get hit the most.  They seem to realize you ""can't get blood from a stone"" and don't try to get payment out of poor people. But middle class and rich people, yes it just takes longer but they do hang in there with billing. My own experience is that years and years ago (way before Obamacare) I had a time in the hospital with a lot of tests, but I was poor and sleeping on a relatives floor at the time. I got all the tests I needed, and they took great care of me, and the hospital wrote it off as ""charity care."""
"I have no idea where you are getting your years from.  Millennials are typically defined as being born between 1980 and 1996.  Gen-X ends around 1979, and the not-yet-nicknamed Generation Z (perhaps ""iGeneration"", suggested by some?) starts around 1997.  Of course, there isn't full agreement on the start year, as you even quoted, but it's typically early 1980s (I've seen 1979-1982; your given start year of 1993 makes no sense).  The end year is more up for debate; 1996 is very common but I've seen as early as 1995 and as late as 2000 depending on who you talk to.  One common definition of Millennials is people who are too young to be Gen-X, but old enough to remember the September 11 attacks.  The ""18 to 34"" range that you quoted was probably written a couple years ago, or at least from the mindset of a couple years ago when that would have been accurate.  And [quoting Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials), not that it is a definitive source:  &gt; researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years"
If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses.
That's a good point. What I should say is that PF doesn't lose money on each gym user the way Moviepass does. My understanding is that Moviepass gets a flat subscription fee from each user per month and then, whenever a user wants to buy a movie ticket, Moviepass go out and purchase the movie ticket at full market value (the same price that the customer would pay if they just went to the theater and bought one). For example, if a user pays $10 a month for a pass and decide to see two movies in that month, they've already lost money on that customer. And two movies in one month isn't really crazy for some of the people who go enough that a monthly pass makes sense.  And all this is assuming that ticket prices are lower than the subscription fee; where I live, the ticket prices are actually a little bit higher. If Moviepass was here even *one* movie would make me an unprofitable customer for them (looking just at subscriptions, of course).  The data analytics play is the only viable strategy I can imagine for this. I understand that certain business models rely on overbooking, but I can't think of one where each customer that uses the service actually loses the business money.
I traded penny stocks for a bit then switched over after I found out the bitcoin I bought was worth $1400 each years ago when it first inflated. Now I trade BTC, LTC and NMC. Only trading coins I believe in and will be around long term.
I'm sad those programs excist, because 10-20 years ago when I used to fly, there would *always* be a chance for anyone to be randomly upgraded to First Class when you are at the gate. They would always fill any leftover premium seats with people from Economy that were chosen at random. No matter what airline or where you were flying, you had a decent chance at being selected every so often.  Now they just give all their free upgrades to people who are in their elite preferred member clubs and regular everyday folk never get them. I mean, I can obviously see the buisiness sense in this plan and I can't blame the logic of it, but it's just kinda sad. People who are in those Executive Premium clubs *already* get to experiance First Class through their buisiness trips or through frequent flier upgrades. Meanwhile all the plebs who only fly once a year after saving up to take their family on vacation never get to indulge in First Class. They only had the chance before through the random upgrades, but those aren't a thing anymore since the buisness frequent fliers with the Executive Clubs are hogging all the upgrades : (
"Nope... as mentioned elsewhere, I hired a lawyer, and my employer absolutely does not own any of my work. I've been extremely careful about that. This is much more common as a developer working for a ""for-profit"" entity particularly in the US. I work for a government body and not in the US."
In addition to these fair points the argument that you can simply not buy from the unethical business breaks down in our current intermingled society. If I don't like Monsanto I can't simply stop buying their seeds (since I'm not a farmer and in lots of cases I'm pretty far removed from that stage of the process) yet their practices effect me in lots of ways and there's nothing I can do about it at the purchase level.
It's really all just speculation, we don't know what they're looking for.    I do know from a roads perspective Boston in general can be difficult because trucks can't get in there easily from every direction.  Western and newer builds that didn't grow up around colonial times seem preferred when I've spoken to logistics people.    They'll also want a city capable of incubating trial platforms so Socal or NY could be huge.  Atlanta and Austin as well.  Boston seems to mostly have a surrounding metro population, yes, but it's also one of the furthest way from Seattle which isn't an advantage so much as a proximity thing.
I feel crazy and unproductive and I think my time in service has a lot to do with it. I have no clue where to go, my previous experiences with the VA led nowhere. Do you know where  I can go other than the VA?
"Aside from the fact that everyone - absolutely everyone, from the level of the individual to the government as a whole - treats ""free"" money frivolously, wastes it, misappropriates it, etc...  I do see one benefit to something like this.   The whole idea of the stock market isn't millisecond trading to game the casino that is Wall Street.  Optimistically, you purchase stocks as a long-term investment in companies to enable their continued growth and stability, they make profits, they pass along these profits to you, and everyone benefits.  Suppressing this sort of roulette wheel speculation, constant changing of hands, fractional gains and the like seems like it would stabilize markets, improve growth, stop the damn CEO's and their golden parachute tactics in killing companies, and all that jazz.  Joe Shmoe isn't going to care about a tax like this - he buys into whatever he wants and usually hangs on to it for the long term.  I'm a layman, and admittedly a damned rusty one at economics, so give me a little slack if I'm wrong or just misguided altogether."
In Ontario, common law marriage requires 3 years of cohabitation, and doesn't give rights to property (which remains separate). I'd say in your situation you can still file as single, but I'd suggest asking your tax accountant to be sure.
A standard mortgage lead generation strategy even so, is usually to purchase meticulously picked out lists of probable customers via mortgage lead generation companies, tailored in lead generation. The lead technique could cost substantially when compared with advertising, nonetheless in the lead structure, your service must be zeroed in on for preferred customers so, and who could possibly be engaged to obtain your product or service. Thus likewise supplies mortgage lead generation job opportunities, generating a beneficial win-win answer for all.
Is this transaction legal Yes it is. Are there any tax implications in US?  The interest is taxable in US. From what I understand, there are no tax implications in India. Yes this is right. The question you haven't asked is does this makes sense? So you are paying 3% upfront. Getting 8% at end of one year. You can making monthly repayments through the year. You have not factored in the Fx Rate and their fluctuations. For Example you would convert USD to INR and back to USD. Even if you do this the same day, you loose around 2% that is referred to as Fx Spread. Plus the rates for USD and INR get adjusted for inflation. This means that INR will loose value in a year. In long term it would be balance out [i.e. the gain in interest rate is offset by loss in Fx rate]. At times its ahead or behind due to local conditions.
Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.
We can see that the velocity of money has been in downward trend for decades. For now it's at the historical low and seems to be overlooked by the general public and perhaps academics. What are the implications? Is it a problem?
These earnings will likely have tax implications, depending on where in the world you are. So, your budget concerns not nearly as important as having an honest conversation about money with your husband. Better for him to be mad about the truth than to continue the lie, and potentially have this become a much larger legal, not just marital, problem.
Let the companies that need the workers pay for them.  Further subsidizing their industries will just drive up the cost of education for anyone not in those preferred disciplines.  The margins in software development are large enough to justify massively higher salaries.
I was hesitant to answer this question since I don't own MLP even though I'm aware of how they work.  But hear crickets on this question, so here goes.  I'll try to keep this as non technical as possible. MLPs are partnerships where a shareholder is a partner and liable for the partnership's taxes.  MLPs don't pay corporate tax since the tax burden flows to you, the shareholder. So does that mean like a partnership the partners are liable for the company's actions?  Technically, yes. Has it happened before? No. Of course there are limitations to the liability, but are not definitely shielded in a way normal shareholders are.   MLPs issue a K-1 at the beginning of the year (feb/mar).  The tax calculations are relatively complex and I'm not going to go over that in this post. Generally MLPs are a bad choice for tax-deferred accounts like IRAs since there are tax implications beyond certain limits of distribution (yes even out of an IRA you'll have to pay taxes if above the limit). Not all types of businesses can become MLPs (hey no corporate tax, let's form an MLP!) Only companies engaged in businesses related to real estate, commodities or natural resources can become MLPs.  There are a number of MLPs out there.  The largest is Kinder  Morgan Energy Partners. Hope this helps!
"This is not really the focus of your question, but it's worth noting that if you live in the United States (which your profile says you do), there are tax implications for you (but not for your children), depending on whether or not you charge your children (enough) interest.  If you charge less interest than the appropriate Applicable Federal Rate (for May 2016, at least 0.67%), you must pay taxes on the interest payments you would have received from the debtor if you had charged the AFR, provided that the loan is for $10,001 or more (p. 7). This is referred to as ""imputed"" income."
"(credits to Joe's answer above which alluded to what I was not considering) You aren't ""bypassing"" the tax liability if you invest in a home instead of, say, stocks. It's true stocks would be subject to tax during the year you cash in on them while the proceeds of a home equity loan would not affect your tax liability. HOWEVER, by taking on a new loan, you are liable for repayments. Those repayments would be made using your income from other sources, which IS taxable. So you can't avoid tax liability when financing your child's college education by using an equity line."
Agreed. A philosophy of isolationism and provoking trade-wars with former trade allies is the preferred approach for the Trump administration. However, closing borders to imports is likely to have a very high offsetting cost for US exports.   It all seems very shortsighted. Just based on what Canada and the UK are likely to do in response to just this decision alone, will certainly cost companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin a lot more in exports than they will ever gain through this maneuver.
"For an RRSP, you do not have to pay taxes on money or investments until you withdraw the money. If you do not reinvest the dividends but instead, take them out as cash, that would be withdrawing the money. For mutual funds, you would normally reinvest the dividends if holding the investment inside an RRSP. For stocks, I believe the dividends would end up sitting in the cash part of your RRSP account (and you'd probably use the money to buy more stocks, though would not be required to do so). Either way, you do not pay tax on this investment income unless you withdraw it from your RRSP. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your RRSP. You get the tax benefit from doing so. You get dividends of $1,000 (hey, it was a good year), and use these to buy more stock. As the money never left your RRSP account, you are considered to have invested only your initial $10,000. If instead, you withdraw the $1,000 in dividends, you are taxed on $1000 income. TFSA are slightly more complicated. You don't get a tax benefit from your initial contribution, but then do not pay tax when you withdraw from the TFSA. Your investment income is still tax-free, and you are (generally) much more limited in how much you can contribute. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your TFSA. You get dividends of $1,000, and use these to buy more stock. Your total contributions to your TFSA remains at $10,000 as the money never left your account. You could instead withdraw the $1000 from your TFSA and would not pay tax on it. In the next calendar year (or later) after the withdrawal, you could ""repay"" the $1000 you took out without suffering an overcontribution penalty. This makes TFSA an excellent place to park emergency funds, as you can withdraw and subsequently replace the investment while continuing to get the tax benefits on your investment income. RRSPs are better for retirement or for the home buyers plan.
"There are a couple of different things that could be referenced by ""cheap money"": The money supply itself - This is the Federal Reserve printing more money which could devalue the existing US dollars and thus make the dollars even cheaper since there would be more of them. Interest rates - Currently in the US interest rates are rather low which means that borrowers could possibly get good rates on that money thus making it relatively cheap.  Compare current interest rates to the early 1980s and there is a major difference. In terms of implications on the stock market, there are a couple that come to my mind: Investment options - With low interest rates, cash and bonds aren't necessarily yielding that much and thus some people may be more likely to invest elsewhere with stocks being an option.  Thus, there may be some people that would rather invest in stocks than hold their investments in lower-yielding options. Corporate spending - If rates stay low, then for companies with good financial track records, they could borrow money to expand operations rather than sell more stock and thus there may be companies that borrow to grow so that they take advantage of these interest rates."
Disclaimer: it's hard to be definitive as there may be some law or tax rule I'm not aware of. From a UK perspective, this should be perfectly legal. If it's just a one-off or occasional thing for personal reasons, rather than being done in the course of a business, there probably aren't any tax implications. In theory if there's an identifiable profit from the transaction, e.g. because you originally obtained the INR at a lower exchange rate, then you might be liable to capital gains tax. However this is only payable above approximately £10K capital gains (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/cgt.htm) so unless this is a very large transaction or you have other gains in the tax year, you don't need to worry about that. I would only recommend doing this if you trust each other. If one side transfers the money and the other doesn't, the international nature will make it quite hard in practice to enforce the agreement legally, even though I think that in theory it should be possible. If the sums involved are large, you may find that the transaction is automatically reported to the authorities by your bank under money laundering regulations, or they may want documentation of the source of the funds/reason for the transaction. This doesn't automatically mean you'll have a problem, but the transaction may receive some scrutiny. I think that reporting typically kicks in when several thousand pounds are involved.
Interestingly, California dumped a lot of money into a program to try to do just this.  Hundreds signed up for @ ~$18.00/hr fruit picker jobs but only a small handful stayed on after working a day.  They preferred an easy min wage job.  Maybe the wage is the issue, but at what point can farmers be competitive with imports from other countries?  They are already heavily subsidized.
Consumers aren't the only economic participants impacted by a change in the Fed rate.... Inflation has WIDE ranging implications from the future liabilities of pension funds to the ongoing cost of our national debt.  It doesn't make sense to consider only consumer inflationary experience.  PCE is considered because it relates to consumption, which includes things paid for by other entities, like employer healthcare spend.
"All the other answers posted thus far discuss matters from the perspective of US tax laws and are unanimous in declaring that what the OP wants to do is indeed a very bad idea. I fully agree: it is a bad idea from the perspective of US tax laws, and is likely a bad idea from the perspective of Indian tax laws too, but what the OP wants to do is  (or used to be) common practice in India. In more recent times, India has created a Permanent Account Number (""PAN number"") for each taxpayer for income tax purposes, and each bank account or investment must have the owner's (or first-named owner's, in case of a joint account) PAN number associated with it.  This most likely has decreased the popularity of such arrangements, or has led to new twists being used. The OP has not indicated the residence and citizenship of his family (or his own status for that matter), but if they are all Indian citizens resident in India and are Hindus, then there might be one mechanism for doing what the OP wants to do: apply for a PAN number in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family and use this number to carry out the investments in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family.  (There presumably are similar statuses for undivided families for other religions, but I am not familiar with them). There are lots of matters here which are more legal questions than personal finance questions: e.g. if the OP is a US tax resident, then the family presumably will not be able to claim Hindu Undivided Family status since the OP has been divided from the family for tax purposes (or so I think). Even if HUF status is available, the OP might not be able to act as the pater familias while his father is alive, and so on.  Consultation with tax lawyers, not just chartered accountants, in India is certainly advisable."