vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Of course CDs are worth it compared to the stock market. In fact, most institutional investors are envious of the CDs you have access to as an individual investor that are unavailable to them. You just need to be competent enough to shop around for the best rates and understand your time horizon. There are several concepts to understand here: Banks give out CDs with competitive rates projecting future interest rates. So while the Federal funds rate is currently extremely low, banks know that in order to get any takers on their CDs they have to factor in the public expectation that rates will rise, so if you lock in a longer term CD you get a competitive rate. Institutional investors do not have access to FDIC insured CDs and the closest analog they participate in are the auctions and secondary markets of US Treasuries. These two types of assets have equivalent default (non-)risk if held to maturity: backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Here are the current rates (as of question's date) taken from Vanguard that I can get on CDs versus Treasuries (as an individual investor). Notice that CDs outperform Treasuries across any maturity timescale! For fixed-income and bond allocations, institutional investors are lining up for buying treasuries. And yet here you are saying ""CDs are not worth it."" Might want to rethink that. Now going into the stock market as an investor with expectations of those high returns you quote, means you're willing to stay there for the long-term (at least a decade) and stay the course during volatility to actually have any hope of coming up with the average rate of return. Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income.
"Ugh. Follow the money trail. Who stands to make  $$$ off of the fake climate crisis? It's the same group that are lying 24/7 on all news outlets, using MSM NSA/CIA to influence elections- remember Wikileaks verified the NSA/Deep State has the capability to hack and leave a ""Russian footprint."" Which it's what's happening now. I'm not sure who the hell bilderbergs are but most seem to be Anglo, as does grovers.  Somebody is pulling all the strings for a world government and it won't be long before our sovereignty (USA) is history.  Russia is moot. A distant 4th to USA, Britain, Israel The Deep State rules the world out of America."
In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary."
There isn't a single career or major that US education system is unable to churn out an abundance of graduates. There isn't a software language in the USA that a USA company needs, that India has experience with, but the USA does **not** have experience with. Immigrants come to the USA for an education, not the other way around. We don't see countless Americans going to India for their computer science degree because USA schools are just not good enough. This holds true for economics, chemistry, physics, and any other discipline. The immigrants are not more skilled, and are typically lower skilled. They are just cheaper, that is all. Undocumented immigrant labor was welcomed by Wall Street for decades because it broke the working class unions. Well paying white collar jobs are also being given to immigrant labor to drive down costs, it is that simple.
This is divided into one portion for each taxpayer, and those portions into monthly or biweekly pieces. These pieces are sent out regularly as checks to the taxpayer, and *these checks are not taxed as income*. That last bit is what makes this so nice: it turns the tax progressive, in fact more progressive than our current system. After taxes and *after stipend*, only the rich will pay an *effective* tax rate asymptotically close to the real 35%. Most people without incomes many, many times the size of their stipends will be looking at an effective tax rate of less than 15%, including the tax-paying middle class and the professional upper-middle class who currently bitch so much about our tax rates being so confiscatory (which they *are*, for the abysmal level of social services we receive). Now, to get back to the big benefits of fixing the subsidy percentage. This means that the subsidy grows with mean income, effectively functioning as easy to run, fair, and direct wealth redistribution without the difficulty of trying to create efficient, productive WPA-style jobs or imposing market-distorting subsidies. It also means that we can allow things like automation to improve the productivity of our economy because *everyone* gets a share: if automating a certain job is truly more efficient than having a worker do it, the capitalist's income-gain from automation will push up the mean income, and therefore the basic income, further than the worker's lesser income and the capitalist's lesser profit would have."
"I am not trying to ""attribute the current economic climate and the decisions that stem from that with raising tax rates.""  I simply think that a higher tax rate for the wealthy will further slow the ""recovery"". I also think that the issue of tax rates is being used to divert the attention of the people from that which is actually killing us: the national debt that is mushrooming thanks to trillion dollar deficits. The tax hikes are used to provoke a fight between red and blue without getting to the crux of the matter.   The reality is that at most the government might be able to raise taxes that would generate 200 or 300 billion dollars more in yearly revenue over the short term. Over the long term these taxes will drive capital off-shore and into investments that shelter it from taxes at the same time that the debt continues to increase at over 1 trillion per year anyway!  The debate should be this: Do we want to cut Federal spending by 40% now, or do we want to cause an economic and monetary collapse by continuing along with deficits that are 10% of GDP?"
The offset account is the way to go. The rate is higher and even if interest rates fall further when you go to renew your term deposit the interest rate for that will be lower as well. Also, with a term deposit you will be penalised if you take the money out before the end of the term. Regarding tax, you will pay tax at your marginal tax rate on every dollar earned from the Term deposit ( as long as your income is above the $18,000 tax free threshold). If the mortgage is for your primary residence then you will not pay any tax on the money in your Offset Account, as you are not earning any interest in this account you are saving interest on your mortgage. So definitely the way to go would be with the offset account, you'll get an effective higher interest rate, it will help you pay off your mortgage sooner, the money is always on call, and you will pay no tax.
Unless it's an international flight, first class flights are remotely better than economy. Yes wider seats, food's better, and you are attended to - but all the psychological side-effects are still the same. Travel across timezones, or in the same zone on a 3+ hour flight (add and extra 60mins-120 in airport wait times), it takes the same toll. Business and First Class just make you hate Economy more when it's your only option.... But it's shitty either way.
There's a few things going on here. If we fixed rates (and terms) over time we'd expect a pretty tight chart of home prices to income, almost lockstep. Add a layer of growth above that in boom times due to the wealth effect (when stocks are way up, we have extra money to blow on bigger houses) and the opposite when markets are down. Next, the effect of rates. With long term rates dropping from 14% in 1985 to 5% in 2003, the amount that can be bought for the same monthly payment rises dramatically as rates fall. Easy to lose site of that and the fact that the average size house has increased about 1.5% per year over the last 40 years, surely that can't continue.  When you normalize all these factors, houses cost fewer hours-worked almost at the peak of the market than 25 years ago. Mike's logical example of extrapolating out is very clever, I like it. In the short term, we'll see periods that are booms and busts, but actual prices will straddle the line representing the borrowing power of a week's pay.
&gt;It's not about who would win a conflict. It's about how easy to control they are. &gt; &gt;The entire might of the american military can't defeat a third world, sub 85 IQ militia given 15 years. Why do you think it would be easier to defeat a civil insurrection?  It's pretty sad you think the people fighting in those countries are dumber then the American soliders (who by the way are mostly there as a result of being to stupid to do anything else), living a less impressive lifestyle doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a victim of circumstance.  That aside, context is important, USA has more toys on US soil than the middle east, so you'll be bringing a gun to a drone fight, they would be fighting in territory they have comprehensively mapped using the largest communications collections framework in the world.  The leaders of any militia would be found and killed in hours if the entire weight of the US government were looking for them.  But hey, you hold onto your AR15, I'm sure it can deal with a whatever the government has...
"As long as the IRS treats bitcoin as property, then whenever you use bitcoin to buy anything you are supposed to consider the capital gain or capital loss. There is no ""until it's converted to fiat"". You are paying local sales tax and capital gains, or paying local sales tax and reporting capital loss. As long as you are consistent, you can use either the total cost basis, or individual lot purchases. The same as other property like stocks (except without stock specific regulations like wash-sale rules :D ). There are a lot of perks or unintentional loopholes for speculators, with the property designation. There are a lot of disadvantages for consumers trying to use it like a currency. Someone mixing investment and spending funds across addresses is going to have complicated tax issues, but fortunately the exchanges have records of purchase times and prices, which you can compare with the addresses you control. Do note, after that IRS guideline, another federal agency designated Bitcoin as a commodity, which is a subset of ""property"" with its own more favorable but different tax guidelines."
&gt;It's pretty sad you think the people fighting in those countries are dumber then the American soliders (who by the way are mostly there as a result of being to stupid to do anything else), living a less impressive lifestyle doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a victim of circumstance.  The average IQ of Afghanistan is literally 85.  &gt;That aside, context is important, USA has more toys on US soil than the middle east, so you'll be bringing a gun to a drone fight, they would be fighting in territory they have comprehensively mapped using the largest communications collections framework in the world.  &gt;The leaders of any militia would be found and killed in hours if the entire weight of the US government were looking for them.  Do you think none of these tools are deployed in the Afghanistan?  What percentage of the US Military do you think would stay if it was deployed against US Citizens?
How much amount can we transfer from India to the USA? Is the limit per year? As I understand your father in law is Indian Citizen and his tax paid earnings need to be transferred outside of India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfer upto 2,50,000 USD. Please check with your Bank for the exact paperwork. A form 15CA and 15CB [by CA] are required to establish taxes have been paid. What documents we have to present to the bank? See above. Should money be transferred to company's account(Indian Company) to USA company? or can be transferred to my husband's account. Transfer of funds by a Indian Company to US Company has some restrictions. Please check with CA for details. If you father in law has sold the Indian Company and paid the taxes in India; he can transfer the proceeds to his son in US as per the Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Can they just gift the whole amount to my husband? What will be the tax implication on my husband's part in USA and on my father in law in India. The whole amount can be gifted by your father in law to your husband [his son]. There is no tax implication in India as being an Indian resident, gift between close relatives is tax free. There is no tax implication to your husband as he is a US Citizen and as per gift tax the person giving the gift should be paying the applicable taxes. Since the person gifting is not US Citizen; this is not applicable.
Hundreds of ghost towns across the US would disagree.  Prices are what, maybe 5% cheaper than their competitors?  That comes at the cost of killing off local competition that actually generates revenue for the town.  Walmart creates income disparity, and kills more local jobs than it generates.
The job I have now, I am lucky enough to be able to be lax.  At my last job I would have been fired if I wasn't available at all times.  I also had clients who expected me to be available whenever they called or I would lose them.  It wasn't being a doormat.  It was the definition of the job and everyone from the lowest person on the pole to the top did the same thing.
I get it; money is money and shareholders demand businesses make as much as they possibly can. Great. That doesn't change my opinion that tax inversions are wrong. They deprive the US of valuable income which has been earned through infrastructure, defense, education, etc. It's legal right now so fine but I don't have to patronize businesses which choose to do this. So if the deal closes, as much as I don't eat fast food often, Burger King will lose my future business. Just my choice. And my choice to make the suggestion to others in as many public forums as possible.. &lt;shrug&gt;
I'm gonna drop 50 on Conor, because I don't trust either of them to not rig the fight. Floyd needs the money, it's not out of the realm that he'd dive to milk a second and third fight.  It's a far shot, but if Floyd is far enough in debt, he'll do it. Worst that happens is I lose 50 and go about my day.
I think this varies considerably depending on your situation.  I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house.  We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios.  If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment.  If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time.  With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need.  Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments.  Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here.
I do this often with shares that I own - mostly as a learning/experience-building exercise, since I don't own enough individual stocks to make me rich (and don't risk enough to make me broke). Suppose I own 1,000 shares of X.  I don't expect my shares to go down, but I want to be compensated in case they do go down.  Sure, I could put in a stop-loss order, but another option is to sell a call above where the stock is now (out-of-the-money).   So I get the premium regardless of what happens.  From there three things can happen: So a covered call essentially lets you give up some upside for some compensation against downward moves.  Mathematically it's roughly equivalent to selling a put option - you make a little money (from the premium) if the stock goes up but can lose a lot if the stock plummets. So you would sell call options if:
Pool their money into my own brokerage account and simply split the gains/losses proportional to the amount of money that we've each   contributed to the account. I'm wary of this approach due to the tax   implications and perhaps other legal issues so I'd appreciate   community insight here. You're right to be wary. You might run into gift tax issues, as well as income tax liability and appropriation of earnings. Not a good idea at all. Don't do this. Have them set up their own brokerage account and have them give me the   login credentials and I manage the investments for them. This is   obviously the best approach from a tracking and tax perspective, but   harder for me to manage; to be honest I'm already spending more time   than I want to managing my own investments, so option 1 really appeals   to me if the drawbacks aren't prohibitive. That would also require you to be a licensed financial adviser, at least to the best of my understanding. Otherwise there's a lot of issues with potential liability (if you make investments that lose money - you might be required to repay the losses). You should do this only with a proper legal and tax advice - from an attorney and/or CPA/EA licensed in your state. There are proper ways to do this (limited partnership or LLC, for example), but you have to cover your ass-ets with proper operating agreements in place that have to be reviewed by legal counsel of each of the members/partners,
That's crazy! And I completely sympathize with working moms, it's a rough life. I worry about this when my wife and I have kids how we'll manage, more how she'll manage with her teaching job.  If I can ask an admittedly loaded question with some assumptions, do you think if society wasn't so fiercely competitive and dual income wasn't as necessary to live a comfortable life, we'd be better off? What I'm really getting at is are we using technology to attempt to solve problems that shouldn't exist in the first place?
It's the CEO's/company's choice. If they lose excellent people because of it, so be it.   Honestly, I am sick of working with pot heads. Outside of their smoke breaks, they might get a couple hours or actual work done in a 8 hour work day while I am busting my ass subsidizing some of their work just to keep the place afloat. It doesn't help that I am salaried and end up staying 3 hours over on some days just to catch back up with my job.
First, we need to be clear about what the allowances on your W-4 mean. The more allowances you claim, the lower tax liability it is assumed that you have, and they will take less tax out of your check. So claiming 2 allowances will result in a bigger paycheck and less tax withholding than claiming 0 allowances would.  If you claim 0 allowances, you are in no danger of having too little tax withheld; instead, that would result in the maximum tax withheld. So 0 allowances is certainly an option, if you want to play it safe.  This being your first year with these jobs, it's hard to know what to claim on your W-4. When you do your taxes next year, you can see if the withholding was too much or just right; if your refund is too big, you can increase your allowances for next year.  That having been said, I don't like getting big refunds; I'd rather have a bigger paycheck all year. If I were you, I'd probably claim 1 or 2 allowances at the new job, and adjust it next year if needed. At your income level, you aren't really in any danger of getting in trouble for having too little withheld.  Good luck with the new job. Game testing has always seemed like a dream job to me. :)
The prices reflect what the market will bear.  People have more money, things will likely cost more.  Think of it in terms of percentages and you can start to justify the higher housing costs. My father likes to tell me that his first mortgage cost him $75 a month, and he had no idea how he was going to pay it each month.  He also earned $3/hr at his job.  So his housing costs were 15% of his gross income.  My dear father almost passed out when he learned that my mortgage was $1000 a month, but since I earn $4000/month gross, I am really only paying 25% of my salary.  (Numbers made up) So if he complains I pay 10% more, so be it, but complaining I pay $925 more isn't worrying to me because of my increased salary. So if your complaint is the amounts, you must take ratios, percentages and relative comparisons.  However if you are baffled by people having money and wasting it on silly or foolish purchases, I am with you.  I still don't understand why people will use the closest ATM and just pay the $2 fee. Do right by yourself and don't mind what others are up to.
What do most people say that disappoints you?  I think I would say that I wanted to keep myself prepared and up to date while job searching and that my goal is to eventually become a charter holder.  Do you know if regional banks employ many analysts that are charter holders?
"Thank you. I'm so tired of the ""2 years experience required"" for an entry level position. Resulting in my resume going directly in the trash. I have a fucking masters in my field but ""academic internships"" and academic research apparently don't count as experience.         ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  It's almost as if these places are trying to hire their own staff. I can't get the job if I need the job already to get the job!?!"