vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The different things in each calculator are showing you a bunch of different things. In the ""Roth IRA calculator"", it is comparing what you would have in the end after contributing and withdrawing from a Roth IRA, with what you would have in the end with a taxable account (i.e. an investment outside of any IRAs). In the ""Traditional IRA calculator"", the ""IRA after taxes"" shows you what you would have in the end after contributing and withdrawing from a pre-tax Traditional IRA. The ""IRA before taxes"" simply shows the same amount before you pay the taxes on withdrawal, which is not a useful number. So if you want to compare Roth IRA vs. Traditional IRA, you want to compare the ""Roth IRA"" from the Roth IRA Calculator and the ""IRA after taxes"" from the Traditional IRA calculator, but there are some things you need to be aware of to make a fair comparison, because if you just plug in the same numbers you are going to get a very unfair comparison (it will look like Roth IRA is a lot ""better"" even though it's not). The Roth IRA contribution is after-tax, whereas a (pre-tax) Traditional IRA contribution is pre-tax, and an after-tax dollar is much more than a pre-tax dollar, so if you put in the same nominal contribution amount, you are actually contributing much ""more"" from your wallet in the Roth IRA case. To make a fair comparison, you would need to start with the same pre-tax amount, and put in a Roth IRA contribution amount that corresponds to the equivalent amount after taxes. So for example, a $5000 pre-tax amount with 25% taxes is equivalent to $5000 * 0.75 = $3750, so you would put in $5000 for Traditional IRA contribution vs. $3750 for Roth IRA contribution. Note that if you have the same flat tax rate at contribution and at withdrawal, (pre-tax) Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are exactly the same, and you can see this by putting in 25% for the ""Retirement tax rate"" in the Traditional IRA calculator (we already assumed 25% tax rate for Roth IRA when calculating the contribution).
"Equation: (M x 12) + MOOP = Worst case scenario cost Where M equals the monthly cost and MOOP is the maximum out of pocket amount. So, if a plan costs $500 a month and the maximum out of pocket amount is $12,000 - which in a worst case scenario you would pay (it's almost always over the deductible) ... ($500 x 12) + 12,000 = $18,000 Most people look at the deductible, but be aware this is incorrect in a worst case. The last one (maximum out of pocket) really hurts most people because they overlook it: Deductible vs. out-of-pocket maximum The difference between your deductible and an out-of-pocket maximum is subtle but important. The out-of-pocket maximum is typically higher than your deductible to account for things like co-pays and co-insurance. For example, if you hit your deductible of $2,500 but continue to go for office visits with a $25 co-pay, you’ll still have to pay that co-pay until you’ve spent your out-of-pocket maximum, at which time your insurance would take over and cover everything. New in 2016: embedded out-of-pocket maximums One change in 2016 is that, even with an aggregate deductible, one person cannot pay more than the individual out-of-pocket maximum within a family plan, even if the aggregate deductible is more than the individual out-of-pocket maximum, which is $6,850 for 2016. For instance, even if the overall aggregate deductible was $10,000, a single person in that family plan could not incur more than $6,850 in out-of-pocket expenses. (In 2017, the out-of-pocket maximum will increase to $7,150.) After they hit that number, insurance covers everything for that person, even as the rest of the family is still subject to the deductible. From your question: Thanks - not sure I totally follow you. My question is, essentially: ""Say a typical large employer X gives you 'healthcare' as a benefit on top of your salary.
"Question is, what do we need to do as far as the IRS is concerned? I   mean we'll get the money from them and pay it back less than two   months later. You're probably worried about the gift tax. Since you're a couple, the maximum exclusion amount is calculated like this: The reason the Pg multiplier stands separate is that gift splitting does require form 709 filed even if no tax is due, unless they actually write separate checks for their respective portions. So the math shows that you and your wife can get at least $28K from anyone without the need of gift tax to be paid or gift tax return to be filed. You can get up to $56K from your parents, but the gift splitting may need to be documented on form 709. Since you're in fact talking about a loan you're going to repay, you'll need to document it (with a note and everything), and document the repayment. If interest is being paid - your parents must declare it on their tax return for the year, obviously. In this case, if the loan is properly documented, repaid and the interest is declared, the IRS won't even bother claiming it was a gift. Even if there's no real interest, it shouldn't be an issue (the IRS might assign some ""deemed"" interest at their rates that would be considered a gift, but assuming no other gift transactions between you exist for the year the amount would be miniscule and way below the $14K exclusion level). Of course, as with any tax concern, you get here what you paid for. For a proper advice talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA) licensed in your State."
The first problem with your analysis is that you are not comparing equivalent contributions. The deductible Traditional IRA contribution is in terms of pre-tax money, whereas the Roth IRA contribution is in terms of post-tax money. A certain nominal amount of pre-tax money is equivalent to a smaller nominal amount of post-tax money, because taxes are taken out of it. For a fair comparison, you need to start with the same amount of pre-tax money being taken out of your wages. If you start with $1000 being taken out of your pre-tax wages, the deductible Traditional IRA contribution will be $1000, but your Roth IRA contribution will be $750, because 25% of it went to paying taxes. If you go through the calculation, you will see that after you withdraw it (and 25% taxes are paid in the Traditional case), you will be left with the exact same amount of money in your hand at the end in both cases. Even though you see that you end up with the same amount of money, you may still be confused because you paid different nominal amounts in taxes. That's the second problem with your analysis -- you are comparing the nominal amounts of taxes paid at different times. You are missing the time value of money. Would you rather pay $1000 of taxes today or $1001 of taxes in 10 years? Of course you would rather the latter, even though it is a higher nominal amount. A given amount of money now has the same value to you now as a bigger amount of money later. If I invest a given amount of money now, and it grows in to a bigger amount of money later, then that bigger amount of money later has the same value as the original contribution now. So the 25% tax on the contribution now is equivalent to the 25% tax on the total value later, even though the latter is a much bigger nominal amount. Another way to think about it is that you could have taken that 25% tax you paid now, and instead invest it, let it grow, and pay that result (which will still be 25% of the total later) in taxes later. You get to keep the remaining 75% of your investment either way. You are simply investing on behalf of the government the part of the money you would have paid them, and paying them the result of investing that portion of the money later.
"Like JoeTaxpayer said, I don't know of any difference between the backdoor and a regular Roth IRA contribution besides the issue with existing pre-tax IRA money. So if it is your practice to contribute at the beginning of the year (good for you, most people wait until the last minute), then doing a backdoor seems like the safe choice. Some people have speculated that, hypothetically, the IRS could use the ""step transaction doctrine"" to treat it as a single direct contribution to a Roth IRA (which then would be disallowed and cause you a penalty until you take it out), but I have never heard of this happening to anyone. As for the paperwork, you just need to fill out one extra form at tax time, Form 8606 (you need to complete two parts of it, one for the non-deductible contribution, and one for the conversion). It is pretty straightforward. (Although I've found that it is a pain to do it in tax software.) Another option would be for you to contribute to a Roth IRA now, but when you discover that you're over the limit at the end of the year, re-characterize it as a Traditional contribution and then convert it back to Roth. But this way is not good because then there is a long time between the Traditional contribution and the Roth conversion, and earnings during this time will be taxed at conversion."
I'm an independent rep and believe that what I sell actually gives back to the community. If the government would get out of my business a bit more, I could offer more to the community business-wise.  That said, I donate free time to help out at soup kitchens, toy/clothes drives, etc... And that is fairly anonymous. I just do it because I like where I live and the people here are nice. If they're down on their luck it isn't their fault. And if I'm down on my luck, I'd take some help.
"This.  This is what a world class newspaper is supposed to do.  You get a story fitting perfectly into the current narrative of evil banks.  You don't swallow it for the headline value, instead you do the dirty detail work and try to get facts about all allegations, and you write up precisely what you found.  And if it contradicts the current mainstream narrative, then fuck it, facts trump sentiment, you rip apart the claims.    This is the best news article I've read online in a long time, and it makes me feeling I should donate quite some money to the NYT for being there and delivering such quality information for free on the net.    [Disclaimer:  Poster is not, and will never be, working for GS.  They **are** evil, but the ""revelation"" book apparently is mostly bullshit.]"
A sure-fire way to make money?  Hell no. There are tonnes of scams and money grabs out there, not to mention the fact that most ICOs are based on projects that are going nowhere. Having said that, there are many ICOs each month that will do very well in the future.  The best thing to do is to shortlist a number of projects you like the sound of and then sit down and research each of them.  Some of the key things to look out for, aside from whether you think the idea is a good one are: The team.  Do they have a proven track record?  Are they reputable?  Is what they claim provable?  Google team member names and check to see if they have a legit Linkedin profile. The Whitepaper.  Is it clearly worded without spelling and grammar mistakes?  Does it have a well defined roadmap with provable achievements to-date? The ICO format.  How much are they looking to raise and is it a realistic figure?  Are unsold tokens burnt?  Is there a maximum contribution limit per investor? What does the competition look like? If they are first to market then this will make the startup way more attractive. The above are probably the most important things to consider though there are many other things to investigate. I have written a fairly comprehensive guide to all the things I look out for when analyzing the investability of an ICO. You might want to check it out before firing out your Bitcoin and ETH into dubious projects.
This analysis misses the opportunities the Roth IRA presents to those with special access. It assumes that all money grows at the same rate, with investments at regular intervals. These assumptions hold for normal workers, but not for the privileged.  Suppose, for example, that in a single year you have limited access to a security that is an acorn you know will grow into a mighty oak; for this example, this security will grow 1000x over some short period of time. For simplicity, assume both the value of acorns you can buy and the the maximum IRA contribution in this year is $5K.  After the short acorn growth period, the after tax values are: There is a minor difference in the amount of money you need to buy the acorns (pre v. post tax), but this is negligible relative to the amount of cash you can assume you have on hand to have special access.  The Atlantic provides an acorn example from private equity (not used with a Roth) and this Washington Post article describes someone with non-publicly traded startup stocks and a Roth.
That all makes sense, but all of those things are the responsibility of the cardholder.  If you want to pay off your balance, anything quoted would obviously not include any transaction yet to post.  The problem is a creditor refusing to give the balance AND refusing to take a payment for an amount over the previous statement balance. This is essentially forcing the customer to pay more interest after they declare their intent to pay the full amount.  Good points, but I don't believe those were factors in this case.
&gt; I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. &gt; Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears.
I believe that recharacterizing a contribution for a given year can only be done before the tax filing deadline for that year. So it would be too late to recharacterize them now. At this point, I believe the only things you can do are (see What if You Contribute Too Much?): The implications are not at the time of retirement -- rather, the implications are that every year since the excess contribution, you have to pay a penalty of 6% of the excess contribution, until you take it out (or it is absorbed into a future year's contribution limit). If you haven't been reporting that penalty on your tax returns in the last few years since your contribution, that also means you have been underpaying your taxes and you need to go back and fix that.
Dazed, an RESP is a type of account.  Within the RESP, you can have cash, investments or even savings vehicles like GICs etc.  So depending on where you put the money within the RESP, yes, there is a chance of losing money. If you think your children will attend post secondary education, I don't think that there is a better way to save.  The government will match 20% of your contribution, up to a maximum grant of $500 per year. To take advantage of the grant, we contribute $2500 per year to obtain the maximum $500 grant. Hope this helps!
"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a ""margin call"" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go.
4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of ""estimated"" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!"
"As others have mentioned, you avoid ""payroll taxes"" (Medicaid, Social Security, etc) by using pre-tax money rather than post-tax money. However, there is one benefit to getting your own privately held one: you can choose the service provider.  A previous employer's HSA charged $4/month, and did not allow me to invest in any funds unless I had over $4k in my account.  However, a single year's maximum contribution is less than $4k, so it was stuck in a money market account perpetually. The tax saving probably is larger than both your monthly fees and your investment gains, but the HSA provider's rules are another (fairly-opaque) consideration."
Read the claim ticket or receipt for when you made the initial drop-off.  Every dry cleaning business that I've used in the USA has had a warning about damages or in case of loss. They always agree to reimburse up to a certain amount, usually $50 or $100 per item. This is standard in California, Arizona, New York and Florida, as best I can recall. You won't get the full amount, and you may or may not get the maximum, but the dry cleaner should give you some kind of cash recompense as a result of losing your clothing while they had it in their possession.
"To answer your first two questions: according to IRS pub 696 ""Contributions to an HSA"" section: Rollovers A rollover contribution is not included in your income, is not   deductible, and does not reduce your contribution limit. Archer MSAs and other HSAs.   You can roll over amounts from Archer   MSAs and other HSAs into an HSA. You do not have to be an eligible   individual to make a rollover contribution from your existing HSA to a   new HSA. Rollover contributions do not need to be in cash. Rollovers   are not subject to the annual contribution limits.   You must roll   over the amount within 60 days after the date of receipt. You can make   only one rollover contribution to an HSA during a 1-year period. Note. If you instruct the trustee of your HSA to transfer funds directly to   the trustee of another HSA, the transfer is not considered a rollover.   There is no limit on the number of these transfers. Do not include the   amount transferred in income, deduct it as a contribution, or include   it as a distribution on Form 8889, line 14a. (italics mine) So if you transfer the money yourself, you can only do it once per year, but there are no limits to when or how many times you can instruct the old HSA trustee to transfer funds directly to the new trustee."