vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Whole life in most instances is a very bad plan. It's marketed as a life insurance policy wrapped in an investment but it does neither very well. The hidden caveat of whole life is that the investment goes away if you die.  Say for example I have a $100,000 whole life insurance policy and over the years I have paid in enough to have a $15,000 cash value on the policy. If I die, my family gets $100,000 and the cash value is lost. With term life you can get a substantially higher amount of coverage for a smaller payment. If you invest the difference you end up not only with better coverage, but a better cash value from the difference if you don't die (which is what we all hope for anyways). As JackiYo said, your insurance should be designed around replacing lost income/value.  You should get 10x your annual income in term life insurance.
"Obviously you have done well financially in order to be able to purchase a condo for cash, presumably, without risk of your other obligations.  To put things in perspective, we are probably talking about less than $5,000 in tax savings.   If she is on the title then she is a co-owner.  Are you okay with that?  You would essentially be giving this child a 50% stake in a property without compensation.  Will your other children be okay with it? As your question stated you would prefer to not have her as an owner.  However, is it better to not have her as an owner, So I would buy the condo without her on the title and just pay the extra $100 per month in property tax.  It is probably ""small potatoes"" in comparison to your net worth. I would also only charge her at most your cost of carrying the property as rent.  While you will create income all of it (and probably more) could be written off as costs.  There should be no income tax burden created from this situation.  Your accountant can help with any paperwork that needs to be filed."
Prime sucks because it's all weird storage issues pulling it down. Amazon Fresh, though, seems okay. That's the one where they go into Sprouts or other stores and do the shopping for you, so selection is better.  Fresh, I believe, is what will be incorporating whole foods as an option.  What interests me the most is price differences between using the Fresh serviceable just going to the store. If it's like $5-10 more for online shopping with exactly the same goods, I might consider it. After all, I save gas and time. But more than that for a small trip? Doubtful.
&gt;     If Comcast wants my steaming business offer a better service than Netflix. &gt;  &gt;  &gt;  &gt; Sure. In the meantime, I don't see why Comcast must allow Netflix to use its fixed infrastructure.  So if the power company decides they're losing customers because of associating with Comcast and a quick cost/benefit analysis says they should stop providing power to Comcast then that's okay?  Comcast now has to close their doors and their company is done for because no power company in the world will provide for them because they don't want the bad PR.  It's okay to hold an entire company hostage because, it's just business?   Then of course you might say, well switch power providers! Tough luck Comcast PECO is your only option. You could use this small solar farm that gives you some power and not nearly enough to sustain your current business but you have another choice so it's not a monopoly!
&gt; That's a simplified, layman's argument that you have minunderstood.  That's the only argument presented against deflation in the link you posted  &gt; Suffice to say, literally everyone who studies this stuff agrees that a small amount of controlled inflation is beneficial   I don't think there is a single topic where [literally everyone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwI3Nya5L9g) agrees on something. Even if they did, it doesn't make it right. You seem informed enough that I don't have to use cliched examples.  &gt; Econ 101. Take it. Love it.  I believe that you've taken Econ 101
I don't know much about paypal or bitcoin, but I can provide a little information on BTC(Paypal I thought was just a service for moving real currency).  BTC has an exchange, in which the price of a bitcoin goes up and down. You can invest in to it much like you would invest in the stock market. You can also invest in equipment to mine bitcoins, if you feel like that is worthwhile. It takes quite a bit of research and quite a bit of knowledge. If you are looking to provide loans with interest, I would look into P2P lending. Depending on where you live, you can buy portions of loans, and receive monthly payments with the similiar risk that credit card companies take on(Unsecured debt that can be cleared in bankruptcy). I've thrown a small investment into P2P lending and it has had average returns, although I don't feel like my investment strategy was optimal(took on too many high risk notes, a large portion of which defaulted). I've been doing it for about 8 months, and I've seen an APY of roughly 9%, which again I think is sub-optimal. I think with better investment strategy you could see closer to 12-15%, which could swing heavily with economic downturn. It's hard to say.
The NPS is launched by The Government of India with a lot of hope. But it has not been taken off as it was expected due to some reasons. Though PFRDA is working for the betterment of the product, still there are disadvantages of the product, which I feel are: 1. The liquidity is an issue for NPS. If you are 30 years age and started investing for NPS you need to wait for another 30 years for withdrawal of money. 2. Though there is option of partial withdrawal, it's not so easy during requirement. 3. You need to invest in a government approved annuity fund which is mandatory. 4. The 20% of the maturity amount is still taxable if you withdraw it lump sum. So, you should not invest in NPS only for the tax saving purpose.
In my experience, there's usually only one or two theatres within a small city. Maybe a few more in larger cities, but those are also larger areas. So there really isn't much competition. Sure, there are other places to get popcorn, but not movie theatre popcorn. It won't be lathered with 4000 calories worth of tasty butter and salt. Even if you make it at home that can be difficult to accomplish (and then you have to invest the time to make it). Besides, when I go to the movies, I don't go just to see a movie. If I just want to see a movie I can watch it at home. The junk food they sell is part of the experience. Even then, people do smuggle their own food into theatres all the time - but it's hard to smuggle in a bag of popcorn, and again, ordinary popcorn just isn't the same. So, I think the answer boils down to: it's expensive because people are willing to pay for it. And they're willing to pay for it because it's not really available elsewhere at any better price, and it's part of what they come for.
Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23.  I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so.  I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so.   Another consideration:  Is your companies program a good one?  if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match.  Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there.  The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year.  Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year.  Otherwise you may miss out on your company match.  It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not.  It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future.  On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth.
Okay, so if I mix water (0% juice), juice concentrate (0% juice), and food coloring (0% juice), do I end up with 100% juice?  And what happens if I leave a glass out in the air for a few seconds? Some of the water will evaporate. Is it then not 100% juice?
"Yep, all of these are correct.  I sat down and thought about the ""Money can't buy happiness"" line, and at the end of the day it's only correct in the strictest sense. No, nobody is selling joy at the market. You can't go down to the 7-11 and pick up a box of jubilation.  You know what, though? Money allows you to do pretty much whatever DOES make you happy. Derive joy from picking on a guitar? Well, if you're fucking filthy rich, you can buy dozens of 'em and do it all damned day if you want. Okay, but what if you're depressed -- what if it's a brain chem thing? Well, if it can be fixed, you can get it fixed with money. Doctors, prescriptions, etc. all cost.  I thought about it for a good while, and came to the conclusion that while having tons of money may not reduce the amount of problems I have (it may actually increase them), the vital difference is that none of the problems I'd have if I were rich are actually terribly important. Every problem I could think of ended up being stuff like, ""Well, I'd have to do a lot of research to figure out exactly the best place to build my fuck-off huge house"" or ""Gee, would it be better to rebuild my vehicle to my exact specs, or simply spend time finding an expert and giving them a guideline and hoping it turns out?"" At the end of the day, if you have a shit-ton of money, you can always just tell your troubles to take a flying leap and worry about them another time, ignore them forever, or _pay someone else_ to deal with them. There are a few exceptions, but every single fucking one of them would be worse if you weren't loaded."
"I doubt there is anything you can do to convince them you paid, outside of just talking to them, which it seems you already tried. These are the possibilities I can think of for how this happened: IMHO, the most likely scenario is #4. If 1 or 3 happened you'll never see your money again, but the other 3 possibilities leave open the option of the error being discovered in the future. My suggestion, if the copay is small, is to pay it again, ask for a receipt, and ask them to make a note in the system that you claim you already paid, and ask them to ""be on the look-out"" for any discrepancies in that amount. This way, (with a good amount of luck), if they find it or discover the error (from another customer asking about the credit, or an accounting cash surplus), they can refund it to you."
"The best advice I have heard from any of my professors is ""Think before you speak""  A moment of silence is Okay. Especially if it is a question that involves a great deal of critical thinking. Formulate your responses so they sound intelligent and mature. Asking the interviewer questions works too -- the more they talk, the better!"
"This is somewhat of a non-answer but I'm not sure you'll ever find a satisfying answer to this question, because the premises on which the question is based on are flawed.  Money itself does not ""exist physically,"" at least not in the same sense that a product you buy does. It simply does not make sense to say that you ""physically own money."" You can build a product out of atoms, but you cannot build a money out of atoms. If you could, then you could print your own money. Actually, you can try to print your own money, but nobody would knowingly accept it and thus is it functionally nonequivalent to real money. The paper has no intrinsic value. Its value is derived from the fact that other people perceive it as valuable and nowhere else. Ergo paper money is no different than electronic money. It is for this reason that, if I were you, I would be okay with online Forex trading."
I think they have a solid model, most theaters are empty most hours, so if this puts butts in seats, it's better than them going empty, and the theater mainly makes its money at the concession stand, so more people into the theater, more chances of making money off the concession. Only thing is that it might be too cheap.  I enjoy going to the movies and I'd have paid upwards of $50 for this even if I'd only go two-five times a month. This is just far too cheap and would necessitate having a ridiculous amount of people signed up for it.
"I have an answer and a few comments. Back to the basics:  Insurance is purchased to provide protection in case of a loss. It sounds as though you are doing well, from a financial perspective. If you have $0 of financial obligations (loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc.) and you are comfortable with the amount that would be passed on to your heirs, then you DO NOT NEED LIFE INSURANCE. Life insurance is PROTECTION for your heirs so that they can pay off debts and pay for necessities, if you are the ""bread-winner"" and your assets won't be enough. That's all. Life insurance should never be viewed as an investment vehicle. Some policies allow you to invest in funds of your choosing, but the fees charged by the insurance company are usually high. Higher than you might find elsewhere. To answer your other question: I think NY Life is a great life insurance company. They are a mutual company, which is better in my opinion than a stock company because they are okay with holding extra capital. This means they are more likely to have the money to pay all of their claims in a specific period, which shows in their ratings: http://www.newyorklife.com/about/what-rating-agencies-say Whereas public companies will yield a lower return to their stock holders if they are just sitting on additional capital and not paying it back to their stock holders."
"If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second.   You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes.  Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable.  I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why.  Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle?  No.  It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of ""passive"" income.  Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk.  Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs.  You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure.  You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt."
"I think it's a silly statement. If you are prepared from the start that you might lose it then you shouldn't invest. You invest to earn not to lose. Most often losses are a result of fear.  Remember you only lose when you sell lower than you bought for.  So if you have the patience you will probably regain. I ask my clients many times how much do they want to earn and they all say ""as much as possible"". Last time I checked, that's not an objective and therefore a strategy can't be built for that.  If there is  a strategy then exiting a stock is easy,  without a strategy you never know when to exit and then you are exposed to  bottomless losses. I've successfully traded for many years with large amounts of money. I made money in the FC and in the bubble, both times it wasn't because I was prepared to lose but because I had an entry and exit strategy. If you have both the idea of investing what u are prepared to lose has little value."
If I was you I would not borrow from my 401K and shred the credit card offer.  Both are very risky ventures, and you are already in a situation that is risky.  Doing either will increase your risk significantly. I'd also consider selling the rental house.  You seem to be cutting very close on the numbers if you can't raise 17K in cash to refi the house.  What happens if you need a roof on the rental, and an HVAC in your current home?   My assumption is that you will not sell the home, okay I get it.  I would recommend either giving your tenant a better deal then the have now, or something very similar.  Having a good tenant is an asset.
"Americans are snapping, like crazy. And not only Americans, I know a lot of people from out of country are snapping as well, similarly to your Australian friend. The market is crazy hot. I'm not familiar with Cleveland, but I am familiar with Phoenix - the prices are up at least 20-30% from what they were a couple of years ago, and the trend is not changing. However, these are not something ""everyone"" can buy. It is very hard to get these properties financed. I found it impossible (as mentioned, I bought in Phoenix). That means you have to pay cash. Not everyone has tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash available for a real estate investment. For many Americans, 30-60K needed to buy a property in these markets is an amount they cannot afford to invest, even if they have it at hand. Also, keep in mind that investing in rental property requires being able to support it - pay taxes and expenses even if it is not rented, pay to property managers, utility bills, gardeners and plumbers, insurance and property taxes - all these can amount to quite a lot. So its not just the initial investment. Many times ""advertised"" rents are not the actual rents paid. If he indeed has it rented at $900 - then its good. But if he was told ""hey, buy it and you'll be able to rent it out at $900"" - wouldn't count on that. I know many foreigners who fell in these traps. Do your market research and see what the costs are at these neighborhoods. Keep in mind, that these are distressed neighborhoods, with a lot of foreclosed houses and a lot of unemployment. It is likely that there are houses empty as people are moving out being out of job. It may be tough to find a renter, and the renters you find may not be able to pay the rent. But all that said - yes, those who can - are snapping."
Took out a small loan to buy a brooks brothers suit and Allen Edmonds shoes after I graduated college (stupid? Maybe) but I wore it to my first and only interview &amp; got compliments on how I looked. Ended up getting the job (large finance firm).  I say if you can swing it, go for it. If not, any conservative suit that actually fits you will work. What you'll notice is that a cheaper suit that fits well is a lot better than an expensive one that doesn't.  Good luck!  Additionally, I just bought my second suit. Also at brooks brothers. I don't really have many clothes and I'm still building a wardrobe for myself. I know that most of my clothes will be bought at brooks though. Snobby? Maybe. I don't give a fuck though.
If the position starts losing money as soon as it is put on, then I would close it out ,taking a small loss. However, if it starts making money,as in the stock inches higher, then you can use part of the premium collected to buy an out of money put, thereby limiting your downside. It is called a collar.
IMHO these people need to understand finance.  I think Dave Ramsey is the best for this kind of situation.  They need their butts kicked.  What kind of parent spends money on playing cards when they have a child and not a place of their own?  Answer:  Parents that needs to grow up.   Most of all they probably have an income problem.  I would assume that the husband stays at home because he does not earn enough to justify quality child care.  Okay how about he cares for a few other kids and turns watching one kid into an income stream?  Duh? Giving them money will only hurt them in the long run.  They are holding onto childhood, avoiding becoming adults.  No amount of money you can give them will dig them out of their rut, in fact it may only prolong it.   MTG is an intellectual game.  If he spent half as much brain power on earning a living, the could probably be well off, and earn enough to have a tidy budget for gaming.   Sorry Yamikuronue, but I disagree with your first comment.
No a better way to word that is saying I won't invest in ford solely because he wants a 40 hour work week.   Yeah sure environmental responsibility plays a role but at the end of the day it's about value. There are a ton of environmentally friendly companies out there should we invest in all of them too?   If I created a company out of thin air that installed solar panels would you said that what I do is a huge thing so it should be valued a lot? Without looking at the financials of the company? Come on I'm not even really knowledgeable in business or finance but I feel like what I'm saying is just common sense.
"Well, really, we decided that we wanted a basic level of care, but ONLY if you're REALLY poor or old.  If you're working an okay job, then your employer must give you healthcare, unless they're too small, or really don't want to and make you work a few less hours so you get two part-time jobs.  The role of government in the markets is to manipulate incentives towards ""good""(e.g. employing people) activities and away from ""bad""(e.g. polluting) activities.  You really can't get that mad at companies for leveraging those incentives.  I've got a puppy right now.  If she misbehaves, it doesn't help me to punish her other than to make me feel better.  What fixes things, is to change my behavior so that she is rewarded for doing what I think is ""good""(e.g. chewing her toy) not what I think is ""bad""(chewing my shoes).  Sure, we can say, ""Bad Wal-Mart! Bad Company!"" but that's not going to do anything except make us feel better."
It also tells me how much I can spend without having to carefully check balances and add it up. These days I have a fair amount of spending money so when, for example, I recently decided I wanted to buy some software that cost $100 I just bought it with barely a second thought. When my spending money was more like $100 a month, lunch at a fast food place was a big event that I planned weeks in advance. (Obviously, I hope, don't get stupid about ""small amounts"". If you can easily afford $100 for an impulse purchase, that doesn't mean that you can afford $100 five times a day every day.) Two caveats: 1. It helps to have a limited number of credit cards so you can keep the balances under control. I have two credit cards I use for almost everything, so I only have two balances to keep track of. I used to have more and it got confusing, it was easy to lose track of how much I really owed, which is a set up for getting in trouble."
Here I am in China as a head teacher turning 30 next week.  I gotta ask myself if he is really happy.  I have an easy life, I'm paid and treated with respect and I'm doing okay.  I can't imagine the burden of responsibility he must be feeling right now.  If he made it there at 29 he must be an exceptional individual.  I wish him the best of luck.