vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It is not liquid you will not realize it until you sell the property and then you have to pay capital gains and depreciation recapture on it. There are methods to get access to the gains on the property without paying taxes. This is done by leveraging the property, you get the equity but it is not counted as capital gains since you have to pay it back a mortgage or home equity lines of credit (HELOC) are examples of this. I am not recommending these just making sure you are aware of your options. Please let me know if I am calculating anything wrong but my projection for one year is about $8.4k per house (assuming no maintenance is needed) I would say you estimated profit is on the high side. Not being involved in your market it will be a wild guess but I would expect you to realize cash-flow per house per year of closer to $7,000. Maybe even lower given your inexperience. Some Costs you need to remember to account for: Taxes, Insurance, Vacancy, Repairs, CapEx, Property Management, Utilities, Lawn Care, Snow Removal, HOA Fees. All-in-all expect 50% or your rental income to be spent on the property. If you do well you can be pleasantly surprised.
Really, were only talking about Trumps plan? Cus I was talking about tax reform in general. As my OP mentioned, I think spending across the board needs to be reduced to make lower taxes easier to accomplish. ANYWAY, there's currently trillions in profits overseas that would be taxed at a one time low rate if repatriated. This low rate would probably be between 10-15%. Do the math, it roughly gives you the the 500b you mentioned
While my margin is not nearly as good as yours, I sell out early.  I generally think it's a bad idea to hold any single stock, as they can vary wildly in value.  However, as you mention, it's advantageous to hold for one year.  Read more about Capital Gains Taxes here and here.
Ironically, anyone can say anything, but it doesn't make it true. In normal times, the IRS can audit you for 3 years, or up to 6 for certain cases of fraud - From the IRS site -  How far back can the IRS go to audit my return? Generally, the IRS can   include returns filed within the last three years in an audit. If we   identify a substantial error, we may add additional years. We usually   don’t go back more than the last six years. HSA spending is reported each year, just like any Schedule A deductions. Each year, I have my charitable receipts, and they are not sent in. They are there in case of audit. I don't need to save them forever, nor does one need their medical bills forever. 3 years. 6 if you wish to be paranoid. The EOBs should be enough.  The HSA is unique in that you deposit pretax dollars (like a traditional IRA or 401(k)) yet withdrawals for qualified expenses come out tax free (like a Roth).  In my opinion, as long as your medical plan qualifies you for an HSA, I'd maximize its use. The older you get, the more bills you'll have, and at some point, you'll be grateful to your younger self that you did this.
You're missing the point. Moral agency is still a factor in everything above. When the state imposes taxes on you directly and indirectly you rob the individual of making the choice to be charitable.   Think of it in terms of contract law. You cannot enforce a contract that was agreed to under threat of violence. Similarly, no Christian will ever say you're going to heaven because you were forced to act according to scripture in every detail at the point of a gun.   Therefore you cannot call a Christian a hypocrite for not supporting every government boondoggle simply because it is labeled charitable. Nevermind the fact that it a is highly questioanble Obamacare will ever fulfill any of its promises and that alone should be grounds for its repeal.
That I - Deacon John Hubertz, and my tiny church, are going to make a dedicated and if necessary lifelong effort to stop the thieves and scoundrels who charge $10,000 to bury a body.  We do this for the widows, for the orphans, and because I and my entire church are on a mission from God.  We do not own a building, we do not seek to convince or convert, and we never ask for donations.  We have been given this righteous task and with all our strength we will do this.  http://saintjosephrcc.blogspot.com/2017/09/god-speaks.html
&gt; On the other hand, no tax right offs for charities does not seem like a good idea  it's all about subsidies  I **DO NOT** want to subsidize you with your charitable deductions by paying more taxes myself  charity is an absolute and needs no fucking government involved
Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.
Sometimes hedging is used if you have a position and you feel the market is going against your position, so one would hedge that position in order to protect their capital and possible profits instead of closing the position and incurring capital gains tax. Personally if the market was going against a position I had open I would get out of that position and protect my capital/profits instead of using more capital to hedge against my position. I would rather take a profit and pay some capital gains tax than watch my profits turn into a loss or use up more capital to try and protect a bad position. Hedging can be useful in certain circumstances but I think if you feel the market is going against your position/s for the medium to long term you should just get out of your positions instead of hedging against them.
"Some reasons I take low-interest loans are: Leverage. If the loan's rate is low enough, then I can invest the cash in something fairly low-risk, and make more money than I pay in interest. The interest rate has to be pretty low, say below 4% or so. My auto loan is low enough and my home loan is low enough if you count the tax deduction. Obviously you have to invest in something riskier than cash here, though. And consider taxes, which lower the rate you're paying on a home loan, but also lower the returns you're getting on any bonds you invest in. Liquidity and flexibility. If I have N thousands in cash instead of tied up in my house, then I could use that money to survive many months of unemployment for example, or handle any other emergency. But if you become unemployed or have some other emergency, it will be too late to get a home loan. Credit rating. It's good to use some credit, just so you can get more if you need it. But this isn't a reason to take a particular loan, just a reason to have some kind of credit card or loan. Budgeting. When budgeting, it's best to think of expenses such as cars and houses in terms of a monthly cost, so you can see how they nudge out or allow other spending. (When negotiating with a car dealer, of course, use total cost so you don't get screwed by him messing with interest rates.) I wouldn't take a loan just to ease the budgeting (you can always manually ""amortize"") but it's a nice side effect. For credit cards, there are more buyer protections and you get a nice transaction log (again useful in budgeting). Also you don't have to carry around cash, or worry about your checking account balance. So credit cards are just convenient. But even though my card has a very low rate, it isn't low enough that I want to keep a balance month-to-month, so I don't use credit cards to actually borrow money."
I think raising it is ok but not to 15 dollars thats ridiculous. I am a minimum wage worker i work 30 hours a week currently plus high school so from my point of view i think we should raise it by maybe 1× or 1.25. I only pay two bills a 125 dollar car payment and 240 insurance pluse my expenses for gas. Those are my only expenses that i can not cut and even after just that i have very little left to save. But with a dollar or so more an hour ot would increase my saving potential by alot and give me a little more breathing room.  I am an untrained and inexperienced qorker i do not deserve 15 an hour but i feel like 8.25-8.50 is reasonable.
There are two significant drawbacks to this type of transfer. They were the reasons why I kept my American 401(k) as-is and started funding my Canadian RRSP from zero balance. 1. Taxes - a large chunk of your 401(k) will be lost to taxes. There is probably no way to transfer the funds without making a 401(k)/IRA withdrawal, which will incur the US federal tax and the 10% early-withdrawal penalty.  When the money went into the 401(k), you got a tax deduction in the US and the tax break is supposed be repaid later when you make a withdrawal (that's basically how tax deferral works).  It's unlikely that any country will let you take a deduction first and send the payback to a foreign country.  The withdrawal amount may also be taxable in Canada (Canadians generally pay taxes on their global income and that includes pensions and distributions from foreign retirement plans).  Foreign tax credit will apply of course, to eliminate double taxation, but it's of little help if your marginal Canadian tax rate is higher than your average US tax rate. 2. Expenses. Your RRSP will have to be invested in something and mutual fund management expenses are generally higher in Canada than in the US.  For example, my employer-sponsored RRSP has a Standard & Poor's stock index fund that charges 1.5% and that is considered low-cost.  It also offers a number of managed funds with expenses in excess of 2% that I simply ignore.  You can probably invest your American 401(k)/IRA in mutual funds more efficiently.
However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year. If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations. Variable hours are a big risk, as is your status as a 'temporary' employee. Though on the flip side you don't need to pay taxes out of each check, allowing you to invest that money throughout the year until taxes are due. Also, if you are considered a private contractor you can write off many expenses that you cannot as a full time employee.
Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar."
I use iBank for Mac to keep track of my expenses. I also use the iPhone version since they can sync over Wi-Fi and I can capture expenses right on the spot instead of trying to remember what I spent on when I turn on my laptop.
Not when they've gerrymandered all their districts and are supported by the campaign donations of large corporations that benefit from these tax plans, and most of our news outlets ARE those large corporations giving out campaign donations to both sides of the aisle so that our population is fed nothing but pro-war, pro-corporation, fuck-you-if-you're-poor-and-not-a-rich-old-white-guy-with-a-country-club-membership propaganda.
It is my understanding that the money in the HSA is yours to keep forever, even if you leave the country.   When you leave the country and no longer have an HSA-eligible High Deductible Health Plan, you will no longer be able to contribute new money to your HSA.  However, you can still spend the money on eligible medical expenses, even if these expenses are outside the U.S.  However, there are a few caveats: The HSA money will remain in a U.S. HSA bank account.  You won't be able to transfer the entire account to a new account in your home country without paying taxes and penalty.  Therefore, you need to have a mechanism for accessing and transferring the money from abroad, so that you can reimburse yourself as you have medical expenses, until the HSA account is empty. Even after you leave the U.S., as long as you have the HSA in place, you will need to file a U.S. tax return (form 1040NR) in any year that you have an HSA distribution. If you decide to take the money out without medical expenses, you will need to pay income tax on the money plus a 20% penalty. See How do I withdraw all money from my HSA account as a non-resident? for more information.
&gt;Here's the real scoop - I would hire more people and buy more inventory and put more into capital investment if I paid less taxes,  You would do so if there was money to be made doing so.   It's as simple as that.   Corporate Taxes are on net income.    If hiring one more person contributed further to your bottom line you'd do so.    That is the only thing that drives you.   If the incremental cost of the hire is lower than the increased revenue.   Period.  Corporate taxes are on net income.   Meaning you're still going to get more money, you're just going to get a little less of that incremental income growth than you thought.    You'll still hire.
&gt; What the hell is that title trying to say?  That I - Deacon John Hubertz, and my tiny church, are going to make a dedicated and if necessary lifelong effort to stop the thieves and scoundrels who charge $10,000 to bury a body.  We do this for the widows, for the orphans, and because I and my entire church are on a mission from God.  We do not own a building, we do not seek to convince or convert, and we never ask for donations. We have been given this righteous task and with all our strength we will do this.  http://saintjosephrcc.blogspot.com/2017/09/god-speaks.html
You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them.  Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance.
Actually, yes, I do think it's fair. It's a corporation, not a family. I think *individuals* should pay 50% of every dollar above $5m. That means every dollar; personal income, capital gains, interest, whatever.  My **only** problem with taxes is how poorly I think they're spent right now. Giving more money to worthless corporate whores (congress) who've already proven they don't have the people's interests at heart is not a concept I relish. One thing at a time though.
There's a serious mistake in your analysis: granted, in the traditional IRA, you avoid paying taxes on the $5000 now, but you're now stuck paying taxes on $2.2 million dollars when you withdraw it later. Obviously, you'll end up paying massively more than $1250 in taxes on this in the end. As other people have pointed out, if you can afford to cut the $1250 elsewhere in your budget, you could still end up with the $2.2M. However, let's say just for argument that you don't; the question then becomes if you're better off taking the tax hit on the $5,000 now or the $2.2 million later. It also really matters how much money you'll be withdrawing when you retire as well as how you'll be doing the withdraws. Personally, my goal is to be able to withdraw as much per year as my highest salary while working, so clearly the Roth IRA is a good deal for me. An important consideration here is that most people believe that their expenses will go down when they retire, but the majority of retirees in some surveys have indicated that their expenses either stayed approximately the same or actually increased. Also, quick reality check: would the fact that you know you'd be saving $1250 on your taxes by contributing to the IRA actually cause you to contribute an extra $1250 to your retirement? Even if you personally would, I highly doubt that most people, with the exception of people who post on this site :), actually think that way (especially given how little most people actually save for retirement).
"I'll start with a question... Is the 63K before or after taxes? The short answer to your question on how much is reasonable is: ""It depends."" It depends on a lot more than where you live, it depends on what you want... do you want to pay down debt? Do you want to save? Are you trying to buy a house? Those will influence how much you ""can"" (should let yourselves) spend. It also depends on your actual salary... just because I spend 5% of my salary on something doesn't mean bonkers to you if you're making 63,000 and I'm only making 10,000. I also have a lot of respect for you trying to take this on. It's never easy. But I would also recommend you start by trying to see what you can do to track how much you are actually spending. That can be hard, especially if you mostly use cash. Once you're tracking what you spend, I still think you're coming at this a bit backwards though... rather than ask 'how much is reasonable' to spend on those other expenses, you basically need to rule out the bigger items first. This means things like taxes, your housing, food, transportation, and kid-related expenses. (I've got 2.5 kids of my own.) I would guess that you're listing your pre-tax salaries on here... so start first with whatever it costs you to pay taxes. I'm a US citizen living in Berlin, haven't filed UK taxes, but uktaxcalculators.co.uk says that on 63,000 a year with 3 deductions your net earnings will actually be 43,500. That's 3,625/month. Then what does it cost you each month for rent/utilities/etc. to put a house over your family's head? The rule of thumb they taught in my home-economics class was 35-40%, but that's not for Europe... you'll know what it costs.
That's really high for short term debt. Do some research, short term is lower risk generally so rates are low. I'm not gonna waste my time but it would have to be real junk to pay close to that high.
"How can I best start a discussion about this topic with SO? I'm guessing your SO is more visual than verbal.  I'd break the ice by presenting an income pie chart and an expenses pie chart, maybe just for 2013 or comparing 2012 and 2013, and then offer your interpretation of an interesting slice or two:  ""I noticed we're saving so much each year that..."" Or, instead of starting with graphically demonstrating your cash flow, start with appropriate graphics demonstrating your savings is growing fast enough that making a few donations wouldn't be a serious impact.  ""See how little we spend compared to our savings?"". In any case, a picture is worth a 1,000 words, so starting with pictures is a good way to start your discussion."
I do something pretty simple when figuring 1099 income.  I keep track of my income and deductible expenses on a spreadsheet.  Then I do total income - total expenses * .25. I keep that amount in a savings account ready to pay taxes.   Given that your estimates for the quarterly payments are low then expected, that amount should be more then enough to fully fund those payments.   If you are correct, and they are low, then really what does it matter?  You will have the money, in the bank, to pay what you actually owe to the IRS.
It's pretty simple.  - Increase banks ability to lend for...    a. mortgages    b. Small businesses  Banks have tremendous quantities of cash trapped on their balance sheets that should be deployed into the economy where it generates growth, jobs, and strengthens the middle class.   - improve infrastructure   Our infrastructure is in disrepair and improving it will generate growth and something to show for the massive debt load we've accumulated for our nation.   - repatriation holiday This capital needs to be working in our economy. - Increase taxes  The massive flood of liquidity we've seen from the FED, what we should be seeing released from banks, and then what we should see from corporations repatriating cash will need to move through the economy and and going to work. Then, taxed; reducing deficits and eventually liquidity. - raise interest rates  In that order.   Capital moves through the market at different rates and paces. I'm usually for lower taxes, but it isn't always the solution.   Lower taxes, reduced regulation, and low interest rates are all different ways of increasing liquidity, but should be increased/reduced at different parts of the economic cycle.   Dimon is right about Washington. This is bullshit.
The idea behind investing in index funds is that you will not under perform the market but also at the same time not over perform against the market either. It is meant for those (majority of the investing population) who do not or cannot invest more time in actively researching different investment options. So even considering for a moment that the yields on the index funds will drop significantly in the future, since the fund is supposed to be replication of the whole market itself, the market too can be assumed to be giving significantly lower future yields. In my opinion the question that you ask is confusing/contradictory because, its like pegging the fund performance to an avg and then asking if it will be higher or lower in the future. But rather its always going to be exactly the average, even if the absolute yields turn higher or lower
It turns out that my logic was faulty. I wasn't aware that RRSP contributions and RRSP deductions are independent. There's no reason to split up my RRSP contributions across the two years. In my original plan, I was going to defer some RRSP contributions until 2017 so that they wouldn't be deducted from my 2016 income. This isn't necessary — nothing is forcing me to deduct the entire RRSP contribution on my taxes this year. I can still follow the plan I described in my question and max out my RRSP contribution this tax year by only deducting part of the contribution on this year's taxes
I like using Mint.com to track my expenses.  It makes it very easy to watch my budget and monitor my spending.