vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The PPF and NSC can broadly be compared as below; PPF is public provident scheme with initial period of 15 years and can be extended by 5 yrs blocks. There is a minimum investment of Rs 500 every year and a maximum of Rs 1,50,000 per year for 2014-15 financial year. The gains from PPF are also exempt from any and all capital gains tax. NSC is like fixed deposits for a period of 6 years. They can be purchased from Post office in multiples of Rs. 100, Rs. 500, Rs. 1,000, Rs. 5,000 & Rs. 10,000. There is no maximum limit of purchase, however tax rebate is only to the extent of Rs 1,50,000 on 2014-15 financial year.  Interest Rate: Both currently offer 8.75% interest rate. Incase of PPF the interest rate is declared every year and is applicable to the entire invested corpus. In case of NSC, the interest is fixed for the tenure of the investment, changes in interest are applicable for next investments. The interest is compounded   Account Operation:   Withdrawals: In PPF the first withdrawal is possible in the 7 years, for 50% balance of the 4th year and like wise for subsequent years. In NSC there is no premature withdrawal, however one can get loan from Banks by Hypothecation of the certificates.   Tax Benefits: Both PPF and NSC enjoy tax benefits under 80C. However the PPF follows what is called an EEE regime, under which the Investment is exempt from tax, the interest accrued is exempt from tax and the withdrawal is also exempt from tax. The NSC however only the investment is exempt from tax, the interest earned has to be shown as income and would be treated as invested. On withdrawal, the interest would be taxed accordingly. The best benefit of PPF account cannot be attached by court of law in case one comes under financial liability. IE the money in the PPF account can only be used by you. Hence it would make more sense to invest in PPF
Amortization is the process by which your loan balance decreases over time. For both mortgages and credit card balances, your interest charges are based on what you owe.  The calculation of the balance is a little different, but it still is based on what you owe. You're observing correctly that most of the first payments on a mortgage are interest.  This stands to reason since an amortization schedule (for a fixed-rate mortgage) is constructed on the assumption that you're making your payments equally over the course of the mortgage.  Since you owe more at the beginning, you accrue more interest, and a larger fraction of your payment is interest.  Near the end, you owe little, and most of your payment, therefore, is principal.
I'm a woman in her early 30s who has a bachelors degree and a job.  I rent an apartment, own my car and spend within my means because that's what I was taught.  When my sister and now ex-bro-in-law decided to buy a house in the middle of the bubble, despite having no saved money and a child on the way I shook my head at them.  They responded with, 'Real estate only goes up, it's an investment'...I laughed and told them they were fucking stupid to pay $350,000 for an older 2 bedroom house in Phoenix, AZ that was severely overpriced but they said, 'well it's 0 down and the interest rate is like NOTHING!'  Cut to now, the same house is worth MAYBE $110,000 but ya know that great interest rate they got at the beginning wasn't so great when they had to refi so they didn't want to pay their payments for a $110,000 house with a $350,000 loan so they stopped paying their mortgage.  Nothing really happened except some letters were sent and was told that the only way to get a better interest rate was to HAVE to miss a certain number of payments (maybe 6 months) in order to qualify for the loan the Obama admin had created.  At some point that year she decided to get a boob job, tummy tuck and liposuction and her and her husband felt the need to purchase all kinds of new things.  She eventually did qualify for that government help and was totally forgiven for the 6-8 months of payments they missed... so CLEARLY purposely missing payments would have been considered 'very smart' by those same analysts who called what American Airlines did as 'very smart.    So I sit here, with my morals in tact and they sit there like a million other people in this country having their cake and eating it too so I have to wonder WHAT THE FUCK? Was I the stupid one for not following the rest of the asshole idiot sheep and screwing all the people with what I would have thought were basic morals?  It appears so.
It's much more complicated than that. But to be extraordinarily brief, tech companies (and pharma and everyone else) off-shore the further development of IP (etc.) once it's going to be successful. They then license it back to the US-based entity, and gin up all manner of tax benefits. (Source: I did this for a living.)  The problem is that the revolutionary product that's generating billions of dollars was conceived of in the US, developed in the US under the benefits of the US economy at large, protected by US laws, often subsidized by US tax dollars, initially driven by US markets, and is owned by a US parent company. However, having used the vehicle to wealth that is the US, the company then cuts off the tax revenue to the US that's suppose to continue to fuel the broader context that gave rise to the benefits in the first place.   Say what you want about US corporate tax rates. This money has been subjected to 0% taxes in most cases and no chance in US tax rates will chance that calculation.   [This TED Talk is worth watching](https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_investor_risk_taker_innovator)
I concur with the other answers about not mixing family and money: the one whose loans are paid off second will be taking the credit risk of the other not paying/being able to pay. There may also be tax implications. That said, if you do still want to do this, I think there's a fairly straightforward way to account for the payments. With your scenario, your brother should make you a personal loan at some interest rate inbetween 5% and 10%. That loan would be tracked independently of the actual student loans. Any money that your brother transfers to you to pay off your loans, add to that personal loan, and later on once your loans are paid off you start repaying the loan to him and he uses the proceeds for his own loans. The interest rate will determine how the benefit of paying off the 10% loans is shared: if the rate is set at 10% then your brother will get all the benefit, if 5% you will get all the benefit, and 7.5% would roughly share it out. This means that you can still manage your own student loans separately. Your brother can choose how little or much to commit to the snowball rather than his own loans (of course he should first make the minimum payments on his own loans). Anything he does loan you benefits you both if we ignore the credit and tax issues - he gets more than the 5% interest on his own loans, and you pay less than the 10% interest on your loans. You'll need to track the payments each way on this personal loan and apply interest to it every so often, I'd suggest monthly (beware that the monthly equivalent of 5% annual interest is not 5%/12, because of compounding).
"The can and the should have been discussed in other answers and comments, and so I will discuss the how. As others have noted, it is important to make sure that the additional money goes to reducing principal and not towards prepayment of interest. Unfortunately, very few bank tellers understand how mortgages work and very few bank officers - even loan officers - understand how mortgages work too. Thus a statement that you want the extra money to go towards principal will likely be met with a blank look. Furthermore, what they do with the money and how it is entered on the bank books that afternoon when the transactions are recorded may have no resemblance to what was discussed and agreed to earlier in the day. Based on my personal experiences and many arguments with banks about how they handled my prepayments and how interest was computed, I would recommend the following (which is easier now that automated payments are possible for the standard monthly payment and additional payments are possible via electronic funds transfer). Make sure that automated payments are made on the day that the payment is due, not at the end of the ten-day grace period that banks love to grant you for making the monthly payment. Yes, there is no penalty for late payment as long as you pay before the end of the grace period, but interest continues to be charged and so more of each graciously delayed payment goes to interest and less towards principal. Make the additional payment on the same day as the standard monthly mortgage payment is made. This ensures that at worst just one day's interest is owing when the additional payment is made. Also, payment in the middle of the monthly cycle is an almost sure way of getting ripped off on the interest because the bank's computers will post the payment in the manner most favorable to them, and usually contrary to the terms of your mortgage. I have complained to banks about mishandled mid-month payments and won every time, and on many occasions the bank officer would grudgingly say ""We have always done it this way and nobody ever complained till you did today."" I doubt very much if the bank's programs got changed as a result of my complaints.
"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments?
Understandably, it appears as if one must construct the flows oneself because of the work involved to include every loan variation. First, it would be best to distinguish between cash and accrued, otherwise known as the economic, costs. The cash cost is, as you've identified, the payment. This is a reality for cash management, and it's wise that you wish to track it. However, by accruals, the only economic cost involved in the payment is the interest. The reason is because the rest of the payment flows from one form of asset to another, so if out of a $1,000 payment, $100 is principal repayment, you have merely traded $100 of cash for $100 of house. The cash costs will be accounted for on the cash flow statement while the accrued or economic costs will be accounted on the income statement. It appears as if you've accounted for this properly. However, for the resolution that you desire, the accounts must first flow through the income statement followed next instead of directly from assets to liabilities. This is where you can get a sense of the true costs of the home. To get better accrual resolution, credit cash and debit mortgage interest expense & principal repayment. Book the mortgage interest expense on the income statement and then cancel the principal repayment account with the loan account. The principal repayment should not be treated as an expense; however, the cash payment that pays down the mortgage balance should be booked so that it will appear on the cash flow statement. Because you weren't doing this before, and you were debiting the entire payment off of the loan, you should probably notice your booked loan account diverging from the actual. This proper booking will resolve that. When you are comfortable with booking the payments, you can book unrealized gains and losses by marking the house to market in this statement to get a better understanding of your financial position. The cash flow statement with proper bookings should show how the cash has flowed, so if it is according to standards, household operations should show a positive flow from labor/investments less the amount of interest expense while financing will show a negative flow from principal repayment.
"You don't actually have to make four equal payments on US federal taxes; you can pay different amounts each quarter.  To avoid penalties, you must have paid ""enough"" at the end of each quarter.  If you pay too much in an early quarter, the surplus counts towards the amount due in later quarters.  If you have paid too little as of the end of a quarter, that deficit counts against you for interest and penalties until it is made up in later quarters (or at year-end settlement). How much is ""enough""?  There are a number of ways of figuring it.  You can see the list of exceptions to the penalty in the IRS documentation.  Using unequal payments may require more complicated calculation methods to avoid or reduce penalties at year-end.  If you have the stomach for it, you may want to study the Annualized Income Installment Method to see how uneven income might affect the penalty."
The crucial insight is that the alternative to early exercise of an American call is not necessarily to hold it to expiry, but to sell it. And selling it, at its value, is always better than exercising it.  Note that this holds only for options on assets that don't pay dividends. Here's the proof, using Put-Call-Parity. We know that at expiry T, we have (using a Call and a Put both struck at K): C(T) - P(T) = S(T) - K (if this is not clear to you, consider the case where S is less than, equal to, or greater than K at maturity, and go through each of them.) If the stock S doesn't pay any dividends (and there is no cost of carry etc.), we can replicate both sides now at time 0; we just buy one call, sell one put (that gives us the left hand side), buy the stock, and borrow money so that at time T we have to repay K (that gives us the right hand side). That means that now, we only need to borrow df * K, where df is the discount factor, and is less than one (assuming the good old pre-2009 world where interest rates are positive). Thus: C(0) - P(0) = S(0) - df * K.  Rearranging gives: C(0) = S(0) - df * K + P(0).  That's the value of the call, if we sell it (or hold it). However, if we exercise, we only get: C_ex = S(0) - K Now, we see that C(0) > C_ex, because we subtract less (df*K < K), and add P(0).
"This seems like a huge advantage for a Roth to the point where I can't   figure out why anyone would choose a traditional. You are missing something called the time value of money. This is the concept that a certain amount of money now has the same value as a bigger amount of money later. Basically, you wouldn't be willing to give up an amount of money now and get the same amount of money later -- you need to get a larger amount later to be willing to exchange it for a certain amount now. So that larger amount later has the same value to you than that smaller amount now. This is the idea behind interest and investment returns. When you make an investment, and it earns interest or gains over a period of time, in effect that final amount of money (principal + interest) has the same value as the principal when you started, because that final amount was grown from the original principal. So whether you are taxed on the principal in the beginning (as in Roth IRA) or on the principal + interest at the end (as in Traditional IRA), you are still taxed on the same value of money. And if the tax rates are the same between now and in the future, then you pay the same value in taxes in both cases. Roth would only be better than Traditional if the tax rates are lower now than when you take it out; and Traditional would only be better than Roth if the tax rates are higher now than when you take it out. Let's consider a simple example to demonstrate that the two are equivalent if the tax rates (assuming a flat tax, because tax brackets introduce other complications) are the same now and when you take it out. In both cases, you start with $1000 pre-tax wages, you invest it for 10 years in a place with guaranteed 5% returns per year adn then take it out, there are no penalties for withdrawal, and there is a flat 25% tax now and in the future. Note that you are left with the same amount of money in both cases. This arises from the associativity of multiplication. Note that Roth IRA has a higher effective ""limit"" than Traditional IRA, because the nominal limit is the same for both, but Roth is post-tax. So if you contribute to near the limit, where Traditional can no longer match the value that Roth can contribute, then the comparison no longer applies. The $1000 in this example is below the limit for both."
The bonus share also improves the liquidity however there is some difference in treatment. Lets say a company has 100 shares, of $10 ea. The total capital of the compnay is 100*10 = 1000. Assuming the company is doing well, its share is now available in the market for $100 ea. Now lets say the company has made a profit of $1000 and this also gets factored into the price of $100. Lets say the company decides to keep this $1000 kept as Cash Reserve and is not distributed as dividends.   In a share split say (1:1), the book value of each share is now reduced to $5, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital stays at 200*5 = 1000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea.   In a Bonus share issue say (1:1), the funds $1000 are moved from Cash Reserve and transferred to share capital. The book value of each share will remain same as $10, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital increases to 200*10 = 2000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea.   So essentially from a liquidity point of view both give the same benefit. As to why some companies issue bonus and not a split, this is because of multiple reasons. A split beyond a point cannot be done, ie $10 can be split to $1 ea but it doesn't look good to make it $0.50. The other reason is there is adequate cash reserve and you want to convert this into share holders capital. Having a larger share holders capital improves some of the health ratios for the compnay. At times bouns is used to play upon that one is getting something free.
Over my lifetime (over sixty now) I found that having both options (white- and blue-collar) available always meant I could get work. By the age of twenty-one I had two paths available; by the age of forty-five I had four. The key is to not lock yourself into one path and always be learning something new, which means having an awareness of your society and its technology *and be interested in it.* The sad truth is that most people just aren't intelligent enough to be able to so this and that is not a bad thing; we're not all the same and so can't be held to the same measuring stick.
Socialism is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and price controls existed in human civilization before socialism was a concept.  Secondly, stocked supermarkets are not the same as population's well being. I was in Soviet Union in the middle of perestroika when the system went from everybody having money and there was nothing to buy, to supermarkets having everything and no one having cash. The quality of life was actually going down precipitously for vast majority of the population, and they didn't quite recover to this day (although there is absolutely no shortage of $3000 lingerie sets at fashion stores on Tverskaya).
"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are ""lending"" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the ""saver"" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. ""Savers"" therefore ""shop around"" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same.