vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Is your mother still paying the premiums, or are you? If you're paying the premiums, then just contact the company and say you are no longer willing to pay and want to cancel the policy. If she's paying the premiums, why do you care? If the issue is the non-smoking declaration, and you are a smoker or want to take up smoking ... I don't know what country you live in, but I'd be surprised if there's a law anywhere that gives your mother the legal authority to forbid you from smoking when you are over 18. If you are paying the premiums, then contact the insurance company and tell them that you are no longer a non-smoker. The premiums may go up. If she is paying the premiums, tell her that you are now a smoker and that she should contact the insurance company about changing this clause in the policy if she wants to be sure it remains valid. If she declines to do this, that's between her and the insurance company. As you're not a party to the contract, it really has nothing to do with you. If, as you say, your mother is not fully capable of managing her affairs, you could contact the insurance company for her. I don't see how you could get the policy ""invalidated"". Unless there is some evidence that the life insurance company made false claims, or somehow tricked your mother into buying the policy, or that the policy violates local law, there is nothing ""invalid"" about it. Just because you've decided you don't want the policy doesn't make it invalid. Likewise I don't see how you could get the premiums refunded. The whole point of life insurance is that you pay a monthly premium, and if and when you die, they pay the beneficiary the face value of the policy. Life insurance is often described as a kind of gambling game: The insurance company is betting that you will live long enough to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. You are betting that you will get more in benefits than you pay in premiums. If you die young, you win!
Does your apartment have several bedrooms that are all different in size? If yes, then everyone can pay by square footage. However, if you share the room with your girlfriend, it won’t work. Even if your live in a master bedroom with her, you friend will probably pay more than your girlfriend.  I heard there are websites that let each roommate bid the max they’re willing to pay for each room in the apartment. You can try one of these service. Or you can simply divide the rent between three of you, but utilities will be covered only by you.
"Before you are married, I recommend keeping your finances separate.  However, once you are married, I recommend combining your finances completely. In my opinion, marriage works best when you work together as a team, a single unit.  You no longer have ""his money"" and ""her money,"" or ""his income"" and ""her income.""  Nor is there ""his debt"" and ""her debt.""  There is only ""our money,"" ""our income,"" ""our debt,"" and ""our budget.""   Indeed, if you are the one with less debt, isn't it in your household's best interest to help eliminate your spouse's debt as fast as possible?  If you are the one with more income/employment, how do you quantify the monetary value of the spouse who stays at home more and manages the household?  You can't, and it is best not to try.  Instead, pool together all income and expenses, and work together to meet common goals. To do this, open up a joint bank account and close your individual accounts. Meet on a regular basis to decide your household budget.  If you do that, it doesn't matter who is responsible for the mechanics of paying the bills or balancing the budget.  These tasks just get assigned to someone, just like any other household chore. Usually, one of you will be more financially minded than the other, and that person will take the lead in setting the budget, paying the bills, balancing the checkbook, etc.  However, it is important that both people are aware of what is going on and have access to the financial information.   In our house, I am the one who takes the lead on financial matters.  I pay the bills (out of our joint accounts) and set the monthly budget using YNAB software.  However, my wife has the ability to look at YNAB at any time to see the budget, and she can log into the bank website to see the transactions there as well.  No secrets. To be clear, we each have a small amount of cash/fun money that we can spend without worrying about checking in with the spouse on every little thing.  But this is a small percentage of our budget, and we talk to each other before spending any significant amount of money."
"You're potentially in very deep water here. You don't know who this person is that you're dealing with. Before you'd even met him, he just gave you his banking info, seemingly without a second thought. You have no idea what the sources of his money are, so what happens if the money is stolen or otherwise illegal? If it is determined that you used any of that money, you'll be on the hook to return it, at the very least. Who knows what the legal ramifications are either? So it sounds like you began spending his money before you had any kind of written agreement in place? Doesn't that seem odd to you to have someone just so trusting as to not even ask for that? Was the source of the email about the $2500 from PayPal, or from him or his advisor? PayPal always sends you a notice directly when funds are received into your account, and even if they were going to put a temporary hold on them for whatever reason (sometimes they do that), it would still show up in your account. I would HIGHLY (can I be more emphatic?) advise you not to go anywhere NEAR his bank account until or unless you can absolutely verify who he is, where his money comes from, and what the situation is. If you start dipping into his account, whether you think you're somehow entitled to the money or not, he could cry foul and have you arrested for theft. This is a very odd situation, and for someone who says he's normally cautious and skeptical, you sure let your guard down here when you started spending his money without making any serious effort to confirm his bona fides. Just because he passes himself off as smart and the ""doctor type"" doesn't mean squat. The very best scammers can do that (ever see the movie ""Catch Me If You Can"", based on a true story?), so you have no basis for knowing he's anything at all. I am thoroughly confused as to why you'd just willfully start using his money without knowing anything about him. That's deeply disconcerting, because you've opened yourself up to a world of potential criminal and civil liability if this situation goes south.
A huge part of the problem is that low income people have been very heavily marketed to by the online and for profit colleges because they were eligible for financial aid (mainly loans) and were seen ONLY as a straw through which to suck money out of the government by these “schools”. Because they were only interested in the money, there was no attempt to qualify students in many of these schools or provide any support to them. When students dropped out their “counselors” would keep signing them up for classes that they didn’t know about or attend. Because a lot of the schools are bullshit schools with either no reputation or a poor one, even those who finished were largely not able to get the high paying jobs they were promised in order to lure them in. This goes for low income students, especially ones whose families have no previous experience with post high school education, across the board, and all of this group is far more likely to default (because they were basically ripped off, got nothing useful from these bogus schools and were often outright defrauded, and do not have the income they were told they would have when agreeing to the loans) but because there is a higher percentage of minorities among this group they are more likely to be defaulters. But our unforgiving student loan system doesn’t differentiate between loans for real eduacation and loans for these rip off “schools” so you are still 100% on the hook regardless. Even if they signed you up for several more semesters’ worth of classes after you “withdrew”. It’s a lot like the mortgage collapse—desperate to keep making money, the lenders targeted increasingly less qualified people who were also naive about the entire system and sold them terrible loans (sometimes talking them out of more reasonable options) and then when the whole thing starts to fail, it’s all “because the government made the banks give mortgages to poor black people”. The institutions suck up the money and leave bewildered poor people holding the bag, now even poorer with nothing to show for the debt they will literally be digging out of forever. The Obama administration FINALLY took some steps to control the predatory for-profit institutions and try to sort out who had been ripped off vs people who had genuinely received any useful education, but of course the new Sec of Education is doing her best to roll all that back. And most of the victims aren’t teens either.
Scouting for a latest addition to your house however doesn’t wish to reward across 1000 dollars for a latest couch? Then a bean bag footstools uk for adults is a best manner to go. The snooze sack is the lowest rates giant foam bags on web and they get upto eight feet in size!
&gt;&gt;Barrasso expressed worries at committee hearing in February that rural states like his wouldn’t attract much of the private investment Trump promised. Those people need to consolidate themselves into more urban-like areas.  That's because sparse populations spread across wide geography is extremely cost-prohibitive. Those people need to consolidate themselves into urban-like areas.  &gt;&gt;forcing multinational companies who have kept about $2 trillion in profits offshore to bring the money home  That money was collected outside of the US, and the reason they're  not bringing it home is because it's more cost-effective to pay interest on a loan than to pay taxes on the money.  &gt;&gt;“We have woefully underinvested in our nation’s infrastructure for decades,   You've refused to open the infrastructure to the free market. By maintaining a forced monopoly, you've put all the eggs in one basket, and stifled innovation and even basic upkeep.  &gt;&gt;“If we make serious and smart investments in infrastructure, we could jump-start our local and national economy. We can’t afford to squander this moment.”  Then you need to privatize. A smart investment doesn't need to be forced, it merely needs to be allowed to happen.
"At this point there is not much you can do.  The documentation probably points to you being the sole owner and signer on the loan.  Then, any civil suit will degenerate into a ""he said, she said"" scenario.  Luckily, no one was truly harmed in the scenario.   Obtaining financing through a car dealer is almost always not advisable.  So from here, you can do what should have been done in the first place.  Go to banks and credit unions so your daughter can refinance the car.  You will probably get a lower rate, and there is seldom a fee.   I would start with the bank/CU where she does her checking or has some other kind of a relationship.  If that fails, anywhere you can actually sit and talk with a loan officer is preferable over the big corporate type banks.   Car dealers lying is nothing new, it happens to everyone.  Buying a car is like a battle."
Free Wire Transfers You get better deals on wire transfer fees from brokerage firms and mutual fund companies. Vanguard doesn’t charge a wire transfer fee if the amount of the wire is over $5,000; the fee is only $5 if the amount is between $1,000 and $5,000. Fidelity doesn’t charge a wire transfer fee if your total household balance at Fidelity is above a certain amount ($15 otherwise). Schwab gives you three free domestic wire transfers per quarter if your total household balance at Schwab is above a certain amount ($25 otherwise). Incoming wires are free at Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab. Business checking accounts sometimes get free wire transfers. For example you get 10 free wire transfers every month (5 incoming, 5 outgoing) with HSBC’s free no-minimum-balance Business Direct checking account. Some premium level personal checking accounts also give free wire transfers. For example if you have Premier Checking at Northwest Federal Credit Union ($50,000 minimum balance or $10 monthly fee), you get free outgoing domestic wire transfers. The Vanguard information in that article appears to be dated: they seem to allow free outgoing wire transfers without caveat even from the minimal, fee-free account. I am aware of PNC's Performance Select checking account, which allows unlimited free domestic wire transfers. The fee for this account is $25 per month, which would be around $5 per weekly transfer. Alternatively, the fee is waived if you maintain a $5000 minimum balance or $5000 direct deposit.
Credit cards are often more fool proof, against over-drawing. Consider Bill has solid cash flow, but most of their money is in his high interest savings account (earning interest) -- an account that doesn't have a card, but is accessible via online banking. Bill keeps enough in the debit (transactions) account for regular spending, much of which comes out automatically (E.g. rent, utilities), some of which he spends as needed eg shopping, lunch. On top of the day to day money Bill keeps an overhead amount, so if something happens he doesn't overdraw the account -- which would incur significant fees. Now oneday Bill sees that the giant flatscreen TV he has been saving for is on clearence sale -- half price!, and there is just one left. It costs more than he would normally spend in a week -- much more. But Bill knows that his pay should have just gone in, and his rent not yet come out. Plus the overhead he keep in the account . So there is money in his debit account. When he gets home he can open up online banking and transfer from his savings (After all the TV is what he was saving for) What Bill forgets is that there was a public holiday last week in the state where payroll is operated, and that his pay is going to go in a day late. So now he might have over drawn the account buying the TV, or maybe that was fine, but paying the rent over draws the account. Now he has a overdraft fee, probably on the order of $50. Most banks (at least where I am), will happily allow you to overdraw you account. Giving you a loan, at high interest and with an immediate overdraft fee. (They do this cos the fee is so high that they can tolerate the risk of the non-assessed loan.) Sometimes (if you ask) they don't let you do it with your own transcations (eg buying the TV), but they do let you do it on automated payements (eg the Rent). On the other hand banks will not let you over draw a credit card. They know exactly how much loan and risk they were going to take.
It sounds extremely fishy to me. Who has $750 in cash in his pocket and uses it to pay rent?? I would ask the tenant to show a statement from her checking account which shows that she took out that much cash in the days before the 'payment', and if she cannot provide it (or another convincing explanation), I would consider it a lie and request payment.
There is no issue - and no question - if you get married.  The question is only relevant in the event that you go separate ways.  Should that happen, you imply that you would want to refund whatever amount your girlfriend has paid toward the mortgage. The solution, then, would seem to be to exempt her from any payments, as you will either give that money back to her (if you break up) or make her a co-owner of the condo (if you get married).  If you actually need her contributions to the monthly nut, you could give her a written agreement whereby you would refund her money (plus interest) at her discretion.
Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ??  Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.
He would spend it into the economy that is accepting his dollars. As an example, the apple maker might borrow $100 with $10 interest for the deer shank, then later on get the $100 back from the deer hunter in trade for 150 apples, and then pay this $100 to the banker. Now the apple maker still needs $10 to pay off his loan. The banker says he'll trade his $10 in interest profit for 15 apples, now the apple maker can resolve his debt without further borrowing.  The difference between spending interest earnings and issuing a loan is that when the banker is spending, they are getting something for their own use, when they are issuing the loan, they aren't getting anything but the promise to repay that loan.
Many business owners fail to see the relevance of insuring their inventory, supplies, computers, equipment, focusing instead on obtaining health insurance for their employees. Yes, the latter is important, but that doesn’t mean you should neglect property insurance altogether.
Air Condition is a very essential appliance during the summers. But when it doesn’t work properly it affects a lot. This leads us towards the repairing and for this we have to choose such professional who have well trained and experienced in AC repairs.
You currently have 5400€ between you and 2600€ expenses leaving you 2800€. You currently keep 1900€ and she keeps 900€ at the end of each month splitting 68/32. If you marry and have a child, your combined income will go down to 4900€ while your expenses will increase by 300€ to 2900€ leaving 2000€. You could continue to split 68/32 leaving you 1360€ and her 640€. If you use this split you will lose 540€ and she will lose 260€. That's a 28% loss for you and a 28% loss for her from your end of month take home. So far it sounds reasonably fair. What about the future? For each raise, the person getting the raise keeps 66% of their raises. If you get the majority of the raises, you keep the majority of the benefit, but both benefit from the increase. Any future increases in expenses can be split as negotiated based on who benefits from those increases. That's basically what you are doing now considering that adding a child will cost a lot of her time, not just your money.
"Like everybody else I'm picking up on the school loans - you're mother isn't exactly earning a massive amount of money given her cost of living, why is she taking out student loans that benefit you and your sister? I'm not trying to be offensive but it's fairly obvious that she can't afford it. As a first step I think you should at least take over paying your own student loans (you sound like you're out of college already and if you have $8k to ""lend"" to your mother you probably have enough money to pay the student loans that benefited you, after all) or as someone else also recommended, assume your loans. As to your sister, maybe it's time for her to get (another) job to pay for the tuition so her mother doesn't have to go further into debt. Again, I'm not trying to be mean here but your mother is digging herself deeper and deeper into a hole because of the tuition. Something's gotta give, and delivering pizza or getting a paper round is a small sacrifice here. Next, the car - unless she has a managed to work herself out of some of this mess, I would consider getting a much cheaper car instead. This is provided that she isn't upside down on the loan. Personally I wouldn't trade in a vehicle with an upside down loan, if anything that's another bad financial decision. Assuming that she isn't upside down on the loan and has some equity in the car, I would seriously consider selling the car and using the equity to buy something small and cheap. That should also hopefully reduce the cost of gas and maybe insurance somewhat. I think these points are probably the quickest steps that can be taken towards recovering this situation. You already mentioned the longer term plans like downsizing the apartment, but TBH I'm not sure that this is really necessary. The big elephant in the room are the college costs and removing those from the equation would give her a serious amount of breathing room."
"It's probably a scam or maybe some amateur agency trying to put pressure on their target. Normal garnishment goes through the court system. Just ignore it. Tell your employer they obviously have the wrong person since the SS is wrong.  Suing clowns like this is not worth it. Just to clarify this some more for you: Trying to collect on a random person with the same name is called ""tagging"" in the collection industry. Before 2010 it was common because it was actually easier to legally bully the wrong person (who had money) than the right person who does not have money. That was then, this is now. Various federal and state laws have been passed since that time to prevent identity theft and these laws create big liabilities for debt collectors that try to bully the wrong person. Therefore, it rarely happens anymore, though of course sometimes agencies will still call you if they think they have a soft target. That's what the call to your employer is, just a test. A pro collector (like a law firm) would never call an employer, because they could get sued for doing that, but some amateur working out of his basement might. That's what you are dealing with: some joker in a basement. Such people never sue, they just buy old debt for pennies on the dollar and try random harassing phone calls. Ignore it and he will move on to the next ""John Smith"" on his list. A lot of lawyers will advise you to ""talk"" to the collector, correcting their misinformation, blah blah. Lawyers like talking, because the more talk there is, the more money they make. In the real legal world: never talk to your enemy or give them information. The way real courts and judges work is that they don't like plaintiffs who sue the wrong person. In fact, they do not like it VERY MUCH. Very bad things happen in courtrooms to people who sue the wrong person. Judges have VERY short patience in general and they DO NOT LIKE IT when somebody wastes their time by suing the wrong person. Basically what this means is: ignore the guy and he will go away."
Linear Title provides high quality title and escrow services to companies in the real estate industry, but Linear Title’s service orientation doesn’t end there—Linear Title is proud to support its community through philanthropic efforts, including most recently Linear Title’s involvement in the Eastern 4H Country Fair, Rhode Island.The contributions of sponsors such as Linear Title help defray the expenses of the fair so that it can remain affordable for the families who participate in it
1. BRK.A is a listed Co so it doesnt face redemption problems on its funds.    2. BRK.A is a listed Co, so the valuation of its holdings is depending on its own auditor w/ little scrutiny, aka, it mark could be more flexible and doesn't hurt its asset book.
If that condition is permanent -- the stock will NEVER pay dividends and you will NEVER be able to sell it -- then yes, it sounds to me like this is a worthless piece of paper. If there is some possibility that the stock will pay dividends in the future, or that a market will exist to sell it, then you are making a long-term investment. It all depends on how likely it is that the situation will change. If the investment is small, maybe it's worth it.