vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Look into the asset allocations of lifecycle funds offered by a company like Vanguard. This page allows you to select your current age and find a fund based on that. You could pick a fund, like the Target Retirement 2055 Fund (ages 21-25), and examine its allocation in the Portfolio & Management tab. For this fund, the breakdown is: Then, look at the allocation of the underlying funds that comprise the lifecycle fund, in the same tab.  Look at each of those funds and see what asset allocation they use, and that should give you a rough idea for an age-based allocation. For example, the Total Stock Market Index Fund page has a sector breakdown, so if you wanted to get very fine-grained with your allocation, you could. (You're probably much better off investing in the index fund, low-cost ETFs, or the lifecycle fund itself, however; it'll be much cheaper).  Doing this for several lifecycle funds should be a good start. Keep in mind, however, that these funds are rebalanced as the target date approaches, so if you're following the allocation of some particular funds, you'll have to rebalance as well. If you really want an age-based allocation that you don't have to think about, invest in a lifecycle fund directly. You'll probably pay a lower expense ratio than if you invested in a whole slew of funds directory, and it's less work for someone who isn't comfortable managing their portfolio themselves. Furthermore, with Vanguard, the expense ratios are already fairly low.  This is only one example of an allocation, however; your tolerance of risk, age, etc. may affect what allocation you're willing to accept.  Full disclosure: Part of my Roth IRA is invested in the Target 2055 fund I used as an example above, and another part uses a similar rebalancing strategy to the one I used above, but with Admiral Share funds, which have higher minimum investments but lower expense ratios.
If your uncle is looking to maintain life insurance coverage for specific shorter period of time he may want to look into hybrid life insurance. If you buy a hybrid universal life policy, the premium and death benefit can be guaranteed to last until any age. Since, most permanent policies focus on cash value accumulation it is hard for most people to find cheap whole life or affordable universal life. Consumers only looking for a longer duration have a more flexible choice with a new hybrid product that combines elements of both term life coverage and universal life. Hybrid universal  policies are much cheaper then other permanent coverage such as whole life coverage because they do not emphasize cash value accumulation. However, the premiums and death benefits can still be guaranteed to a specific age (i.e. 85, 90, 95, 100). So, premiums can be scaled to coordinate with your desired budget and the face amount required for your family. Typical universal life and whole life insurance contracts only allow for lifetime coverage. However, hybrid universal life offers a much smaller premium because the coverage can be dialed into a specific age. If the policyholder does live beyond the originally selected age, the death benefit will simply begin getting smaller, while the original premium will  continue to remain the same.
The fact base evidence is reinforcing the understanding that dramatic increases in minimum wage is detrimental in the short and long term for marginal workers.  I suppose we can stick on head in the sand but I would rather call it the way it is.  The politicians jumping up and down demanding increased minimum wages are only looking for the short-term publicity.   By time everyone realizes it was a rotten deal the politicians will be long gone.
The best thing about Washington is that thousands of young professionals flock to the area every year and they all happen to be at the perfect age to get married. Mervis Diamond is the right place for them as they can get stunning engagement rings and wedding bands, diamond studs, and much more here. No matter what the occasion is, you can make a style statement with gorgeous masterpieces that we design for you.
From what I see, it is more like .70 per contract, with a $1 minimum (for options that trade over a dime.)   IB does not provide any help, at all, so you have to know what you are doing.  I use tradeking, which charges about $6 for a contract, but you can call them for help if needed. There looks to be other fees for IB, like when you cancel an order, but that can be offset by other trades. It is one of the reason the Motley Fool Stock Adviser service has recommended IB for an investment.
"Your first article is all about analyzing the effect of minimum wage on employment by looking at rents. Their analysis ""assumes peoples' utility functions in a particular city depend on wages plus amenities less the cost of rent available in that city""  Basically if wages go up (due to a minimum wage hike for example) the city is more desirable to live in and people would lay more to live there. That is not at all the mechanism you were talking about and would not apply for a national raise in minimum wage.   Why should I read the rest of your links when you didn't even read the first one?"
Berkshire Hathaway's earnings for the last reported quarter were $6.395 billion, which works out to $822 in profit per second, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is directly the result of about 50 years of carefully applying the value investing philosophy.
You should find the best online jewelry seller in USA, which has  a unique high quality material necklace. It is one of most online seller of jewelry, the essential oil necklace gives you a beautiful look. It is a basic needs of every woman to wear the latest design in jewelry, so we complete that requirement. It is an interesting place for those customers who fear to buy any product online, our company Izzy Bell Boutique makes the very cheapest price and latest design essential oil necklace. So we are also available online for full fill the requirements of the customers.
"Educating everyone is a cultural investment, but not necessarily a good fiscal investment. (for the govt.)  200 years ago, being able to read and perform arithmetic pretty much guaranteed you an ok job, because it was a rare skillset.  The government decided that everyone being able to read and do basic maths would be a good thing, so they force us all to pay for it and they force us all to attend school. So, most of the country has a basic education. That's obviously a good thing, but it doesn't guarantee everyone in the country a good job. If 1000's of people have the same skillset and are all applying for the same job, it's impossible to differentiate job candidates. In the job market, a skill that everyone has is effectively valueless.   The same thing is happening with college. We have tons of college graduates that are all applying for the exact same jobs, and we (as a society) have produced more people to do that small group of jobs and haven't produced any people to do other jobs. Somewhat ironically immigrant workers do a lot of the work we should be doing ourselves, but we all went to college and all want to do the same ""good/high paying/etc"" jobs. And there's too many of us and not very much demand for the skills we can deliver.  So, giving secondary educations to even more people, wouldn't be a bad thing in and of itself. But it wouldn't help anyone find work."
In some cases, we when we see an opportunity to save our clients money, without risking valuable coverage or diminishing benefits, we make certain recommendations for more affordable life insurance. One of these strategies is laddering (or layering) term lengths, or term maturities. The strategy is simple. While most people who are considering longer terms, such as 20 or 30 year term, purchase a single policy to fit their needs, the laddering strategy has you purchase two policies totaling the same amount of coverage you currently need, but with a shorter length term mixed with the longer term. For example, instead of purchasing a 30 year term for $1 million dollars, you might purchase two policies for $500,000 each, one with a 15 year term, and the other with a 30 year term. The result is typically a savings of 15%-25% on your term life insurance. Just be aware that the plan going in is to let the first policy go (the one with the shorter term length) when its level term has expired. For example in a 15 year term, the premiums will be guaranteed to stay level the first 15 years, and then increase every year thereafter. There is typically a sizable jump in rates in that 16th year. Clients often see rates increase 8-10 times or more. Therefore, it’s important you understand that going in, and realize you will most likely let that first policy go when the premiums increase, leaving you with the second policy through the end of its (longer) level term. You can crunch some numbers with our laddering calculator: https://www.jrcinsurancegroup.com/term-life-insurance-laddering-calculator/
Your 1&2 are the end of that chapter. You can't convert for that year again, and must wait 30 days to convert in the new tax year.  For example, each year for over a decade, I've helped my mother in law with this. In May, we convert a chunk of money/stock to Roth. In April, I'll recharacterize just enough so she tops off her 15% bracket but doesn't hit 25%. 30 days later, the new conversion happens. All the Roth money is money now taxed at 15%, which, in an emergency, a need for a lot of cash, will avoid the potential of 25% or higher, tax. You see, your 3 never really happens.
"Welcome to Money.SE. Please forgive what might sound like a cliche, ""How well do you sleep at night?"" I mean, specific to the mortgage. There are those who are in a group who consider debt, at any rate, to be inherently bad, and would not take on a 2% mortgage even if a different bank were offering 4% CDs. You just need to understand the risk.  Your mortgage cost after taxes may be 2.625% (if you are in the 25% bracket) therefore, your break even is 3.09% for long term investments. The recent ""lost decade"" had a return of -9.5% for the full 10 year period. This is just about the worst decade in modern history. The average 10 year return is a cumulative 183% gain, with a standard deviation of 138%. If a perfect bell curve, this means that 1 10 year in 6 will give you a return under 45%. In fact, of the last 100 10 year periods, 15 had returns less than 45%, and just 8 were less than 30%, right in line with the bell curve stats. We always need to say ""past performance is no guarantee of future results,"" yet, when it comes to the market (I use the S&P for my numbers, by the way) we do have history to give us an idea of the kind of volatility we might see over the years. In my opinion, your approach is sound, and your returns very skewed to the positive, the median 10 year return being 138%, vs your cost of money of 40% or so for a decade.  It's pretty easy to pull S&P data into a spreadsheet and analyze as you wish."
Canada Banks offered no such product, and when the US market got pneumonia, Canada experienced a mild cold. With respect to any answers that offer US centric data to prove any hypothesis, I don't feel such comparisons are appropriate. Correlations, and the data used to prove them are an interesting thing. I can suggest that you take the US 30 year rate, along with our median income, or rather 25% of monthly median income. Calculate the mortgage that results. This translates nicely to the home a median family can afford. And I claim that long term this is the equilibrium price of that median home. But supply/demand has another factor, 'stickyness' or the more technical term, 'inelasticity of demand.' This means that for example, a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes does not cause a 10% drop in consumption. Each and every good has its own elasticity, and in the case of housing, a rise in cost would certainly impact the marginal buyers, but others will simply adjust their budgets. Not all buyers were planning to hit the bank's limit on what they could afford, so the rise doesn't change their mind, just their budget. Last - I know that Canada does not have a 30 year mortgage, most common is a 5 year rate with 30 year amortization. (correction/clarification, anyone?) The effect of this is less volatility in the market, since I believe your rates are not poised for the 2.5% to 4% jump implied by another response. Small increases can be absorbed. In a beautiful coincidence, the Federal Reserve Board sent me a link to The Interest Rate Elasticity of Mortgage Demand: Evidence From Bunching at the Conforming Loan Limit. It's a bit long but a worthwhile look at how the correlation isn't as instant as some might think."
IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017.
Mickey was covered by a profit-sharing plan and left the company on December 31, 2014. The plan year runs from July 1 to June 30. Under the terms of the plan, employer contributions do not have to be made, but if they are made, they are contributed to the plan before the due date for filing the company's tax return. Such contributions are allocated as of the last day of the plan year, and allocations are made to the accounts of individuals who have any service during the plan year. As of June 30, 2015, no contributions were made that were allocated to the June 30, 2015, plan year, and no forfeitures had been allocated within the plan year. In addition, as of that date, the company was not obligated to make a contribution for such plan year and it was impossible to determine whether or not a contribution would be made for the plan year. On December 31, 2015, the company decided to contribute to the plan for the plan year ending June 30, 2015. That contribution was made on February 15, 2016. Mickey is an active participant in the plan for his 2016 tax year but not for his 2015 tax year. Mickey is in a similar (but different) circumstance, and it's clear from the IRS's treatment of his circumstance that you would be in the same boat (just a year less off) - but be aware given Mickey's situation that it's theoretically possible for them to make another contribution next year, as Mickey had, depending on when their plan year/etc. ends. So - from the IRS's point of view, everything you said the company did is correct. They paid you in January, contributed to your 401k as a result of that paycheck, and thus you were officially considered covered for 2015."
You must be rich. My condo was $98K. I paid about $2200 in mortgage interest last year. I opted to take the standard deduction instead. I make $80K a year and I cant even benefit from this deduction. It is really frustrating. I'm 30 with no kids and unmarried because I can't afford anything. Maybe when I'm 40 I can think about starting a family. If I'm lucky.
With the calculator in hand (Excel :) you should follow this advise and save a bundle. 1) Calculate how much you are willing to spend per month. 2) Take the longest (in years) mortgage you can find and cheepest (Euribor+0,2% is better than Euribor+1%). 3) Save the amount you are not spending on your mortgage. Whenever the mortgage cost changes (once a year), calculate whether you get more interests on your savings or on a down payment (look at the total cost). Then decide if you make a down payment or keep on saving. My 0,02€ We took a 20 year mortgage and blindly payed every time we'd have 3K€. We payed our house in 6 years. The total cost of the mortgage was way down this way. However, the above theory has a better yield overall.
I think not. I think a discussion of optimum mix is pretty independent of age. While a 20 year old may have 40 years till retirement, a 60 year old retiree has to plan for 30 years or more of spending. I'd bet that no two posters here would give the same optimum mix for a given age, why would anyone expect the Wall Street firms to come up with something better than your own gut suggests?
It is important to consider your overall financial goals (especially in the 3-5 year range). If you have another financial goal which cannot be met without that additional money then meeting that financial goal might take priority over what I am about to say. Your mortgage rate is another important factor to consider when answering this question. Extra mortgage payments are equivalent to investing that money in a VERY low risk investment with an equivalent yield of the mortgage rate because you will be paying that much less per year in interest. (Actually, when you consider that mortgage interest is often tax-deductible the equivalent yield should be reduced by your income tax rate.) Typically it is not possible to find such a low risk investment with a yield as high as your mortgage rate. For example current mortgage rates are over twice as high as the yield of a one year CD.  Also keep in mind that additional mortgage payments help you build equity. This equity will most likely be applied to your next home purchase. If so their effect will be in place throughout the life of your next mortgage too.
Anybody that offers a bigger return than a deposit claiming 100% safe is a fraud.  There is always a risk: Yes, you can gain 30% in a year, but nobody can guarantee that you'll repeat that gain the next. My own experience (and I do take risks), one year I go up, the next year I go down...
"Here is the thing if in 2020-2040 you can buy CD's that pay 4% then you would kick yourself for paying your mortgage early and costing you a no risk 1% revenue on your money. Think about this?  You have a 4% mortgage that is costing you less than 3% after tax deduction"" in 2025 you are buying 10 year notes at 7% which is not out of the question.   You will be making 4% on your money with virtually no risk. Personally I agree with JoeTaxpayer.  I have gone a step further and done so with two houses and I netted myself over 20 grand in 30 months. So in short you have to ask yourself ""Can I make more than 3% on my money?"""
No chance.. cars are much easier to repossess and the cost of doing so is less. People aren't quite as leveraged on autos as they were on homes. Even with a worst case scenario 7 year loan people are usually in par within 3-4 years, in that timeframe on a 30 year mortgage you've barely started paying the interest down. Even at the height of the housing crisis auto loan losses were manageable.. when people were losing their homes at a record pace you'd think they would skip the car payments to make the mortgage. That wasn't the case, people generally kept paying their car notes even when the house was going away. Losing your car is actually much more troublesome to most people.. they will make that payment over all others.
"If you're losing money or breaking even, you own a bad investment. The problem you have is that you are emotionally invested in your tenant. That isn't a bad thing in general but it's costing you money and, unless interest rates fall enough to justify a refi or property taxes go down in your area, that's kind of unlikely to change. Option #1 - Tell your wife that you are willing to accept a loss up to a certain level because of your long term relationship with your tenant. In a perfect world, the two of you would then discuss what the ""magic number"" would be where you got out and come to a compromise. For example, if you are comfortable losing up to $3,000 per year and she is unhappy with any loss, you may agree on selling the house when your losses climb to $1,500. In a less perfect world, it would cause an argument as she has already told you what she wants you to do. Option #2 - Raise the rent to the break even point. From what you've said, this will likely result in the loss of your tenant but you could then rent to someone else for significantly more. Option #3 - Sell the house. It's an investment property which means it's supposed to make money for you. It can do that very quickly by way of a sale and then it's no longer your problem. Option #4 - Sell the house to your tenant. You bought it for $50,000 and it's currently worth $150,000 (roughly). The problem you face is that property taxes have gone up and caused your mortgage to increase past your tenants ability to pay. My guess is, after 15 years, your payoff is somewhere in the high $20's to mid 30's assuming you got a 30 year loan and haven't refinanced. If you sell to her for say $75,000 (or even up to $90,000) you will still make a profit (wife is happy), she will get a mortgage she can afford and be able to stay in the house (you and the tenant are happy). Added bonus is that her property taxes would be lower (assuming a different rate for investment property in your area).