vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
OK to be upfront, I hate Bankerella too and think that post was quite idiotic of her.  Considering that though, One of the top things any interviewer will/should consider is whether the want to work with the person they are interviewing. In this case, she simply gave the person a pass to the final round, she didn't actually give a job offer and didn't take any slots away from anyone else. The candidate is very likely to be the person working with her if she gets the job so of course she is going to choose a candidate based on personality.
I don’t understand people’s obsession with inequality.  As long as real wages are staying constant or rising then you are as good, or better off today than you were yesterday.  This idea that “they” are getting “better” faster really doesn’t matter in the long run.  It was only 60 years ago that multiple middle class houses shared a land line and you had to wait for your neighbor to finish before making a phone call.  Today just about every individual in a low-income household has a cellphone.  My point is, as long as things keep improving for everyone is it really that bad if it’s unequal improvement?  [Freakonomics did an interesting podcast on the topic of spite a while back.](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-do-medieval-nuns-and-bo-jackson-have-in-common-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/)  The most interesting part to me is experiment where people were willing to accept less money just to ensure that the other person did not get more than them.
Are there any (monthly) administrative fees on those loans that are charged separately? If not, you should just pay as much as you can as quick as you can to get the loan amount down on those loans with the highest interest rate. If there are no separate fees on the loans, then it's just a lump of money with some interest rate. The smaller loans will eventually drop away one by one, have a celebration to remark the occasion when that happens. I assume the payment is split evenly between the loans? Restructure if you get a better deal from someplace.  Delay buying new stuff until you get the loan amount down. Pay as much as you can as quickly as you can, but keep enough money in your pocket to survive a month or two, so that you don't need to get any more loans in case something unexpected happens.
I'm a long way from an expert on this, but it seems to me you can loan your fiance enough money to pay off her loans, and that incurs no tax penalty. When you are married you can write off the loan without a tax penalty since she is your spouse. I would expect that you can reclassify a gift as a loan for a tax year you haven't yet filed for - or she can give you the money back and you immediately make her a loan for the same amount. As the comments and this question would indicate, a loan at below an approved rate would be considered a gift. However you do appear to be able to loan her the money at an approved rate, and gift her the interest payments, which should be less than the gift tax limit. You would need to write up a loan document. Once you are married you should be able to make another gift to pay off the loan.
"Well, he better get cashin', then.  Because the bills are piling up.  https://www.law360.com/articles/942251/floyd-mayweather-lacks-cash-for-taxes-until-after-fight  &gt; Boxing champion Floyd Mayweather Jr. doesn’t have enough cash on hand to meet his 2015 tax liability, according to a Tax Court petition asking for a reprieve until after an upcoming fight because his current assets, while “substantial,” are “restricted and primarily illiquid.”   So maybe the McGregor check went straight to Uncle Samuel?  So the IRS cashed it, not Floyd?  I humbly suggest the new nickname:  Floyd ~~""Money""~~ ""Bank Drafts"" Mayweather."
Have her pay something like a friendly monthly rent. This should be less than half of the monthly mortgage cost, since you are assuming the risk (and benefits) of a mortgage and closer to the rent of similar places near you. For when you get married and she is to have half the apartment, have a pre-agreed way to calculate a lump-sum that she needs to provide to match your own contributions up to that time, as if you two had equal contributions from the beginning. The financially precise way to do it would be to have her pay more than the mere sum of the amount (since she will be providing the amount at a later time than you), but I would be generous and skip this in your place if the difference is not too big. If you break up, she will have payed what would be a fair amount of rent, as if you two were renting, so, in this sense, it is fair that she would not have a claim on the apartment. In case that you two would like that she keeps the apartment, you can just sell it to her, having her pay this same amount as above and assume responsibility for the rest of the mortgage.
This is normal with the dealer's financing.  To add more details to littleadv's answer, what happens is when you get the financing through the dealer, at first, they will try to do the loan on your behalf with local banks in your area. This is why you see several hard inquiries; one from each back. If none of these banks wants to take the loan, then dealer's financing entity will take the loan. This was my exact experience with Hyundai. In addition, don't get surprise if you start receiving letters saying that your loan was rejected. The dealer will send the loan requests simultaneously, and some of the banks might deny the loan. This also happened to me, and I have been owning my car for around a year. Still, make sure that the letters matches with the credit inquiries.
maybe everyone who has responded needs to look closer at the income base repayment plan for student loans. What this means is he payment does not even cover his interest rate so each month he makes his payment the loan grows, does not decrease. This is not a simple interest loan which is irritating because car dealerships do not even use a non-simple interest loan any longer. So, well your suggestions are well intended what is your suggestion now knowing that his monthly payments is not reducing his loan but actually his loan is growing exponentially each month. I also like the comment where the average student loan is $30,000, I would like to know in what state that is. That may work for a community college or a student who is reliant on parents to supplement their income so they can go to classes, however for someone who is working and going to school that person must opt out for night classes and online classes which definitely increases the cost of your classes. Right now the cost per credit hour is in the $550- 585 range.
"all the other answers are spot on, but look at it this way. really all you mean when you say ""building equity"" is ""accumulating wealth"".  if that is the goal, then having her invest the money in a brokerage (e.g. ira) account makes a lot more sense.  if you can't afford the apartment without her, then you can't afford to pay out her portion of the equity in the future.  which means she is not building equity, you are just borrowing money from her.  the safest and simplest thing for you to do is to agree on a number that does not include ""equity"". to be really safe, you might want to both sign something in writing that says she will never have an equity stake unless you agree to it in writing.  it doesn't have to be anything fancy. in fact, the shorter the better. i am thinking about 3 sentences should do the trick. if you feel you absolutely have to borrow money from her on a monthly basis to afford your mortgage, then i recommend you make it an unsecured loan.  just be sure to specify the interest rate (even if it is zero), and the repayment terms (and ideally, late payment penalties). again, nothing fancy, 10 sentences maybe.  e.g. ""john doe will borrow x$ per month, until jane doe vacates the apartment. after such time, john doe will begin repaying the loan at y$ per month...."" that said, borrowing money from friends and family almost never turns out well. at the very least, you need to save up a few months of rent so that if you do break up, you have time to find another roommate. disclaimer: i do not have any state-issued professional licenses."
I think we are mixing this up. If you invest using loan, and are paying the loan out of your pocket and leaving the loan in investment, then there is no way you are making more money. Had you directly invested the same money in market instead of EMI, you would end up gaining more. Take a Loan of 100000, Year Int say 5.00%. Total Interest Paid in 2 Yrs comes out to 5291   The Rate of Interest your investments need to make is 2.58%. Sounds to good to be true. But yes when you look at it other way round, this is right.  Now if you can indeed make 2.58% from your investments, check what happens if you were to invest the EMI directly and don't take the loan.  You make 7937
Get a lawyer to put this in contract form, with everything spelled out explicitly. What is fair is what the two of you agree upon. My own suggestion: Divide the property into things which are yours, his, and shared, then have each of you be responsible for all your costs plus half the shared costs, but get all the benefits of your half. That would mean that if he rents out his half, all the rental income is his; if you decide to live in your half, all the savings of not paying rent are yours.  Each of you pays your half of mortgage, insurance, and other shared costs. Repairs to shared infrastructure should be done by someone both of you trust. If you agree the work is needed and he does it rather than your hiring someone, you owe him the appropriate percentage of the costs; the two of you will need to agree on whether you owe him for that percentage of his time as well. Make sure you agree on some mechanism for one person offering to buy the other out, or to sell their half to the other party... or potentially to someone else entirely. (Personally, I would try to do that at soonest opportunity, to avoid some of the ways this can go wrong -- see past comments about the hazards of guaranteeing a loan; this works or doesn't work similarly.) Does that address your question?
You can't help people that don't want help, period. It just doesn't work, and you will waste your time and energy while making the other person mad. Both sides end up in the same place they started except now they are frustrated with each other. In a normal situation I would advise to stop enabling her by giving her money, but the court has already decided that part.  There is no reason that she can't provide for her children on US$50k per year. In all honesty it sounds like she has a mental health problem and needs to see a professional. You, as the ex-husband, are probably not the right person to tell her that, though. If you really want to help her and are still on good terms with some friends or family members she trusts you could ask them to help her get help. They probably see the same mess that you and your kids do, but might need a little encouragement to act. The other option is if you sued for custody, based on living conditions, the possibility of losing her children and the child support might provide a much needed incentive to clean up her act. You probably won't win over a couple of incidents of the power being turned off and you will be putting your kids in the uncomfortable situation of telling on their mother though.
"Accrued interest generally means ""interest that is earned but not received"" (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/accrued-interest.html).  This is the interest that is added on top of the amount that was originally agreed upon. Because your friend missed some months, she will have gained 3% interest on top of the original loan amount for every month that she didn't pay.  The interest even applies to the increased loan amount, so it will increase exponentially for every month that she does not make a payment.  For example, if the loan amount was for $1,000 and she missed the payment the first month, the 3% accrued interest will raise that loan amount to $1030.  If she misses the second month, then the loan amount will become $1060.90 and so on. This means that it will take her more months to pay the loan in its entirety. ""Arrears"" are the overdue payments that she had not made (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/arrears.asp). So the sentence ""with susbsequent payments paying the arrears before being applied to the current month's payment"" means that she must pay the overdue debt from the previous months first before she can even make the payment for the current month."
"It's like you're talking about a different article.  I wonder if you read it at all.  He doesn't talk about discrimination and he doesn't suggest discriminating against top schools at all.  What he says is simple:   &gt; Don't hire someone on the basis of his or her educational institution. [...] Instead, hire on the basis of class rank, even if--no, especially if--the person is not from one of the more prestigious institutions.  This should be completely clear and I have no idea how you got the impression that he's trying to prove that ""Harvard kids are dumb"".    Might I ask which school you personally went to?"
"She claimed that she makes money. When you wanted to make some too, she asked for your account credentials - which are only needed to take money away, never to give. The simplest explanation would be loan scam: Even if you have only $10 on your account, you can lose much more - the trick is that someone using your credentials can take an online loan in your name, and steal that money. If the scheme is long-running, she'll be taking new loans and using the money to pay back the earlier ones, building up credit history for her victims - only to allow taking even bigger loans. Her victims see the incoming transfers and are happy about the scheme ""working"". Until she decides that the pot is big enough to cash it in and disappear, leaving everyone deep in debt. Those who fell for this could be already defaulting loans they have no idea about and the loan companies have no way of notifying them, because she redirected the contact details. Never reveal your password. Nobody needs your password for any legitimate purpose."
See, for example, this article from the Boston Globe, “At mutual insurance firms, big money for insiders but no say for ‘owners’ — policyholders”: It has grown into something else entirely: an opaque, poorly understood, and often immensely profitable world in which some executives and insiders operate with minimal scrutiny and, no coincidence, often reap maximum personal rewards. Policyholders, despite their status as owners, have no meaningful oversight of how mutual companies spend their money — whether to lower rates, pay dividends, or fund executive salaries and perks — and few avenues to challenge such decisions. Another reason that one might not like the conversion is the specific details of how the current investor-shareholders are being paid back for their investment in the process of the conversion to mutual ownership, and what that might do to the funds on hand that are supposed to be there to keep the firm solvent for the policyholders. From another Boston Globe article on the conversion of SBLI to a mutual company, “Insurer SBLI wants to get banks out of its business,” professor Robert Wright is cautiously optimistic but wants to ensure the prior shareholders aren't overpaid: Robert Wright, a professor in South Dakota who has studied insurance companies and owns an SBLI policy, said he would prefer the insurer to be a mutual company that doesn’t have to worry about the short-term needs of shareholders. But he wants to ensure that SBLI doesn’t overpay the banks for their shares. “It’s fine, as long as it’s a fair price,” he said. That article also gives SBLI's president's statement as to why they think it's a good thing for policyholders: If the banks remained shareholders, they would be likely to demand a greater share of the profits and eat into the dividends the insurance company currently pays to the 536,000 policyholders, about half of whom live in Massachusetts, said Jim Morgan, president of Woburn-based SBLI. “We’re trying to protect the policyholders from having the dividends diluted,” Morgan said.
"So Linda/Josie's initial plan was to have your dad pay money to (supposedly) help her get the gold chest. After he would have paid, there would have been another complication, and more yet (someone to bribe, a plane ticket to buy, transport to arrange, customs to handle, whatever, the list would last as long as there's money to take). Even if he does not have much money, the appeal of his share of the treasure could have been enough to tempt him to spend money he can't, or borrow, etc. Once ""she"" found out that he doesn't have any money and/or is apparently not willing to send any, ""she"" switched to a different scam: she would send him a large check, have him deposit it on his bank account, transfer most of the money (minus his generous share) to ""her"". Once the money is irreversibly transferred, the check will bounce. End result: 0 in the account before the transaction, minus a lot afterwards. It's quite simple: if an e-mail from a perfect stranger includes any of the following keywords, it's a scam:"
Congratulations on your engagement, and on your desire to begin your marriage debt free. Your fiancée can give you up to $14,000 per year as a gift without having to pay any gift tax.  Above that, there are lifetime gift/estate tax exclusions that apply.  You, as the recipient of the gift, do not pay any tax on it.  (It is not considered income for you.) Having said that, I would not advise the two of you to have her pay money on your debt before you are married.  The reason is this: You aren't married until you are married.  If something happens between now and then and the wedding is postponed/called off, you do not want to feel like you are in debt to her, and you do not want her to feel that she lost money because of you. Obviously, you do not want or expect that to happen.  So, instead, I recommend that your fiancée saves up her income.  I'm assuming that the two of you don't want to go into debt paying for the wedding/honeymoon, so make sure that you have enough cash to pay for that.  After that is covered, she can save money toward your student loans, but keep the money in a savings account.  Once you are married, the money and the debt both belong to both of you.  The day after the two of you get back from the honeymoon, she can write the check to pay off the debt, and you've got a great start to your future.
"Expenses: IMO, The best way to deal with this situation is by treating you staying at her house as flatting/renting a room as @Pseudonym stated he does with his partner in the comments of another answer.  This means you pay X amount of dollars a week to her as rent which she can most likely choose to put it towards house insurance, interest, repayments, repairs and improvements etc etc. From there you split your ""living"" expenses 50/50. Living expenses include stuff like telephone, internet, utility bills, food, contents insurance etc. Renting Income: Then the earnings/losses you make from renting your apartment out are yours alone. After all if your place gets trashed by a tenant with a meth lab, she won't and shouldn't have to pay the ridiculous amounts of money required to get it fixed up.  Determining the rent to pay: Not Ideal, but an easy method: Use your place's renting value as a indicator/market research example to determine how much rent you would pay to her (however since you are only a half resident at her place you would only pay half).  Ideal: Your place would have a different renting value to hers, so do some research together and find a median renting value of her house based on similar houses or ask her how much she wants you to pay in rent since after all the owner of the house has final say on the renting value. You ""might"" want to consider that you staying with her is a more secure tenancy as she knows you won't wreak her place, but the same cannot be said for the tenant you have in your place. (Post in the comments if you think this last sentence should be removed, I'm on the fence about it but it seems relevant.) Disclaimer: Remember you are considering a long-term relationship with her don't get too picky and don't let it get personal/emotional when deciding the renting amounts."
I am unsympathetic.  His mother made a conscious choice to evade taxes that would have provided her with at least a minimal security when she was too old to work.  First while as business owner she should have been paying self employment tax on the income they made through the restaurant and his other merchant activities.  Second while working in her own career selling Mary Kay and side work she should have paid her taxes on her income from that.   There is a part of me that says good on you for getting by with out getting caught.  But her ultimate failure was to plan for her future.  She should have known she would be ineligible for SSI and saved for her retirement.  Instead she choose to spend her money while benefiting from the government services that the rest of us pay taxes for.  Now we will provide her with medicaid as well as welfare benefits.  She has placed her son in the unenviable situation of having to either provide for his mother because she failed to do the minimum planning for herself or turn his back on her. He might be able to find a sympathetic prosecutor who would prosecute her for tax evasion.  The government would take care of her needs(food and housing) and she would get her medical care taken care of.  He could also move to Alaska.  The oil industry provide residents of Alaska with a stipend, there is lots of work for people willing to work hard, and the compensation for that work is pretty good and would likely put him in a position where he is able to provide care for his mother.
"&gt;If there aren't enough seats in the classrooms, some people will be left without the college education they want, no matter how the financing is provided.  I'll grant you this, but we can always produce more classrooms.  Let's use your loan example. If I take out a college loan it represents the value of some other asset, and the lender's belief that I will later be able to compensate the lender for giving up that asset.  Just as we could price the value of the hunter's demise, we can price the value of a student's failure or success. If the student has delivered in the past (good grades, high productivity), then we can reliably price the cost of her college education.   In a very real way, she has ""created"" her own seat in the classroom right now by promising to pay for it in the future. And we can rely on this promise on the basis of her past performance. I won't get into whether this is reliable or even desirable.  Just as we priced the value of the hunter's non-performance/demise, we can price the student's non-performance/default. We can build this into the cost of the loan, or spread the cost out among all the other loans we give."
"I'm surprised there's so little sympathy for the model here. Her image was used in a sexual context without her awareness or consent. What BK did was probably legal but definitely immoral. If a male model sold the rights to a picture of his face would it be OK to make billboards saying ""This is the face of an abuser""?   As for the reaction to her using the word ""rape"", yes it was probably unnecessary and insensitive on her part. However, she quite reasonably feels violated in a sexual way and was drawing attention to that. I don't think that a poor word choice should distract us from the fact that she has a very reasonable gripe with how her picture was used."