vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"And yet, the same law that these individuals and companies use to   lower their taxes applies for every citizen and company of the   country. Thus, in principle, every individual and company could make   use of these methods. Clearly, they do not. Why? Misconception number 1. How did you conclude they do not? Because NY Times didn't spend time doing an expose' on your plumber? The Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers contain the files from merely three companies that help in this large industry. This is a story about poor IT policies of three companies. A potential reason could be the price charged to set up and maintain these services. This is a significant deterrent.  The costs of forming offshore entities are perpetuated by the expensive lawyers, registered agents and incompetent government representatives in these tiny jurisdictions. (For what its worth, even most United States are pretty incompetent at these administrative processes. Really only a few financial centers and a few exceptions have it all streamlined.) These are scale problems primarily. The incompetence of different nation/state's public sectors will make you realize everything you take for granted. The main message emerging from Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, and the like, is that it is the rich, powerful and famous who make use of and benefit from tax havens. But not exclusively for tax purposes. Newspapers, and even the organization leaking this information, is driving clicks to a gullible and impressionable public. I've talked with ICIJ (who release and push the discussion on the Panama/Paradise Papers), they really do believe in their ""tax expose'"" angle, but lack any consideration of how business work. 'Tax Haven'. These are sovereign nations with due process with democratically elected legislatures who looked at their budget and realized they don't need to fund their government via passive taxes. Their governments offer a good and service that people want, and it provides enough revenues to their governments. Many of these jurisdictions have well evolved corporate laws for fast evolving business models.  For example, The Segregated Portfolio Company in the British Virgin Islands is more well defined and supported by clearer case law and is more useful entity than a Series LLC in the few United States that support it. There are at least a dozen reasons why someone would use a ""tax haven"", where only one of them is ""tax""."
"What you are doing is neither one.  You are simply watching to make sure you don't overdraw, which itself suggests you might be living hand to mouth and not saving.  Keeping track of your money and budgeting are useful tools which help people get on top of their money.  Which tends to have the effect of allowing you to save.   How much did you spend on groceries last month? Eating out? Gas? If you were ""keeping track of your money"", you could say immediately what you spent, and whether that is above or below average, and why.  How much do you plan to spend in the next 3 months on gas, groceries, eating out?  If you knew the answer to that question, then you would have a ""budget"".   And if those months go by, and your budget proves to have been accurate, or educates you as to what went wrong so you can learn and fix it... then your budget is a functioning document that is helping you master your money.  Certainly the more powerful of the two is the ""keeping track"", or accounting of what has happened to you so far.   It's important that you keep track of every penny without letting stuff ""slip through the cracks"".   Here you can use proper accounting techniques and maybe accounting software, just like businesses do where they reconcile their accounting against their bank statements and wallet cash. I shortcut that a little.  I buy gift cards for McDonalds, Panera, Starbucks, etc. and buy my meals with those.  That way, I only have one transaction to log, $40 - McDonalds gift card instead of a dozen little meals.  It works perfectly fine since I know all that money went to fast food.  A little more dangerous is that I treat wallet cash the same way, logging say two monthly entries of $100 to cash rather than 50 little transactions of left $1 tip at restaurant.  This only works because cash is a tiny part of my overall expenditures - not worth accounting.  If it added up to a significant part, I'd want accounting on that."
"Is productivity the ultimate measure of success? I know it is when it comes to competition, but fuck, extrapolate out this ""progress"" and realize that in some not so distant futurethere will be little need for any ""manual"" jobs, and even some ""high tech"" or ""complicated"" jobs will probably be able to be automated by then. What will we do? Unemployment is such a concern now, and unfortunatley, keeping unemployment low is directly at odds with increasing productivity."
In a good FTP system, Division 2 would pay the fair market price of $125. If done properly, management would hopefully realize it should divest Division 2. That's the ***fundamental premise*** behind FTP. In actuality things get much more complicated because of economics, the company itself, branding, IT, operations, management, PPE, labor laws, etc. Thats why most companies screw it up. All that other stuff falls under whats called cost allocation accounting. It gets VERY complex and entire masters courses are dedicated to it (different methods, etc.) The other thing you can do with FTP is get crazy tax breaks due to various tax laws. The simplified explanation is that divisions pay taxes on profits to the government ***that division*** is located in (this works on the state level, too btw.). GE does a lot of this and it's a big part of why they pay almost no-taxes. Again, it gets more complicated when you involve audits as there's some grey area legally. For simplicity, assume tax rates are 40% in the US and 10% in India. So let's say GE makes an airplane engine in the US but ""finishes"" manufacturing in India. These specific engines costs $5,000,000 for the US division to make, up to a certain point. The US division can then sell the engine at a break even to India. So India ""pays"" $5,000,000 for the engine. The US division then books no profit. India finishes the manufacturing with additional costs of $1,000,000. The India division then sells the engine to the open market for $9,000,000 . Therefore, the India division books a profit of $3,000,000 and pays taxes of $300,000. Now GE as a whole makes a profit of $3,000,000 less taxes of $300,000 = net profit of $2,700,00. Further, let's say the fair market value of the engine, as is, when the US sells to India is $7,000,000.
"I think a the thing with depression and recession is just what he uses  to define those economic statuses. He says at the begining that his thinking on the subject is what he uses and might not be conventional. Interest rates falling to near 0% might be the most common cause of a depression among others and why he chose to talk about it.   &amp;nbsp; For the different methods of depression recovery I beleive he was trying to say that the path to a ""beautiful devleraging"" requires balance. Certaintly the deflationary tactics have there own merits, and are not solely for the purpose of offsetting the inflationary methods, but a balance of everything is the most crucial factor for an efficient recovery."
"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well.  The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance.  Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice.  If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the ""best"" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns.  This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio.  In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile.  New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target.  If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target."
First I  assume you are resident for tax purposes in the UK? 1 Put 2000 in a cash ISA  as an emergency fund.  2 Buy shares in 2 or 3 of the big generalist Investment trusts as they have low charges and long track records – unless your a higher rate tax payer don’t buy the shares inside the ISA its not worth it  You could use FTSE 100 tracker  ETF's or iShares instead of Investment Trusts.
"You've got it nailed down mostly and you found some really good insightful articles to help you understand the context here.  Dont misunderstand this... This issue is extremely complicated.  The one thing you are I think misunderstanding is that ""closing loopholes"" is a turn key solution and it really isn't. Loopholes are an extremely ambiguous term there's no list of loopholes out there to chase down and regulate for.  And even if there was once they were killed more would sprout up.  Most of the commenters here want to instead disincentivize loophole chasing by making the corp tax rate equal to those of other countries and removing repatriation tax so money made abroad can be brought back to the US."
qe is keeping inflation very low - yes!!! absolutely for today but not for tomorrow. the medicine that they used during the 2008 economic slump is luckily still moving. meaning still working. but once this medicine starts to slowdown and begins to die down. you may call all the saints above. and the (true) inflation you are looking for, searching for will surely and definitely come into your midst. inflation will going to kill us all. qe is a wrong medicine - temporary patch or band.aid qe is phoney - it is just an easy money and definitely not a hard earned (labor generated) money. qe is a gamble - trillion dollars is at stake. if we are lucky the dying person or the economy will live. if we are not lucky the dying person will die, the economy will going to collapsed, and still we have to pay all the “debts” as long as we live. qe is domineering - the economy today is at the mercy of ""qe"". (the economy is captive, hostage by ""qe"") interest rates is a lose-lose situations. keeping it zero. the u.s.a. government will lose trillions and trillions of dollars, that is badly needed. now, raising this rates will surely and definitely starts the u.s.a. markets and precisely the world economy to react, pulling down the unstable economies of the whole world to jeopardy. now, which one would you like to choose? again, which one would you prefer? qe is trial and error - a complex, complicated solutions. healing one part of the body and the other part will swell and burst. qe is evaporation - (using taxpayers money) pension funds, retirement benefits and all entitlements is going to fade, will vanished in thin air. qe are waiters - simply waiting day and night for growth, for recovery. qe is thirstiness - it dries up the u.s.a. treasury. qe is debt - a never ending debt. keep in mind there is no such thing as unlimited debt or debt unlimited. don't be fooled.
The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer.
"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that ""4"" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means ""don't tax 4 x $4050"" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions."
Trump keeps pretending taxes are a problem for corporations, but he has never paid any.   In fact he said that NOT PAYING taxes makes him smart.  So this idea that the US is the most taxed country in the world holds no basis in fact.  Guys like him have methods tp dodge taxes.    To create further tax cuts, is irresponsible when he already hardly pays any.    Who will pay for the armed forces?  Trump voters, because it wont be Trump or his cronies.   This is the biggest highway robbery of his tenure.   EDIT:  Trump has recieved more handouts and tax breaks and debt credits for missmanagement than any businessman in history.
The problem is that the crazies, ideologues, and single-issue zealots come out of the woodwork when you start getting into this stuff, and tend to dominate the conversation (if ""conversation"" is a fair word to use). In a sense, the ""sane"" spectrum of debate boils down to an almost ideological divide: - Whether you believe that a sort of permanent, technocratic, central-bank/currency-issuer is possible/plausible. Because if it *is* achievable, it is almost certainly better than just tying the whole economy to the price of a single commodity. If it is *not* achievable, then it is almost certainly better to let the markets adjust and correct, however imperfectly, than to tie the whole economy to the whims and wishes of incompetent and politically-motivated money-printers. (I hope that makes sense, and that it is a fair representation of the conundrum). The problem with making an argument is that you've got a hodge-podge of technical (and sometimes fairly complicated) nitty-gritty, plus a certain amount of starting-assumption/worldview/ideological stuff, all smooshed together, and almost all of it is very hard/impossible to ""prove"" via evidential scientific testing. Both the technical and historical stuff have strong conflicting indicators, and it's obviously not possible to, say, set up two identical societies and let them run for a thousand years, controlling for everything but monetary policy, and see what happens. Macro-economics is a very imperfect science. It has certainly given the world some very useful and valuable insights and axioms, but the testing methods are extremely indirect and heavily subject to interpretation: you really have only the historical record to draw on, and it is almost impossible to find examples that control for whatever variable is in question. Macro, ideally, *tries* really hard to be science, but you're always kind of picking from bad examples when testing a hypothesis, trying to line up vaguely similar historical periods to isolate for some common factor. It's kind of like geology or theoretical physics, except with much smaller and messier data-sets.
Emergency Account Vault (Windows) I use it to store info about all of my accounts/assets in an encrypted document. It's more for keeping track of everything that is in your name than managing money. Good for situations when you need to quickly look up info about a specific account you own.
Corporations exist to generate profit and reduce risk for investors.  This is a socially good and useful function that benefits us all.  A corporation that didn't seek to lower its tax bill to the lowest legally allowed would be breaking the law.  Rather than show up unannounced at random times and ransacking/pillaging whatever they could grab ahold of, governments have discovered (through trail and error) that having clear consistent rules about how much they demand nets them more revenue.  Thus tax law and why it is important.  Over time governments have used tax law for social engineering purposes, and as a mechanism for attempting to control their local economy. Because of this tax law has tended towards higher and higher complexity.  Throw territorial rivalry into the mix and tax law can be also used as a sort of economic weapon.  All of this yields a monstrously complex tax code, which mandates that businesses pay more and more attention to following it's arcane rules if they want to remain in business.  'Gaming the system' isn't morally wrong, it is what governments expect businesses to do, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time setting up such complex rules for business to follow.  I suspect that there will be public outcry for more rules, making the tax system even more complex, because evil businesses are attempting to follow the rules.  In a sane world governments would step back, refrain from social and economic manipulation (which they have shown themselves to be incompetent at anyway) and create as simple a tax code as possible. So that the tax code is no longer where businesses seek to gain advantage, but rather focus their time and energy into creating better products/services (every dollar spent on tax-lawyers/accountants is a dollar not spent on making the business better).  Creating more rules to punish people for following the rules is insanity.
I was wondering if I could make part of the payment here in USD legally? Although not directly illegal ... From an India tax and FMEA point of view this would be a bit complicated.  A NRI Seller cannot repatriate the proceeds from sale of house unless he had purchased this from NRE account and repatriation is only possible for original purchase amount. For the gains Seller has to apply for repatriation of funds. A NRI Seller has to pay taxes on gains and this transaction should not look like facilitating a tax fraud in case NRI Seller does not pay his taxes. As a Buyer if you make the purchase from your NRE account [i.e. Move US funds into India into NRE Account], it will ease you ability to repatriate funds in future. Depending on the property value and PAN card availability of seller, you have to deduct 1% to 30.12% tax from the value and deposit this with Income Tax India. PS: It is recommended that you consult a Professional CA to help you with modalities.
"I am not referring to grafting... grafting does not even modify genes in any way, all it does is make a single-use plant that has two different fruits growing on it.   I am referring to human-guided pollination and human-guided hybridization to encourage selective traits, something that botanists and farmers have been doing for thousands of years, long before genes were even known to exist.   Every single apple commercially sold is a result of human-guided evolution, there are no ""virgin varieties"" anymore and haven't been for hundreds of years. The same is true of bananas and cotton and many other cash crops.   The difference between human-guided evolution thousands of years ago is not safety - any single plant hybrid created by traditional means could just as easily be the ""apocalypse crop"" as one created with modern gene manipulation methods. In fact, modern gene manipulation methods are FAR SAFER as one can computer model the expected outcome of what is going to happen, instead of simply crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.      And part of participating in organic food production is a discontinuation of petrochemical fertilizer. Yes, we use vast amounts of petroleum product to fertilize farmland. If you want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, organic production is part of that.   Actually studies show that the incredibly reduced yields and efficiencies resulting from organic farming INCREASE the carbon footprint of organic crops, and that organic is actually the most environmentally un-friendly way to farm... so you're dead wrong. http://appliedmythology.blogspot.ca/2013/04/six-reasons-organic-is-not-most.html"
Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan = truth in the booth moving America forward  &gt; “The Blockchain is a technology, which we’ve been studying (along with a couple of other people up here) and yes it’s real. It could probably reduce the cost of real application in certain things. It’s keeping a single file, as opposed to each of us keeping our own files, and it has certain security measures. If it proves to be cheap and secure it will be adopted for a whole bunch of stuff. Not for everything; it is not useable for certain types of things.”  http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ac5VtyAOVw&amp;t=2m20s