vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Yes, almost always. I trade some of the most illiquid single stock options, and I would be absolutely murdered if I didn't try to work orders between the bid/ask.  When I say illiquid, I mean almost non-existent: ~50 monthly contracts on ALL contracts for a given underlying.  Spreads of 30% or more. The only time you shouldn't try to work an order, in my opinion, is when you think you need to trade immediately (rare), if implied volatility (IV) has moved to such a degree that the market makers (MM) won't hit your order while they're offering fair IV (they'll sometimes come down to meet you at their ""real"" price to get the exchange's liquidity rebate), or if the bid/ask spread is a penny. For illiquid single stock options, you need to be extremely mindful of implied and statistical volatility.  You can't just try to always put your order in the middle.  The MMs will play with the middle to get you to buy at higher IVs and sell at lower. The only way you can hope that an order working below the bid / above the ask will get filled is if a big player overwhelms the MMs' (who are lined up on the bid and ask) current orders and hits yours with one large order.  I've never seen this happen. The only other way is like you said: if the market moves against you, the orders in front of yours disappear, and someone hits your order, but I think that defeats the intent of your question."
&gt;I don't think we're going to see a world where there's no menial labor for a very long time.  I don't think it'll be in my lifetime, but I don't think it's too far off in the grand scheme of things. Self-driving vehicles and cashier-less stores/quick serve restaurants are well within the realm of possibility in several decades, and those are two of the largest employment industries in the US.  It's worth starting to talk about, because it's going to take a *massive* shift in ideology (that is, we might have to start thinking seriously about universal basic income omg the horror) in order to not blow up.
"Interesting as I am in the exact same situations as yourself.  I, in fact, just incorporated.  You will be able ""save"" more in taxes in the end.  The reason I put ""save"" in quotes, is that you don't necessarily save on taxes, but you can defer taxes.  The driving factor behind this is that you specify your own fiscal calendar/year.  Incorporating allows you to defer income for up to 6 months.  Meaning that if you make your fiscal year starting in August or September, for example, you can claim that income on the following year (August + 6 months = February).  It allows you to keep the current year taxes down.  Also, any income left over at year end, is taxed at 15% (the Corporation rate) rather than the 30-40% personal rate you get with a sole-proprietorship.  In a nutshell, with sole-proprietorship, all income is taxable (after write-offs)... in a corporation, you can take some of that income and keep it in the corporation (gives your company a ""value""), and is only taxed at 15% - big saving there. I primarily work with US businesses.  I am, however, a dual-citizen, US and Canadian, which allowed me as a sole-proprietor, to easily work with US companies.  However, as a sole-proprietor or a Corporation, you simply need to get an EIN from the IRS and any US company will report earnings to that number, with no deductions.  At year end, it is your responsibility to file the necessary tax forms and pay the necessary taxes to both countries.  Therefore you can solicit new US business if you choose, but this is not restricted to corporations.  The real benefit in incorporating is what I mentioned above. My suggestion to you is to speak with you CA, who can outline all benefits.  Revenue Canada's website had some good information on this topic as well. Please let me know if you need anything else explained."
I had a chat with a coworker whose spouse also teaches music lessons. One interesting insight was that after raising prices, the children were much more likely to come prepared because the parents felt more invested when it cost them more. They were also less likely to cancel the lessons at the last minute. This is an argument in favor of TTT's suggestion to charge something even if we donate the income to charity. Along those lines it might also make sense to give discounts if the child comes prepared having practiced daily.  I agree that it's not a lot of paperwork for some additional pay, the problem is that I would also be tempted to buy a new piano and find other expenses to reduce the income. That's a discussion for another day.  I think the break-even point is probably somewhere around $1000/year when I weigh record-keeping time verses the income. So as long as we exceed that, I will probably encourage her to charge for the lessons even if she charges below the market for them. I will consider setting up a charitable giving account that they can pay to instead of paying us directly.
I've never been involved with an HOA, but in organizations that I've been involved in, we had 'building funds', which were a dedicated part of the membership fees devoted to building up money for an event, building maintenance etc. My church when I was a kid had a heat fund in the summertime. Build up a fund, and spread the projects around... that's the affordable way to do things. But you need good governance, otherwise you end up with some yahoo blowing the money on something frivilous when there is a sparsly attended meeting.
I can't  wait to see this crash and burn for two reasons:  1. Voters don't want to be taxed to oblivion which is why we vote no every time on an increase in taxes.   2. If the city loses, the case may create a legal stumbling block for civil asset forfeiture.   If you want higher taxes, donate your own to the city... Do with what you got, Seattle.
Congrats on having such a nice emergency fund.  That's pretty substantial. I don't want to be the one to suggest the One Investment To Rule Them All because I might be wrong.  :) I'd investigate other avenues for investment.  Here are a few (in no particular order): My two cents but I think you're wise to be wary of investing in US equities now. Hedging (both with your passive investments and with another source of income) is something you can afford to do. (But to answer your question, there are indexes that are broader than the S&P 500.  The Wilshire 5000 index has all of them, for example.)
"You ask multiple question here.  The 401(k) - move it to an IRA. As others stated,this will lower your costs, and open up a potential I didn't see mentioned, the conversion to a Roth IRA. A year in which your income is lower than average is a great opportunity to convert a bit of the IRA enough to ""top off"" the lower bracket in which you may find yourself.  The company stock? If you never worked for the company would you have bought this stock? Would you buy it now? If not, why keep it?  The loan is the toughest decision. Will you sleep better if it were paid in full? What's the rate? 6% or more, I'd pay it off, under 4%, less likely. I'd invest much of the cash and the $8000 in stock in a Dilip-recommended VFINX, and use the dividends to pay the loan each month."
For the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015 as you have / will be spending more than 182 days outside of India, you are Non-Resident from tax point of view. For the period 1 April 2014 to Aug 2014, any salary / income you have earned in India is taxable and tax need to be paid. For the period Aug 2014 to 31 March 2015 the income you have earned in Saudi is not taxable in India. You can transfer money to India or keep in Saudi, it has no effect on the taxes. Any interest income you earn, or rental income you earn, or any other source of income in India is taxable. You would need to file returns accordingly. An NRE Accounts allows you to transfer funds out of India without any questions. So if you intend at some point in time in future to move funds out of India [say settling down in Saudi or UK or US etc] it is advisable to have NRE account. If you are sure you don't want to transfer funds out of India, you should open an NRO account.
To a point.  There is also increasing prices to make their toys a premium product.  Part of it is paying for many if not most of the sets to be tied to licenses, another part is more complicated sets as they became a premium brand.    But as they became a premium brand, they began losing the lower end of the market.  I buy lego, but at toys for tots time I donate megablocks.
"As an exercise, I want to give this a shot.  I'm not involved in a firm that cares about liquidity so all this stuff is outside my purview.  As I understand it, it goes something like this: buy side fund puts an order to the market as a whole (all or most possibly exchanges).  HFTs see that order hit the first exchange but have connectivity to exchanges further down the pipe that is faster than the buy side fund.  They immediately send their own order in, which reaches exchanges and executes before the buy side fund's order can.  They immediately put up an ask, and buy side fund's order hits that ask and is filled (I guess I'm assuming the order was a market order from the beginning).  This is in effect the HFT front running the buy side fund.    Is this accurate?  Even if true, whether I have a genuine issue with this... I'm not sure.  Has anyone on the ""pro-HFT"" side written a solid rebuttal to Lewis and Katsuyama that has solid research behind it?"
"What you're asking about is called a ""distribution"" when it comes to an LLC.  It's basically you paying yourself some or all of the proceeds of the business, depending on how you're set up.  You can pay yourself distributions on a regular schedule, say monthly, or you can do it at the end of the year. Whatever you do in this regard, what you take out as distributions is reported on your personal income tax as taxable income.  LLCs in the U.S. use pass-through taxation (unless you intentionally elect to have the LLC treated as a corporation for tax purposes, which some people do), so whatever the principals receive in distribution is personally taxable. Keep in mind that you'll have to pay ALL of the taxes normally covered by an employer, such as self-employment tax (usually about 15%), social security tax, and so on.  This is in addition to income tax, so remember that. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
The Motley Fool article is correct that if you earn UBTI over $1000, you will need to pay the tax, even if held in an IRA.   C-corps won't generate UBTI, so you're fine with those.  For non-C-corps, the most common are REITs, MLPs, and BDCs.   REITs  These typically invest in either real estate property or mortgages.  The ones that invest in mortgages are sometimes notated: mREITs, and can occasionally generate UBTI.  Tip: Don't let this stop you from investing in REITs in your IRA.  REITs can be a great source of income and are best held in an IRA since the income will be tax free vs. your ordinary income tax bracket if held in a taxable account.  Some examples of mREITs would be NLY, CIM, AGNC.  Some property REITs would be: O, SNR, OHI, EQR. https://seekingalpha.com/article/1257351-tax-bomb-mortgage-reits-triggering-ubit MLPs Master Limited Partnerships are also pass-through entities, like REITs, but have the additional complication that most issue K-1 forms at tax time.  K-1s can be very complex when the MLP owns assets across state boundaries, which is why I actually PREFER to hold MLPs in my IRA (against the advice of M. Fool) since I won't have to deal with the tax complications of filing the K-1, just as long as my MLPs don't generate over $1000 of UBTI. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4057891-mlps-kminus-1s-ubti-oh BDCs Business Development Companies like REITs and MLPs are also pass-through entities in that the income they give you will be taxed at your ordinary income bracket if held in a taxable account.  Examples of BDCs include: MAIN, MCC, ARCC.  You'd need to consult their 10-K to determine if there is a risk of UBTI. Tip:  MLPs, BDCs, and especially REITs can all be very valuable sources of income and from my experience, UBTI is rare so don't let that scare you away if you otherwise like the investment.
The 20x number is drawn directly from the assumption that it should be easy to get more than 4% average return on investment. After lots of historical studies,  Monte Carlo simulations, and the like there was a consensus that saving more didn't significantly increase the odds of achieving at least the desired yearly income sustainably. (That's the same calculations the insurance firms use as the starting point for writing annuities.) There are also some assumptions about inflation and its interaction with the market built into this rule-of-thumb. Note that this is 20x what you want as post-retirement income, not necessarily 20x your current income. I have a moderately frugal lifestyle, And my budget confirms that my actual spending -- even in years when I allow myself a splurge -- is well below my current income, with the excess going into the investments. To sustain my lifestyle, I need that lower number plus any taxes that'll be due on it plus whatever I want to allocate as average emergency reserve... and theoretically I should be able to base the 20x on that lower number. When I run estimates (Quicken has a tool for this, so does my credit union, I  presume others are widely available), they tend to confirm this. I'm still using the higher number for planning, though. I don't feel any need to retire early (though I have issues with my current manager), and I have no objection at all to being able to afford better toys on occasion. Or to leaving a legacy to friends, relatives, and/or charity. But it's nice to know exactly when I could punt the day job if I wanted to.
Also mediocre selection of most products.  I for one, want high end items.  I go to Best Buy and always have to settle with high marked up middle of the road times (in most of my personal experiences).  There is great value in having local stock, but if I can wait 2 days for shipping, not have to travel 15+ miles to a Best Buy, I am happy to order online.
You should look into the Income Contingent Repayment and Income Sensitive Repayment plans to see which one you may qualify for.  Another possibility would be to start taking courses part time at another college so that you can qualify for a deferment. I'm not sure that you can qualify for a deferment if you are currently in default.  I've found that negotiating did not work in my case, as the collectors' BATNA would result in them getting more money if they refused to negotiate. I also found that every time the student loans went into default, 30% was added to the balance in fees.
...which just proves my point. Why go to McDonalds when I can serve them up in minutes, have leftovers, and the whole meal costs less than what McDonalds is charging? It would be different if McDonalds had a teleporter to beam that burger to my doorstep within seconds...but they don't. By the time I drive there, pick up an order, and drive back, I could've made my own meal for less.
Since the question asked for options, rather than advice, I’ll offer a few.  And you can ignore the gratuitous advice that may sneak in. There are countries that will happily give you citizenship for a fee.  And others where an investment of far less than your million will get you well on your way.  Having citizenship and a passport from another country can be handy if your current one is or becomes unpopular or unstable. From data at numbeo.com, I estimate that my lifestyle would cost me $3300 (US) in Geneva, Switzerland, and that everywhere else on the planet would be less.  I haven’t been to Geneva, but I have spent only $2500 (average) per month in eleven countries over three years, and could have been comfortable on far less.  $2500/month will go through 1.2 million in only forty years, but if you use it to generate income, and are less wasteful than me, ... With the first few dollars you get, you might take steps to hedge the possibility of not actually getting it all.  Appeals can take a long time, and if the defendant runs out of money or figures out how to hide, the size of the judgment is irrelevant. Believe strongly enough in something to donate money for/to it? I’ll leave the investment options to others.
and donate the flowers to funerals.  and hospitals.  you are sure to make some connections that will bring you business in the future.  be sure to take pictures of your donated flowers, and post them on social media.  im so sorry for your losses and i hope you recover quickly
When I called Navient about this exact question last year they told me that my loan is a term length loan; so if I were to make extra payments on one of my dozen loans then my total monthly payment would be adjusted (go down) in order to make sure that my loans would still be paid off in x months.   It is very important to note however that Navient has at least 4 loan payment types that I know of so I can make no assurances that yours will work the same way.  The only way to get an absolute answer to this is going to be to Call Navient and ask them.
"But for the people that do, and sacrifice it all in order to make a better life for their children, would you then tax them so their children have to start over at nothing again? Would I personally tax them? Only if I truly wanted a meritocracy. If I wanted a pure meritocracy then yes absolutely. The parent is the one who clawed out of poverty, not the kid. The kid just rode along, he didn't agonize to get out. Why should he enjoy the fruits of someone else without any of the labor? (This is just the argument.) What I personally want would be something a little more 'gray' but it is hard because everyone in a society is going to want a different shade of that gray. ""That sounds like incentivising poverty again, and it doesn't actually fix anything.If unemployment benefits and higher taxes are the problems keeping people in poverty, I don't see how the solution should be to tax more so that we can what... have more benefits programs that incentivise poverty?"" There's a lot to this question so I might not respond to each and every thought here, sorry about that. Sure, some unemployment benefits and higher taxes might de-motivate people to work harder. Why work harder when your labor won't be enjoyed by your offspring? Well you as an individual would still enjoy your labor, and presumably it would be easier to claw one's self out of poverty because economic mobility would have been improved upon. The issue that many are complaining about is that it is becoming more and more common for Americans to die in the same socioeconomic status they were born in, or a lower one. There are higher economic mobility rates in many of these other countries, but why? (Big research topic). Furthermore, I personally think that economic policy needs to adapt to the changes in society and technology. To think policies of the past are appropriate for other times, is an over simplification in my mind. ""It feels good to demonize the ""rich"" because we all can participate. The homeless can blame the $40k income can blame the $250k income can blame the $1M income can blame the %1.
&gt; ...without spending more than 30% income on rent.  Makes sense to me.  There is a whole lot more to buy.  &gt; Check rent.com for 2BR prices in Tennessee and Arkansas. They start in the lower $500s.  Well, right.  Minimum wage is $7.50 which averages to 30/7x40x$7.50 = $1285 per month.  $500 of $1285 is 39% of your income which has been defined as unaffordable.  &gt; (On minimum wage)...you don't owe a dime of Federal income tax.  I understand the right considers paying no income tax as unfair but it is that way to try to correct unfair wages.  Support policies that get a minimum wage household to a modest lifestyle that includes education, shelter, health care, recreation, and retirement and I will support taxing their income.
Inflation is basically this:  Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled.  Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes.  Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes.  Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up.  That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.005*90 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much.  Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate.
How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.
I know there are plenty of people who have to deal with the stress and know it isn't pleasant...but it's hard to see how much worse it is as far as stress goes because I have to pay $1950 in rent each month and don't get the option to default and if I do, I don't get to wait for 8 months while the banks get their paperwork in order to evict me.  I want to believe that in the end I will come out ahead but either I've been incredibly smart with my life decisions or incredibly naive...
I find that most of the people who make this case either are threatened by Bitcoin's success (Jamie Dimon one of the banking cartel heads) and / or they don't own any Bitcoin.    Based on the concerted effort to tarnish Bitcoin's rep by various actors  simultaniously, I also wonder if the big money just wants to drive down the price a bit in order to get in at a lower price point.    All in all I suspect the short term setbacks for Bitcoin, which it always bounces back from rather quickly, are helpful in terms of some check on too fast a lift off for the platform.    Which crypto currencies will best retain and increase in value seems to be a much more accurate question than IF crypto currencies will retain value.  One thing I am nearly certain of is that when another global economic crash looms, crypto, which can't be inflated and isn't controlled by any central bank, will probably skyrocket in value.  But time will tell I suppose.