vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I was in a similar situation and my method was this: since I already had a fidelity 401k account it was pretty easy to open a individual account through the website.  From there you can just put the money into a general market mutual fund or exchange traded fund. I prefer low expense ratio funds like passive indexed funds since studies show that there isn't much benefit to actively traded funds.  So I just put my money into the popular, low fee fund SPY which tracks to the S&P 500.  I  plan on leaving the money there for at least a year, if not several years, so I can pay the lower capital gains tax rate on any gains and avoid paying the commissions too many times. In your situation you might want to consider using the extra cash to max out you and your wife's 401k this year, since you aren't already taking full advantage of that. Often people recommend saving 10% or 15% of gross income throughout their career for retirement, so you're on the low side and maybe have a small bit of catch up to do. Finally you could also start a 529 education saving plan to save for kid's future college cost.
You cannot contribute directly to that 401k account if you no longer work at the sponsoring company - you have to be on their payroll.  You can, however, roll the 401k over into an IRA, and contribute to the IRA. Note that in both cases, you are only allowed to contribute from earned income (which includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working or from running your own business). As long as you are employed (and have made more than $5k this year) you should have no problem. I am not certain whether contributing your $5k to a roth IRA would help you achieve your tax goals, someone else here certainly can advise.
how much taxes would I pay on my income from the rent they would pay me? The same as on any other income. California doesn't have any special taxes for rental/passive income. Bothe CA and the Federal tax laws do have special treatment, but it is for losses from rental. Income is considered unearned regular income and is taxed at regular brackets. Would I be able to deduct the cost of the mortgage from the rental income? The cost of mortgage, yes. I.e.: the interest you pay. Similarly you can deduct any other expense needed to maintain the property. This is assuming you're renting it out at FMV. If not, would I pay the ordinary income tax on that income? In particular, would I pay CA income tax on it, even though the property would be in WA? Yes. Don't know how WA taxes rental income, but since you are a California tax resident - you will definitely be taxed by California on this, as part of your worldwide income.
Yes, this is right.  It is what I am doing.  In fact, I took it one step further.  During my early career when I was able to deduct traditional IRA contributions, I made them and saved on taxes.  When my income got high enough that I could no longer deduct those contributions, I rolled all my traditional IRA's into my 401(k).  Now they are no longer subject to the pro-rata rule and I could begin with the backdoor Roths while continuing to contribute the max to my traditional 401(k). Thereafter it's pretty much the process you have described.
I read, however, that if the company's assets are not kept separate from our assets then if we got sued, the corporate veil would be pierced. This whole venture would be to give us additional income so my wife could watch our daughter and have an income.
"Turbox Tax states the following:  ""For 2015, the AMT exemption amounts are $53,600 for individual taxpayers, $83,400 for married taxpayers filing jointly and surviving spouses, and $41,700 for married persons filing separately. This is the amount you're allowed to deduct from your taxable income before applying the AMT."""
You can get really nerdy with the EV calc, but I would just add that it's important to deduct any non-operating, non-consolidated assets in addition to the minority interest adjustment - e.g. unconsolidated subsidiaries, excess real estate, excess working capital, etc.
Generally it is a taxable transaction. Basic principle of taxation everywhere is that the mean of payment doesn't matter. If the income is taxable - it is taxable regardless of the unit of currency you used. It can be a strawberry, a bitcoin, a gold nugget, or a dollar, it doesn't change a thing about how it is taxed. If you look at the United States tax code definition of taxable income, for example, you will find no mention whatsoever of any currency. Similarly with other tax laws I'm familiar with. I'm sure there's no such limitation in Australia.
I wouldn't focus too much on dividends itself; at the end of the day what matters is total gain, because you can convert capital gain into income by selling your assets (they have different tax implications, but generally capital gains tend to be more tax efficient).    I think the more important question is how much volatility you can tolerate. Since your investment horizon is short & your risk tolerance is low (as in if you suddenly get much lower income than you planned from your investment you'll be in trouble), you probably want assets that have low volatility.   To achieve that, I'd consider the following if I were you: tl;dr If I were you I'd just hold a general investment portfolio with a lower risk profile rather than focusing on dividend generating assets.
I'm just saying this doesn't correlate.  Haven't heard of this bank sponsoring gay pride parades. It was probably PR. When I looked it up it seems they made a PAC that donated 50k$ to anti LGBT politicians too. Oops.
Because more than a few utility companies have overcharged me in the past, and with online banking they can automatically deduct from my account. With a check I can control how much I pay them. It's much easier to fight a charge when they don't already have your money.
4 months working from your kitchen doesn't sound like an isolated or incidental transaction. So I think that yes, that income would be taxable by NYS (and NYC/Yonkers if the kitchen is in these cities).
As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm.  My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.
The worst scenario is for the OP's mother to not disclaim the IRAs, cash them in right away (huge income tax whack on her) or at least 50% of them, and gift the OP and his sibling half of what she withdrew (or possibly after taking into account what she had to pay in income tax on the distribution). Gift tax need not be paid by the OP's mother if she files Form 709 and reduces her lifetime combined gift and estate tax exemption, and the OP and his sibling don't owe any tax (income or otherwise) on the gift amount. But, all that money has changed from tax-deferred assets to ordinary assets, and any additional earnings on these assets in the future will be taxable income. So, unless the OP and his sibling need the cash right away (pay off credit card debt, make a downpayment on a house, etc), this is not a good idea at all.
You do not need to file 1099-MISC to yourself if you're running as a sole proprietor - you are yourself. However, you do not deduct this amount from your business income and report it as royalties either. Your self-published book is your business income subject to SE tax. You can only deduct the actual costs of producing/writing, and the remaining amount is your Schedule C income.
"I am in a similar situation and have recently found a planner who says a pension that pays $100/month is worth $18k in savings at retirement. I know that doesn't answer your question directly, but could could use a simple interest savings calculator (bank rate has one) to see how much of your income you would need to save over x period of time and deduct that from you the offer at your prospective employer to compare ""apples to apples"" However, I actually think the value of a pension at retirement is greater than listed above.  To illustrate: So in this example my pension would seem to be valued at about $14,000 in salary for those 10 years."
I had a similar decision to make. I got offered a modest salary near Philly, or a better salary plus a nice bonus in New York. I chose New York. I'm loving it so far but who knows what will happen. I'm actually saving a lot of money as I automatically have it deduct from my paycheck and disperse into several savings accounts. I guess it's different for everyone and you have to consider your situation before applying a blanket advice
"Straight Line Depreciation is the easiest method of depreciation, don't over think it.  Straight Line = (Assets Cost - Assets Salvage Value)/Useful life  In this case the Straight Line is $2m per year, it is not culmulative unless you are looking at accumulated depreciation account on the balance sheet.  Here is a schedule of the depreciation:  * Year 1 - $2m * Year 2 - $2m * Year 3 - $2m * Year 4 - $2m * Year 5 - $2m  See, can't get much easier than that!  Once you get into more complicated questions they'll throw tax rates at you and ask about cash flows, or the NPV of the cash flows.  You need to take into account the fact that the Depreciation is not a ""cash expense"" but it does affect cash flow by reducing the taxable income of the project.  Also, you need to consider the fact that the asset will be sold in year 5 and the value will need to be part of your cash flow and NPV calculations.  I hope this was helpful, if not I'll try to do my best answering any other questions.  Good Luck!"
If you were NRI during the period you earned the income, its tax free in India and you can bring it back anytime within 7 years. There is a limit on total amount but its quite huge. If you were not an NRI during that period [when you earned in US] then whatever you have earned is taxable even in India, it does not matter whether you keep the funds in US or bring it back to India. You get the benefit of Double Tax and can deduct the tax already paid.
First thing they should do is STOP CALLING AND MAILING THOSE OF US WHO HAVE DONATED.  I get a call every night (which I do not answer) and a piece of mail every week.  I know the labor for the calls is mostly volunteer BUT YOU'RE PISSING US OFF (I have friends saying the same thing).    Once we give, thank us and get back to us maybe a month or more later, or at crucial times.  NOT EVERY FUCKING NIGHT, k?
"You're welcome.  I think what Trump could do is give a deep discount to federal employees.  Many hotels already do this.  Make the price the lowest in DC.  That would go a long way to diffuse this type of conflict.    I honestly don't think he's trying to profit from his office.  He's even donated his salary to the Federal Park system.  Trump has a huge ego.  He's said stupid things.  But if I was to rank ""most evil presidents"" it would be the Bush's and Cheney.  They were war mongers and war profiteers.  Reagan and his trickle down economics was bad too.  Trump would be pretty far down that list.    If Trump drags us into an unnecessary war, that would definitely change my opinion of him."
I would consult a tax professional for specific help.  On my own research, I believe that you could.  I know that when I made payments when I was in school for my undergraduate, I made payments on the interest.  I believe that I was even told by my financial aid office that I could deduct the interest that I paid.  I made not much money so I wasn't anywhere close to the MAGI >75k, but I believe you still could.   Not only that but one other thing to consider is that if you have an unsubisidized loan, the interest still accrues when you are in school.  In that case, it might be better to make at least some payments.  It would save you from the total loan amount ballooning so much while you are in school.
"No one has addressed the fact that your loan interest and property taxes are ""deductible"" on  your taxes? So, for the first 2/3 years of your loan, you will should be able to deduct each year's mortgage payment off your gross income. This in turn reduces the income bracket for your tax calculation.... I have saved 1000's a year this way, while seeing my home value climb, and have never lost a down payment.  I would consider trying to use 1/2 your savings to buy a property that is desirable to live in and being able to take the yearly deduction off your taxes. As far as home insurance, most people I know have renter's insurance, and homeowner's insurance is not that steep.  Chances are a year from now if you change your mind and wish to sell, unless you're in a severely deflated area, you will reclaim at minimum your down payment."
I agree. I have physical cash hidden in my house, a trick I learned from an elderly neighbor whose husband demanded they do it and it paid off for them twice. I have that and then will rely on credit if needed. My only question is if the statistic they mention is ALL savings or just what is in liquid assets.
I don’t know specifics of the situation but one possibility would be that Buffett may have billions in various assets etc companies he owns, stocks bonds, but if he doesn’t sell any of those stocks or cash in any of those bonds, then on paper he didn’t make any money that year because he’s letting the assets appreciate. I would say net income is the amount of income you claimed that year, so if you had sold some stock, the amount of money you sold them for would be your income. As opposed to net worth being “if they wanted to” if Buffett sold all of his stocks and assets, he would be able to get billions for it. So while he technically is worth billions, on his tax returns he doesn’t claim much income.
"This has even been covered in PBS documentaries. It must be nice to shape your world-view to think otherwise, but really, this is common knowledge. Never donated a penny to charity. Fought to even acknowledge the paternity of his daughter. Screwed the ""third"" guy from Apple out of what he owed. (I forget his name.) The list goes on.  I'm sorry you never got the memo, but you need to put the ipod down and actually try doing your own research, instead of trying to debunk mine without any proof. I have several articles, documentaries, and anecdotes on my side corroborating the fact that Jobs was an asshole. A simple google search will confirm this. What do you have?  Yeah. Your mouth. Anywhos, feel free to spiral away in your own ignorance."
"The likely reason the mortgage is ""tricky to get"" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity.  That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income.  Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%.  Invest the $100,000 at 6%.  Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest.  If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit:    $12,309 Effective Tax Rate:  13.21%"
List prices have been increasing as they have since WWII.  However the bar for getting grant aid catches more and more families.  College has become a private wealth and income tax.  If you save $1m it will cost your kids $1m.  Tuition has gotten to the point that even the mass affluent without assets are getting aid.  Today if you have a $200k household income but instead have that $1m tied up in home equity and retirement accounts, it will only cost $50k per year or a discount off list price of about $600k for two kid families making $200k a year.    I'm not saving a dime for college since my kids will be punished for it.  I've paid off my house and I'm maximizing every available retirement account.
I asked him if he noticed that they might benefit from small Roth conversions each year, or by making some of their IRA RMD directly to charity. He kindly told me ""That's not what we do here"" and whisked us away. I planned both questions in advance. The Roth conversion was a strategy that one could agree made sense or dismiss as convoluted for some clients. But. The RMD issue was very different. They didn't have enough Schedule A deductions to itemize. Therefore the $3000 they donated each year wasn't impacting their return. By donating directly from their IRAs, this money would avoid tax. It would have saved them more than the cost of the tax guy, who charged a hefty fee, in my opinion. It seemed to me, this particular strategy should be obvious to one whose business is preparing returns."
Because you are not taxed on your investment income from RRSPs (until you withdraw the money) or TFSA, it makes sense to hold the least tax-efficient investments there. Tax-advantaged investments such as Canadian equities should be held in your investment accounts outside of TFSA and RRSPs. Again, the Canadian Couch Potato has a great article on where to put your investment assets. That article covers interest, dividends, foreign dividends, and capital gains, as well as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs. That article recommends holding Canadian equities in a taxable account, REITs in a tax-sheltered account (TFSA or RRSP), bonds, GICs, and money-market funds in a tax-sheltered account (as these count as interest). The article goes into rather more detail than this, and is worth checking out. It mentions the 15% withholding tax on US-listed ETFs, for example. In addition to that website, I recommend the following three books: The above three resources strongly advocate passive indexed investments, which I like but not everyone agrees with. All three specifically discuss tax implications, which is why I include them here.
"Let's imagine an economy where 100% of wealth creation comes from existing financial assets and 0% comes from new wealth creation. That would essentially be a dead economy. I don't think it matters what your philosophy on economics is--that's a bad outcome. If you don't agree with that point we'll stop here. Note, if you don't think it's bad for this to keep going higher, Japan is at about 80% and we know how they're doing.  If you agree 100% would be bad then we're 70% of the way there in the US. Trump's tax plan, if enacted, would push us even further. The question we should be asking is what is a reasonable way to encourage NEW wealth creation rather than protect and preserve existing wealth. For starters, it makes little sense to have a preferential tax rate for capital gains/dividends/estates as compared to earned income. Even if you just hate taxes and want them all to be gone I think it's fairly easy to say IF we're going to have taxes they should not favor income/transfer from existing financial assets as compared to earned income.  A much more reasonable way to approach this is to say, we have a lot of concentration of financial assets in the top decile of wealth spectrum. Let's just level the tax rate so that income from financial assets is taxes at a similar rate to income from work. That's not even an ""eat the rich"" proposal, it's just a ""eat everyone equally"" proposal. All it would do is tax the very substantial gains in stocks at the same rate as the very meagre (median) gains from working.  The fact that taxing income from financial assets at the same rate as work is a controversial idea is, to me, emblematic of a government completely captured by wealthy interests."
While there have been plenty of good answers I would like to suggest turning it on it's head--the problem is one of perception. Other than in terms of cash-type emergency funds (my general policy is to have enough cash to get home, however far from there I might be) I consider available credit + assets that can be liquidated reasonably quickly to count as emergency fund money.
If your landlord is OK with you subletting your apartment - then that's all that the landlord has to do with that. It doesn't really matter if the landlord is a private person or a publicly trade corporation/fund. No relevance at all. As to your own reporting - you're receiving rent. That is income to you. You can deduct the portion of your expenses (including rent) attributable to the area you rent out. All this goes to your Schedule E. Any positive remainder becomes your taxable income. Any deduction must be substantiated (i.e.: you'll have to keep all the receipts for all the expenses you used for the deduction for as long as the tax year is open, which is at least the next 3 years after filing).
I'm talking about dispersal of assets in general,  not your straw man. If you refer back to my original post workers,  executives, and  creditors are mentioned.  Executives commonly get good payouts from these things.  Yes I feel more than qualified as I have a passing familiarity with the obvious that seems to have eluded you.
&gt;any good investment takes time  Yea first you have to borrow millions of dollars, stash it away/buy recurring income assets, and wait long enough to declare bankruptcy so that you don't go to jail for fraud. He specifically calls bankruptcy a tool in the book, and he obviously used it after spending borrowed money on income-earning assets. You can say that's smart. I say it's illegal.
Looking at the numbers quickly,  if he makes this amount for the entire year, single, no kids, no investment income, standard deduction only, his taxable income will be about $110,000.*  That puts him in the 28% tax bracket.  His federal tax would be:  $18,481.25 plus 28% of the amount over $90,750 Which comes out to about $23,800 in tax liability.  His federal withholding is $26,047 for the year, so with absolutely no deductions whatsoever, he will be getting a tax refund of about $2200. I'm not very familiar with the California tax return, but it is entirely possible that he would get a decent sized refund from the state as well.  This means that his tax refund could be about the size of an extra paycheck.  He may want to consider increasing his allowances, which would make his paychecks bigger and his tax refund smaller. That having been said, taxes are high, no doubt about it.  Remember that when you are in the voting booth.  :) * Here is how I got the taxable income number for the year:
•According to this website: If NRI return to India with the intention of permanently residing in India, the assets brought by him will be exempt. Also, the money and the assets acquired from the money, brought by NRI within one year after his return, will be exempt. This exemption is available to NRI for a period of seven years after his return to India. [Sec. 5(1)(v)] I think you have got the essense. If you are returning for good, you can bring all your money earned outside of India into India tax free. The time period is 7 years. Post this whatever amount you bring in will be taxable. There is nothing specific in Indian Tax laws on the treatment to Retirement funds outside of India. If the amounts are large, its best if you consult a CA for advise.
You're absolutely correct. If you have maxed out your retirement investment vehicles and have some additional investments in a regular taxable account, you can certainly use that as an emergency source of funds without much downside. (You can borrow from many retirement account but there are downsides.) Sure, you risk selling at a loss when/if you need the money, but I'd rather take the risk and take advantage of the investment growth that I would miss if I kept my emergency fund in cash or money market. And you can choose how much risk you're willing to take on when you invest the money.